RadioTimes.com Accidentally Included In UK Antipiracy Blocking 43
Techmeology writes "Legitimate TV schedule website RadioTimes.com was briefly blocked by ISPs Be Broadband and Virgin Media as a result of the site's shared IP address. This comes days after it was discovered that Sky's system is vulnerable to DNS attacks that lead to TorrentFreak being blocked accidentally."
Evilgasm! (Score:4, Interesting)
Ambition: These network admins need some. I'm still waiting for one of these sites to update their DNS to include every IP address on the internet with an 'A' record in their domain, then create a web page for their crawler that sequentially lists them all. The entire UK wakes up tomorrow with no internet.
Great Britain could use a Great kick in the ass. The irony of trying to block porn and winding up booting themselves off the entire internet cannot be understated.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just government sites, add in Google, Facebook, Gma
Re:Evilgasm! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't need to be so bold. Just put the BBC, Sky News, and a few other conventional media sites on there. Maybe add the official Parliamentary web site. After all, there must be something some people would regard as "porn" [bbc.co.uk] somewhere on those sites.
Doing a blanket block is too obvious. Make it selective. As selective as you like. As if being "selective" would solve the problem. Then maybe people will get the point that being selective *IS* the problem.
[lawl - the captcha is "hubris"]
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe add the official Parliamentary web site.
You really think people will notice?
Re: Evilgasm! (Score:2)
People that can change things will notice if http://www.parliament.uk/ [parliament.uk] is blocked.
Re: (Score:2)
People that can change things will notice if http://www.parliament.uk/ [parliament.uk] is blocked.
The "solution" that the legislators will come up with will be a whitelist of sites. Parliament, bbc, facebook, twitter, etc.
Basically enough sites to keep the masses from revolting.
I wonder... (Score:3)
I wonder... colud this be abused to cause the blocvking site to block the blocking site?
You know, the way all the "net nanny" sites fail to include themselves when the "intolerance" or "censorship" checkbox is checked?
Re: (Score:2)
Abused? That would be the first and probably only sensible use of it.
It's not accidental. (Score:5, Insightful)
There are those in broadcasting that still view the Internet as "the enemy" and that even program listings somehow deserve "copyright" - even after 31 years of TCP/IP Internet.
--
BMO
(I deliberately didn't include pre-tcp/ip Arpanet/Tymnet, etc.)
Re:It's not accidental. (Score:5, Informative)
There are those in broadcasting that still view the Internet as "the enemy" and that even program listings somehow deserve "copyright" - even after 31 years of TCP/IP Internet.
Ironically, up until the early 1990s, the Radio Times itself had a monopoly on BBC TV- and radio!- listings beyond the "same day" ones newspapers were allowed to carry. (There was also another publication called TV Times that had a similar monopoly the remaining two TV stations (ITV, and later Channel 4). This meant that you'd have to buy *two* magazines if you wanted complete programme information more than a day in advance).
Re: (Score:2)
The "internet" is not the enemy. We are. The internet just happens to be a tool we use a lot, therefore it must be controlled, so that we may also be controlled.
Re: It's not accidental. (Score:2)
Radio Times are one of the official distributors of TV listings. They have been around since the 1920s.
Be & Sky (Score:5, Informative)
This kind of nonsense is exactly why I left Be when they were bought by Sky.
I'm now with Andrews & Arnold, who's registration process forces me to opt-out of any censorship http://aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-unfiltered.html [aa.net.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the forced opt-out helps to reduce cost as well.
After all, they can do without any filtering servers or, at the very most, a single token filtering server to satisfy government requirements.
They won't be the last (Score:1)
Expect foreign news sites to accidentally get included, especially those critical of the UK's extreme right wing and immigration "fuck off' vans.
Filtering doesn't work. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have an idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I have an idea (Score:4, Interesting)
The only way they'll learn that this system is overzealous, non-working crap is their pocketbooks. Time to sue the hell out of them for downtime losses.
Or sue the ISP for over charging customers for Internet access. Customers are paying for access to the Internet, yet their ISP is only granting access to part of the Internet. I think customers are due a refund...
Re: (Score:1)
Ofcom (UK regulator) quote:
Terms used by ISPs to describe their services should also be clear. In particular, a consumer paying for ‘internet access’ should expect this to include the full range of services available over the open internet. ISPs should not use the term ‘internet access’ to refer to a service that blocks lawfully available internet services.
Source [ofcom.org.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately for the ISPs their small print notes that they'll comply with British law.
Doesn't excuse the blocking of Radio Times of course.
Back to meeting in a dark alley (Score:1)
Now that the rich and powerful of the world have conspired to decide what is best for us to view/see/discuss and write. Long live the world economy and the benefit of bringing everyone into the same world order.
Re: (Score:2)
This incident has fuck all to do with masturbation. It's about football.
Unless you wank to football, in which case I'm not sure how the Queen gets involved.
Sarcastic:- Title == a little ambiguous (Score:2)
"RadioTimes.com Accidentally Included In UK Antipiracy Blocking"
So... were they put in the list to block anti-piracy? Or put in the list to block piracy? /sarcasm
The title COULD be a little on the ambiguous side, even though it's obvious what they mean in the context.
Incompetence: The real enemy (Score:4, Insightful)
It should now be obvious to everyone that we're on a one way train to rampant government censorship enforced at the ISP level with governments exercising legal threats towards ISPs to get their (and by 'their' I mean big corporations, rich religious conservatives and peope who use terrorist fear mongering to keep their cushy jobs.) way, and that western powers, rather than China and the middle east, will be leading the way.
But why is this really a problem? Do I care if they don't let me download pr0n? No. Do I care that they make me actually pay for my entertainment, possibly increasing the price? Not really. Am I scared of the next Hitler coming to power and using his control of the media to exterminate some subset of the population? Seems like a long shot at present. Will censorship prevent a few terrorist attacks by making it harder for them to communicate? Possibly.
But all that junk is either unimportant (pr0n and piracy) or unlikely (Hitler and terrorists).
This article demonstrates the real problem with censorship: incompetence. They'll block the wrong stuff and there's nothing I can do about it. There will be a place to report problems, but reports will be ignored, or at least take 6 months to get resolved. The entirety of the Internet will be rendered useless. We may as well all just go back to writing letters and making phone calls (assuming those don't get blocked too).
I need to raise some money to buy a good supply of pens. Anyone want to buy a slightly used keyboard?
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone want to buy a slightly used keyboard?
Ew.
Suits them right (Score:2)
Should've switched to IPv6!