British ISP Demon Internet is no longer blocking access to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine, after working in tandem with the IA to correct a "technical issue" with its child-pornography filter. Earlier this week, multiple Demon customers complained they were unable to access the Wayback Machine, an 85-billion-page web …
Waste of money?
Well, of course it's a waste of time and money. With governments, it's all about image, so they need to be seen to be doing something. Now, as IT geeks we do know that all the filtering and firewalls they are proposing are simply not going to work, but the great un washed don't know that, and can relax in "safety" knowing that their caring goverment is protecting them against the hordes of child porn purveyors out there.
Which gives them that lovely warm, fuzzy feeling that lets them vote the scumbag pollies right back in again and again!
Ahh, but if you don't vote, *the wrong lizard might get in!*
Blocking a pointless project
Any pages I've tried to look up on the wayback machine project dont work properly so its bloody pointless
It doesn't matter whether you vote or not, the 'wrong lizard' ALWAYS gets in! In the recent Aussie election, I did not want a committed Christian running my country. Like I had a choice, both Howard and Rudd were such.
And just to make sure, we have compulsory voting here. Only exceptions are religious. Fortunately, my religion does not allow me to vote for male patriarchal power systems! :-) All of which means that since we have a good Christian Fuh^H^H^H leader, he has the typical Christian attitude of ban and censor anything and everything that he doesn't like. And that means teh Interwebs. And so we get the Great Aussie Firewall, not even good at keeping rabbits out!
So what else?
If these blocks only give 404s when the pages are blocked how will anyone know when a more obscure website is wrongly blocked this way?
just proxy everything?
this is getting complicated with more and more mass sites ending up on this list. I'm sure it's only a matter of time when all the top sites are on there - they might as well be putting all traffic through proxies. it's a shame the internet won't be as reliable/won't work in some cases but hay it's better than having to actually to go to the trouble of having to prove in court whether this material is actually unlawful and getting the content removed in the first place.
Might have known
Demon is owned by Clueless and Witless nowadays? 'Nuff said...
@ Spam AC
ALL my spam gets through to a filtered folder where I personally get to check if it really is spam or an important email from someone I should have paid and thought I paid but something went wrong.
If I couldn't check and find that one email per month that gets falsely classified as spam I could have had no end of problems already. Therefore, let me do the filtering. Let me see when filtering is happenning and circumvent it if I think it's wrong.
"It is not the job of anyone to filter anything. - To start, it doesn't work...To end, it makes impossible to track the criminals. So why waste so much money with something that doesn't work?" Kindian
"LA LA LA LA LA LA" UK Government
Demon customers: hit 'em in the wallet
Seeing as Demon have confirmed that this censorship was a mistake, and even though Demon supposedly present a page to say the site is blocked, how do you know that any 404 or 403 you get is real or forged by Demon?
Well Demon customers, the fight against the censorship is in your hands. Everytime you see a 404 or similar, reach for the phone and call Demon to find out if it is real or not. As per normal the sales lines are 0800 numbers whereas the support numbers are 0845, but ring the sales number and ask to be put through to support, then ask if the CP filter is acting up again.
After a few weeks of having to constantly tell people that the filter is working Demon will hopefully decide to dump the censorship as it is costing them too much.
I'm sick to the back teeth of being told what I can/can't look at, what I'm allowed/not allowed to say in real life or on the internet.
Okay, I accept that there are a lot of bad bastards out there, but I'm an adult that can make my own bloody mind up about what's acceptable to me. I don't require some faceless bunch of do-gooders to make my mind up for me.
As far as the bad bastards are concerned - arrest the fuckers if they're really that bad and have broken any laws. But don't get on a pedestal and deny me the right to look at something I might consider to be less offensive than you do.
As Mycho said, spam filters are there for a reason. They're checkable and the ability is there to mark it as 'not spam' if required. Let the filtering companies filter as they wish, but don't BLOCK my access to stuff THEY don't agree with - just give me a warning and let me choose for myself.
Jargon fools nobody
I'm always deeply suspicious of anyone who is "continuing to work closely with" anybody else.
I guess I just don;t like the sort of people who are attached to mouths that say stuff like that.
I've been in contact with Be and so far they haven't proven that they're not breaking their own T&C. I'm still waiting for answer (next one) but if it works correctly that can be an easy ticket to get out instantly without paying the disconnection fee.
As soon as I know something I will post more. Can users from other ISP also start hammering their customer services centres for answer? Please try to check if they're breaking their own T&C and speak about easy contract get-out clause.
Apparently Be customers were quite vocal about it, so Be is already quite disturbed.
I raised a ticket regarding access to the way back machine last week as when posting the form with the URL you want I appeard to get a 404 error back.
However, I have tried it this morning and it is working.., I guess that they will close my ticket claiming that it must have been down to my setup!
Looked at Be's terms, they let you go with 3 months notice, but will charge you to expedite leaving... But what ISPs would you move to? Who is not going to get all protective and block anything which mildly offends?
Thumbs down as there is not a fingered salut for my ISP
Already told Be where they can put any blocking screwups they may care to implement. Move to A&A in progress as fast as OpenReach can switch over the line.
No idea why, but black helicopters.
OK, maybe pedantic is the wrong word to use in the context of this article....
its not child pornography, its child abuse images! Call it what it is, its not porn which is consenting adults having a screw, its little children as young as babies being raped and abused for the sick pleasure of adults who believe its ok to watch such horrible crap. A child who hasn't even started to grow teeth cannot really consent to such things, and wouldn't do if they could, young 8-10 year olds too scared to say anything as man after man does sick and disgusting things to them.
So please don't call it pornography, call it, as the IWF recommends, child abuse.
"I'm an adult that can make my own bloody mind up about what's acceptable to me..."
'Fraid not, fella. In the UK, USA and most of Europe and Australia I'm fairly sure Governments, Police and Advocates have decided what will/will not be permitted to view online. Step just one fraction over the line (knowingly or unknowingly) and you'll find yourself in a world of pain. Our governments treat us with contempt, hiding behind issues of 'child protection' to sneak in law after law slowly eroding public and private freedoms. They have their goal in sight: control of 'teh interwebs' and there is no more foolproof, almost industructable method of achieving that aim than by using children as a cover, as police forces continue to prove in courts up and down this land (and most others), day after day.
I grow tired of asking: who will argue with them? If people just stopped for a moment to consider what is being done to personal liberties, the abuses of law and the sheer folly involved, all in the name of 'child protection'...
@Piggy and Tazzy
Demon used to be the company who allowed child porn news groups so that you know which ones to avoid if you did not want to look at child porn. They reasoned, correctly in my opinion, that if you blocked the child porn groups that the posters would simply splat the stuff into every group. It's a separate task to tackle those who are posting it.
The web works by following links or running searches in a search engine. You go to sites of your own free will. The creaters of the sites want to make sure you can find the site but the only visitors who count are the ones who want to look at your site. I object to being taken to a site I don't want to see, but I don't seem to have this happen, unlike spam which is pushed at me.
A filtered Internet is a great service to offer but not a good idea if it's manditory. It will lead to sneekier ways to get people to look at stuff they would rather not see. Like spam it will be pushed at people rather than letting people find it themselves. It is already difficult to run your own SMTP server at home since most of the spam filters are expecting very strict criteria to be met. In future there will be two types of website, big corporate ones and illegal porno pervy ones using ever more complex methods to get noticed. Anyone running a small private website will be blocked by most of the filters or have to follow very strict guidlines so their ISP does not get blocked.
I just want my internet !!
Can everybody please just leave it alone !!!
I want to go back to trawling ftp sites back in 1999 !!!
@ "Pedantic" AC
You don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you should consider whether IWF is unbiased before you swallow their line (to say nothing of hook and sinker). They call it "child abuse images" and tell you it consists of babies being raped because they know that angle sells better.
In reality child abuse has nothing to do with it. Obviously some images like that exist, but the law doesn't stop there, and neither does the IWF. The real standard is much, much lower: Indecency. Nudity alone isn't enough (or strictly speaking, necessary) but combine it with a funny camera angle or anything that could be interpreted as a suggestive pose and that's all it takes. And of course the kid could be running around perfectly happy at a nudist resort or what have you and that would have no bearing on it.
Calling that child abuse is nonsense. Calling it porn isn't accurate either, but slightly closer to the truth, because in practice, the test is whether a pedophile, real or imagined, will find the picture erotic. There also exists a category of images which could accurately be called pornographic, but not abusive. See here:
But "indecent images of children" just doesn't have quite the same impact as "child abuse images", does it? But hey, thanks to the IWF you can see for yourself what one of these "child abuse images" looks like. Remember, even though they unblocked it, the IWF maintains that this picture is "potentially illegal", so look at your own risk.
- The land of Milk and Sammy: Free music app touted by Samsung
- The long war on 'DRAM price fixing' is over: Claim YOUR spoils now (It's worth a few beers)
- Privacy warriors lob sueball at Facebook buyout of WhatsApp
- Dell thuds down low-cost lap workstation for
cheapfrugal creatives or engineers
- 20 Freescale staff on vanished Malaysia Airlines flight MH370