back to article France enacts law to block terror and child sexual abuse sites

France has moved to implement the Internet-blocking regime that became law in October 2014 as part of a suite of anti-terrorism legislation. The 2014 law allowed administrative orders blocking sites hosting child pornography content, or advocating acts of terrorism. The law has now been gazetted, here, meaning it can now be …

  1. P. Lee
    Facepalm

    >If they incur costs from implementing the site blocks, ISPs will be able to request compensation from the government.

    So, deep packet inspection and SSL decryption is mandated at all ISPs?

    Nah, that would never be abused!

    1. TheVogon

      Assommer une taupe ?

      See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CZjb9ReW5c

    2. Roger Mew

      When will these so called politicians etc etc learn that the so called blocks will not stop anyone doing anything. All one needs to do is use a VPN. France Telecom at Rennes spent weeks trying to see what I did to make THEIR system that they could not get to work. In the end I had to "offer" them a targetted virri.

      They actually routed my internet connection thru Rennes instead of thru the regular places like Aubervilliers, etc.

      They stopped and routed me normally then, no apology, no response, just a swift rerouting to where it should go.

      I always use a non ISP DNS server, and I suggest you do as well. Use OpenDNS as your DNS server and the likes of Free, France Telecom etc cannot see what you are doing!

      NEVER ever use the ISP server, we found for example that France Telecom were reading my rubbish emails when the engineer said to me that I did not send any emails or get many!

      So please, do get OpenDNS, and DO get a VPN

      I also add files to emails and if for example it is a .png, and its is to my daughter, I change it to a .pillock file or a .plx. The recipient then just changes it back to what it should be.

  2. JassMan
    FAIL

    Bet they will be as efficient as UK gov

    'Blocked sites will have a redirect, so users trying to access those sites will be “directed to an information page of the Interior Ministry” which will explain why sites are blocked, and offering information about remedies (if a site is incorrectly blocked).'

    But either the Interior ministry will forget they need to put up the explication page, or the server will fall over as soon as traffic gets redirected to it, or they will fail to tell the ISPs where to find the page to redirect to.

    1. Mark 85

      Re: Bet they will be as efficient as UK gov

      I'd also bet that the "redirect" allows certain <cough>information<cough> to be recorded for future reference....

    2. TheVogon

      Re: Bet they will be as efficient as UK gov

      "which will explain why sites are blocked, and offering information about remedies "

      I'm sure Google / Bing will offer legions of proxies as a remedy.

    3. Roger Mew

      Re: Bet they will be as efficient as UK gov

      If you VPN is abroad then it will not be blocked!

  3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    Terrorist sites

    like Greenpeace ?

    1. Mark 85

      Re: Terrorist sites

      USA.Gov ?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Up

        Re: Terrorist sites

        Upvote for that. Although I'd lead with defense.gov, cia.gov, and nsa.gov given the drone campaign(s). Curiously, nsa.gov wants to install flash on Palemoon (Firefox variant). Uh huh, like I'm really going to do that sir or ma'am.

        1. Mark 85

          Re: Terrorist sites

          Ok... I'll give you defense.gov and cia.gov for the drones. No go on nsa.gov as they don't have drones but have your data, selfies, bank info, etc. instead.

        2. tony2heads

          @Jack of Shadows

          Yet another reason to uninstall flash

        3. David Pollard

          Re: Terrorist sites

          @ Jack of Shadows: "Curiously, nsa.gov wants to install flash on Palemoon "

          Equally curious is that the UK tax self-assessment site gave me an LSO 'Flash Cookie' to take away with me after I visited online.hmrc.gov.uk a couple of weeks ago.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Terrorist sites

      Greenpeace is definitely on their list given past actions by their foreign security services. I know it's on the FBI's watchlist. Speaking of that Greenpeace should put the France on a terrorist watchlist! France blew up one of their ships.

      [One of the first things I did after putting away the uniform was join Greenpeace and the ACLU. Bet that raised some eyebrows given my clearances. I dropped membership 'cause they have zero intellect when it comes to nuclear power.]

    3. Breen Whitman

      Re: Terrorist sites

      Precisely.

      "France initially denied responsibility, but two French agents were captured and charged with arson, conspiracy to commit arson, willful damage, and murder. As the truth came out the resulting scandal resulted in the resignation of the French Defence Minister Charles Hernu."

      - Wikipedia, re the Rainbow Warrior bombing.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior

  4. wayward4now

    Don't worry

    It'll still be okay to depict Mohammed being gang raped. I guess that isn't considered terrorism ...unless you happen to be a devout Muslim, who also happen to make up 23% of the world's population.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Don't worry

      "It'll still be okay to depict Mohammed being gang raped. I guess that isn't considered terrorism"

      Yes, that's fine. No - it's not terrorism. No one gets killed by the depiction. Or terrorised. Well except maybe by Muslims who don't like it that hold no regard for civilised norms.

      "unless you happen to be a devout Muslim, who also happen to make up 23% of the world's population."

      Christians make up about 32% of the world population if we want to quote meaningless numbers. Religion is no excuse for being a barbarian better suited to the Middle Ages. It is only a sign of being a gullible idiot imo. After all, Islam was just a direct copy of much of early Christianity by one guy - who just recycled it and spiced it up a bit. In between indulging his tastes as a paedophile...

      1. Alpha Tony

        Re: Don't worry

        'Religion is no excuse for being a barbarian better suited to the Middle Ages'

        Actually that is exactly what religion is. A barbaric anachronism.

        Any movement or organization that discourages critical thinking and encourages mindless subservience is a thing that should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    And what horribly vague definition of "child pornography" are they using?

    Do they mean actual photos and videos of children, or just victimless drawings?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Who knows, the UK's rules are just stupid... no reason to think that Frances will be any better.

      In theory a 16 year old could be thrown in jail for having indecent images of themselves!

      An 18 year old man could be jailed for having images of his 17 year old live-in girlfriend whom he has sex with regularly. The whole range of laws need repealing and rewriting...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        That law always struck me as weird.

        You can have sex with your 16-year-old girlfriend, but having a photo of a 17-year-old naked? NOPE!

        Then, if we take this into consideration:

        A 17-year-old girl takes a photo of herself naked. Wham, she's guilty of "making CP."

        Yet let's say she turns 18 the next day and takes another photo of herself naked.

        If we put those two images side by side, nobody else is going to be able to tell the difference. Except one is "illegal," the other isnt...

      2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        In Britain an 18 year old man could be thrown in prison for having pictures of his 17 year old wife giving birth.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think the UK actually does have some exception for married or cohabiting couples specifically. Though curiously, it doesn't seem to have one for pictures of yourself.

  6. theOtherJT Silver badge

    /Sigh.

    So, once again we respond to an attack on personal freedoms with an attack on personal freedoms. Always so successful.

    When will people finally learn that the way to deal with the crazy isn't to pretend it doesn't exist? Stopping people saying things doesn't stop them thinking them. It's a good thing to hear people shouting about beheading infidels or whatever the particular stick they have stuck up their ass is.

    Nothing is achieved by suppressing the shouting if the underlying sentiment remains. Trying to keep people from talking about it doesn't make it go away, it just simmers, until suddenly it's springing up unexpected from somewhere and the next thing you know some poor bastards are getting shot in the street.

    Perhaps the ones talking about overthrowing the state have legitimate grievances (and if they don't now - start suppressing their right to speech and they soon will) Perhaps they're just nutters. To be honest I don't actually care, because the solution to the problem they present is the same either way:

    Listen to them. Know who they are. Know what they want.

    Then you decide if you need to either arrest them or possibly - just possibly - stop doing whatever godawful shit it is you're doing that is winding them up in the first place.

    Either way, trying to keep them quiet is _never_ the answer.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: /Sigh.

      > So, once again we respond to an attack on personal freedoms with an attack on personal freedoms. Always so successful.

      If you are referring to the shootings in Paris a few weeks ago, this law has been written and approved a long time ago. It just came into force today following publication on the official gazette.

      I haven't looked at the text of the law at all so I should reserve comment, but anything concocting "terrorism" and "child pornography" together does not exactly push my hopes too high.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What a waste of time...

    If you block something, it will just go underground and be even less traceable...

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: What a waste of time...

      No this is France, if you block something (like a motorway a Channel Tunnel or a port) the Police will turn up and assist you because they are in the same union.

  8. Crazy Operations Guy

    So what will they be considering as "Terrorism"?

    And how long will it be before that definition include anything that is critical of the current administration?

    1. Mark 85

      Re: So what will they be considering as "Terrorism"?

      Depends on which country you're in, I guess. Then again, all country's seem to look at dissonance as a threat.

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. Andrew Meredith

      Re: So what will they be considering as "Terrorism"?

      >>And how long will it be before that definition include anything that is critical of the current administration<<

      In the UK, you are a trrst if you protest against government policy by means of an illegal act. Also, if you by get a bunch of vehicles together on the road, that can then at the discretion of a senior cop, be deemed an illegal gathering under the travellers and ravers laws. Now consider a biker demo where a bunch of motorbikes go in convoy to protest something and voila .. protesting bikers are trrsts !!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like