

UK "Porn filter" to block proxies, anonymizers etc. - mortov
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/17/bt_parental_controls_will_block_proxies_and_anonymiser_sites/

======
DanBC
The Register is a fucking awful source. This incomprehensible story mixes up
several things. That's a shame, because the UK filter system and proposals are
important enough to warrant careful scrutiny and write ups - allowing people
to protest against what's actually happening rather than what some garbled
turd of an article suggests.

1) This is _voluntary_ \- but is opt-out.

2) It will be on by default for new users, but not for existing users.

3) Some sites are blocked because court orders require them to be blocked. You
cannot opt out of those blocks, although you can access those sites via
proxies etc.

HN would be better without articles from the Register.

~~~
mortov
The Register tends to use a distinctly UK style of criticism - much like
Private Eye at times. It tends not to translate particularly well to no-UK
readers who think it is just being frivilous or outrageously sensationalist.

However, there is a serious point here. This 'filter' is being sold as
protecting everyone (expecially the children) by most reporting sources. The
Register has done some more in-depth analysis and found that far from simply
blocking porn (which some people do want) it blocks additional legitimately
use-able systems like proxies and anonimizers which were not mentioned in the
original debate and show a distinct 'creep' in the implementation.

It is not clear you can actually use proxies to access blocked IPs as the
whole point of the filtering is to stop access to proxies (as well as porn).
This is the creep and the point I submitted the article.

I'm not sure what an 'infowar' is (I've not google'd that yet) so I'm not sure
if that is a real thing or not. But feature creep and ever increasing control
of internet (and hence information) access is real and something which should
be discussed and debated much more intelligently and maturely than it is
currently being.

~~~
DanBC
I am a British reader. I subscribe to Private Eye. The Reg is no Private Eye.
This article in particular is semi-coherent. It manages to discuss several
different, distinct, regulatory mechanisms and filters and mashes the results
together as some kind of Orwellian nightmare.

> It is not clear you can actually use proxies to access blocked IPs as the
> whole point of the filtering is to stop access to proxies (as well as porn).
> This is the creep and the point I submitted the article.

 _Exactly_ the confusion I mean. Some proxies are blocked by court order. This
is different to the porn filter. You can't opt out of court-ordered filters.
(You could use one of the ISPs that aren't caught by the court orders - I
think only 5 ISPs have to implement the court ordered filters).

Complaining about the government mandated porn-filter when it's not doing what
you're complaining about is sub-optimal.

> But feature creep

There is no feature creep. These are different things. They're just happening
at the same time.

------
mschuster91
The info wars have begun. No surprise that GB is the first country, they don't
even have a Constitution.

~~~
lewispollard
Of course, nothing unconstitutional ever happens in the US tech/intelligence
sector, does it?

~~~
mschuster91
I haven't said that the US intel sector is innocent at all.

But the fact that the UK is beginning to introduce opt-out filters is an open
declaration of war against the "Internet society", thus the term "infowars".

------
venomsnake
Interesting when having root to your device will be watched closely and deemed
illegal in the UK. Expect - child learns how to circumvent the filter and use
tor stories soon - we must do something!

------
sireat
So will they filter all ip address blocks of VPS sellers?

