
Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter - asmosoinio
http://goawaycameron.co.uk/
======
dijit
As much as this is a brilliant idea (opting out could possibly be recorded)

I think the general consensus of the government right now needs to change, I
seem to recall a hacker game from years ago (maybe 'Hacker Evolution') which
described in it's prologue: "The world has been divided; governments censor
and restrict access to the internet that was, hackers and technologists moved
away from traditional means of communication and established the undernet..."

This kind of dystopian path is what we're on. We should not hide, we should
not have to. if we do, then law enforcement will go unchecked and start
penalizing us for simply hiding our tracks.

I can easily imagine a world in which using Tor becomes illegal, accessing the
internet with a non-licensed browser, or having a method of tracing back to
the point of origin (behind NAT) for ISP's.

ultimate accountability, ultimate censorship- possibly even having to get some
form of license to even get access to the internet.

British people often forget the monopoly BT/Openreach have, it ties in closely
to government (probably since they were state owned) it would be very easy for
them to enforce these kinds of legislations, and of course, when they do,
they'll be doing it under the banner of 'whats best for the public'

They've taken filesharing. They've taken sexual material. -and forced you to
identify yourself- They will take more.

there are inherent problems with even identifying yourself like this; what if
another extremist party got into power. "those people, those are the perverts,
we'll incarcerate them", or, assuming a 21 year old guy grows up and becomes a
candidate for prime minister, the current administration could accidentally
leak that he bypassed porn filters.

no, hiding should not be the default, patching should not be the solution.

I will fight, I will not stop. and should I lose, I will simply leave this
country and it's countrymen. the EU convention lists internet access as a
human right.

I find it ironic that we have more censorship now than some known human rights
violators.

~~~
MisterWebz
How do we incentivize people to fight back against every single law that could
potentially harm privacy or force censorship? The people making these laws
have every bit of incentive to do so, while the regular people have limited
willpower, limited resources and limited time.

Sure we can pull off another SOPA blackout, but I don't think we can do it
consistently. They'll keep proposing harmful laws and we can't stop them all.

~~~
gaius
You can't. There was some guy on here yesterday arguing "your right to privacy
is less important than protecting my children". Hello, parental
responsibility? But something funny happens in the minds of (some, but not
all) new parents and they want to see the world remade into a giant daycare
centre. It doesn't occur to them that their kids will grow up and they'll find
themselves in a world they don't want to live in.

~~~
pavanred
I had a similar conversation with a friend recently. Turns out everyone with
such opinions, most with good intentions I assume, seem to evaluate the merit
of any such legislation based on its best case scenario of utilization; that
is where no law makers or enforcer is corrupt and everyone is very
responsible. But, no one seems to ever think about how the same legislation
can be misused and abused. If you allow someone to setup infrastructure to
censor, perhaps with good intentions now, but perhaps a successor might misuse
it.

On somewhat related note, a probable idea of how such infrastructure could be
misused is [1], I couldn't believe it when I saw that history was changed
quite simply.

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/north-korea-
era...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/north-korea-erases-kim-
jongun-uncle-archives)

------
madaxe_again
For what it's worth, we bought the lease for our office from a firm who's
business it was to provide filtering solutions to schools.

Upon moving in, we decided to take a look at what was on the stacks of
hardware that had just been left in piles here.

To our complete lack of surprise, they were full of the personal details of
children, their browsing histories, and even poorly configured squid caches
full of things like views of hotmail accounts.

Needless to say, disks were removed and turned into appropriate bits of broken
metal. Were we bad actors, we could have run a magnificent identity theft and
child-stalking ring.

Censorship in and of itself is a problem.

Censorship by incompetent buffoons is an even greater problem.

~~~
DanBC
> Needless to say, disks were removed and turned into appropriate bits of
> broken metal. Were we bad actors,

You were bad actors. A serious criminal offence had been committed and you not
only didn't report it, but you destroyed the evidence.

~~~
madaxe_again
And whom exactly would have been pursued? The directors of the defunct company
who had variously jumped the country or disappeared? Or us, for being in
possession of such data?

Answer: Us. Because Kafka runs the criminal justice system. Bringing crimes to
the attention of the police is just not worth the risk.

~~~
hahainternet
> Answer: Us. Because Kafka runs the criminal justice system. Bringing crimes
> to the attention of the police is just not worth the risk.

Kafka does not run the criminal justice system. Your actions are disgraceful.

~~~
madaxe_again
His spirit quite certainly does. I would assume that you've never attempted to
report a crime in the UK. It's a fruitless endeavour that typically results in
the police threatening the reporter, or simply declaring it a civil matter in
which they have no interest.

~~~
hahainternet
Your experience is not universal. Out of myself and many young friends, there
are few bad dealings with Police and mostly positive. Including people
convicted and sentenced.

~~~
madaxe_again
Fair enough. My experiences have left me very cop-shy.

In 2007 I had removers sho, rather than taking my belongings from A to B, took
them from A to an auction house. The police started with a stance of "it's a
civil matter" and ended with a stance of "we will prosecute you for wasting
police time".

In 2002 my girlfriend at the time was receiving unsettling, perverse text
messages from an unknown number. When I responded in an equally threatening
tone, I had a call the next morning from East Kolbride police for sending a
threatening communication to a police officer.

In 1996, I was arrested for being outside in the snow, aged 13. I was kept in
a holding cell and denied food, water, or the means to contact my parents.

I have a very, very low opinion of the efficacy of the current application of
the rule of law.

------
nubela
Hah, this is weird. I created GAC, and submitted this a few hours ago, but got
not much love. And now you have some :) Anyways, the server is having a
serious hug of love. Things are slowed down now.

Anyways, AMA!

~~~
adnam
@nubela: if this service can be used to bypass BBC content restrictions,
you're going to have a bad time. A lot of BBC content can only be viewed
within the UK, so if you can use GAC to access this content abroad, the
following will happen:

\- they can contact nominet to get your personal data

\- you will likely get a letter from their lawyer

\- you may get your .co.uk domain taken away

\- you may be asked to hand over your entire database of users

\- you may be sued for damages.

IANAL, just FYI.

~~~
iaskwhy
Maybe you can help me. I actually paid for the licence this year but during
the summer I moved to some other country and thus I'm unable to listen to the
BBC radios. Is there a (legal) way around this?

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Licenses apply to locations. You bought a license for your previous dwelling -
you can get a refund for the unused part but other than that I don't know of
any legal method to access BBC's domestic offerings from outside the
appropriate geographic area.

Don't take this as gospel, I've read the laws that apply to TV licensing a
couple of times but I'm not an authority on it.

~~~
wbhart
Pffft. Let me tell you about this so-called refund. I applied for said refund
of UK TV license after leaving the UK at the end of September. They told me
they could only refund unused _quarters_ of the license, meaning that they
would only refund me from the start of December (well in the _future_ at that
point). Then they had the hide to tell me that because I was applying for a
refund from a _past_ date (Sept) I had to prove that I was no longer in the
UK. I sent them a lease, and a letter from my employer in my new country which
they required by snail mail. They rejected it and told me they needed a final
gas bill from the UK or something equivalent, which I again had to send by
snail mail. I wrote them a letter about how the TV license was "a national
disgrace, isn't it", and "should be abolished, shouldn't it". So glad to be
out of Cameronland.

------
DanBC
This thread elegantly demonstrates the problem.

Most people - even in a technical audience with a deep interest in the subject
- have no fucking clue what's actually happen nor how it's happening.

This is how stupid laws get passed. People don't bother to write the correct
letters to the correct people to get the stupid laws stopped.

I find it profoundly depressing to realise that so few people know what the
filters are doing.

~~~
SilkRoadie
Generally speaking there seems to be a lack of engagment by experts in a
varity of subjects. This is no different.

The problem is the ease of access to pornography for anyone, mainly children.
It is hard to deny this is a problem. A solution is an opt in web filter.

I don't like web filters but in this case I see little alternative. The only
other option is to try to prosecute websites that do not do some form of age
checking for the UK. I don't think this is viable at all.

~~~
PeterisP
An opt-in[1] filter isn't a solution, it's a snake oil pill that has no
effects whatsoever on trivial access to pornography anyways.

It will hamper a stressed kid trying to go to the local youth NGO's site with
info on condoms (a true example blocked by one of the UK filters). It won't
hamper a horny teenager trying to look for porn, he'll find it rapidly anyway
and tell his peers how to do it.

In short, these web filters are a worse solution than simply doing nothing.
You're accepting a tradeoff of real harm for imaginary, nonexistant benefits.

[1] By the way, isn't the implementation on-by-default, making it an opt-out
filter instead of opt-in?

------
oliland
Let me get this straight: Instead of entrusting my ISP with my preference for
porn, I'm entrusting you.

I fail to see how this is any better. You're a recent compsci graduate and I'm
sure you have good intentions. Can you explain how your "private proxy"
servers work, so that it's infeasable for an attacker, or even yourself, to
know which websites I've accessed?

ProTip: Saying "we don't store logs" doesn't really give me the proof I need.

This isn't how the internet is supposed to work.

------
darkbot
You can't beat politics with technology
[http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-11/18/peter-
sunde-h...](http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-11/18/peter-sunde-hemlis-
political-apathy)

~~~
moocowduckquack
Political change is often forshadowed by technological revolutions. The
mechanisation of agriculture, for instance, had a major influence on the
decline of serfdom.

Also, certain technologies have an obviously direct form of political
influence, like the AK-47.

------
rwmj
Why not just opt out of the filter? Or use one of the many smaller ISPs who
don't implement the filter in the first place? You don't need
plugins/extensions.

~~~
alan_cx
One opt out I've seen requires a credit card. One might not have one. Before
you ask, me. I have an internet connection, but no credit cards.

Not all ISP cover all of the UK.

You also assume that the person wanting to bypass the ISP filter is the same
person controlling the connection. So, say a 16yo wants to explore
homosexuality, but is not ready to discuss this with parents who simply didn't
bother opting out because they simply didn't think it was necessary.

Plenty of cases for using this extension, especially in the UK when we are
routinely lied to about the scope of laws, and mission creep is universally
denied, while it happens. For example, anti terror laws used by local councils
to investigate fly tipping. We know that sooner or later other subject areas
will be blocked by this distopian nut job government. Anything they feel is
not in the public good will be considered and possibly censored. Make no
mistake, this is the thin end of the wedge. We also know that it was
originally dreamed up by the previous Labour government, so we wont get any
changed even if we boot this lot out. Anything that bypasses these vile
thought control freak nanny filters, and exposes the technical impotence of
them is welcome. Remember, we dont have freedom enshrined in fundamental law.
Its a granted privilege here, not a right. Oh, Human Rights act. Yup, this
government wants rid of it. If Americans think their freedoms are under
threat, the threat in the UK is many factors higher.

~~~
dingaling
> Not all ISP cover all of the UK.

If they use BT Wholesale backhaul then their coverage is exactly the same as
BT Retail.

ID Net, A&A, Zen, many others will give you as much coverage as the big boys
even in Market 1 exchanges ( only BT Wholesale provision ).

If you're in a Market 2 or 3 area ( lots of competing backhaul ) then there's
basically no restriction to how many ISPs from which you can choose.

------
rmc
I don't like the name. It's too tied to the current leader of the Conservative
Party. If internet censorship is tied to David Cameron, then a party could
pretend to be anti-censorship by changing leader (happens often).

Maybe "Go Away, Mary Whitehouse" might be better?

------
conformal
first, i'd like to say i quite enjoy the UK, both as a country and its people.
however, politicians in the UK have a history of doing some very extreme and
very stupid things. since i am not a citizen of the UK, i cannot vote to try
to change the current censorship regime, but i can say that (1) i will not be
visiting the UK unless absolutely necessary until these rules change and (2) i
think this is a further reason for Scotland to secede from the UK.

this is a great plugin and i commend the author's defiance of these draconian
internet filtering rules. while i agree that, fundamentally, this is a
political problem and not a technological one, a technological solution is
needed to prevent smart people from being drowned in an ocean of stupidity. if
you're a UK citizen, don't forget that you need to mobilize politically to
truly fix this. talk to your friends, develop a consensus.

cameron (and everyone who supported this censorship crap) needs to go, he is a
muppet of the highest degree and a disgrace to the legacy of the UK. keep
jerking off and carry on.

------
gadders
Don't you need a GoAwaySalmond to cover Scotland? I thought they had a
separate law.

~~~
vidarh
There is no law mandating this filter. It's put in place through the _threat_
of much more extensive regulation, with no democratic oversight.

------
porker
How can I test if my connection is being censored? I've lost track if it's
particular ISPs or all ISPs that have put blacklists in place which block more
sites than they should.

------
lvturner
Should probably stop calling it "Porn Filter" it's kind of playing in to it.

Customer: "Hi, I can't access some websites"

ISP: "Oh, we see you have the PORN FITLER enabled. You mean YOU WANT TO WATCH
PORN YOU PERVERT?"

Customer: "Uhm, never mind."

Let's be honest, the biggest issue with this isn't that it's harder to look at
tits online, so let's not trivialise it and stigmatise it as such.

------
amvp
This looks to be from the same team that produced singapore's
[http://getgom.com/](http://getgom.com/) \- Go Away MDA, a response to non-
optional censorship of several adult websites in Singapore. If so - well done
guys! I guess increased global prevalence of censorship is creating a global
market for tools which bypass it.

------
nickjackson
I'm finding this a bit strange. As far as I am aware you have to opt-in to the
porn blocker on existing packages. The chances are its already going to be off
for most people, especially those who know how to use a chrome extension.

I get the impression that this was created for other, more illegitimate
purposes, that has nothing to do with "Cameron's porn blocker"

~~~
naich
Nope, it's opt-out for new subscribers and existing subscribers have to choose
to opt in or out. There are many reasons why someone would want to use this
extension. Sexual abuse support sites are currently being blocked by the
filters, so a child being abused by a family member could use the extension to
find help on the internet, despite the abuser having the porn filter on. Or a
chap who has been pressured into opt in in might just want to have a wank over
some internet porn - it's not illegal.

If nothing else, it shows how broken the whole mess is. Opt-out filtering is
ineffectual, often targets the wrong sites, and was basically introduced as a
sop to a vociferous minority who would rather go back to Victorian standards
and sweep all this nastiness under the carpet, than have an actual discussion
about pornography and sexuality.

~~~
nickjackson
Yeah, I'm aware its opt out for new customers, but its opt in for current
customers. I would like to think that the reasons you gave are all mistakes
with the blocker that would get ironed out over the coming weeks, especially
more likely with the press attention it has got.

Ulterior motives aside, if this saves even a handful of kids from growing up
with porn addiction, its probably worth it, right?

~~~
naich
It's not opt-in for existing customers. At some point they will be presented
with a screen that forces them to make a choice.

If you think that all mistakes with the blocker will be ironed out, then you
don't have any idea how large the internet is. This is a problem that is so
ingrained with automated filters that it has its own name - the Scunthorpe
Problem -
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem)
It is an inevitable consequence of this sort of system. Innocent sites will
continue to be blocked.

As for your other point - it's pure conjecture. Furthermore, it will not stop
kids accessing porn. When I was a kid we used to swap dirty magazines. Now
they will be swapping memory sticks. And those are the ones who don't take 2
minutes to go to google to search for a way to get around the filter. For all
the other ones it's business as usual.

The whole thing is a farce, designed to appeal to the Daily Mail / Think of
the Children subset of noise-makers, while completely burying any hope of a
rational debate.

------
darkbot
Why do you need to login? Sounds suspicious to me.

------
darrhiggs
_> > If this extension violates any law in UK, please send me an email at
hello@goawaycameron.co.uk and I will be more than willing to comply._

Is this how the law works?

Citizen: _" …um…sorry officer, I didn't know that this is illegal"_

Police Officer: _" …well, if you didn't know…off you go then"_

~~~
dijit
ignorance does not imply malice.

I don't think it'd stand up in court though.

------
fs111
Are those filters simple DNS filters or do they do deep packet inspection?

~~~
nly
It will almost certainly be a combination of layer 2 (IP filtering) and HTTP
header scanning via proxies or TCP reset injection

------
westi
This is interesting and cool, but would be much more interesting and cool if
the source code for the extension was available somewhere so it can be easily
reviewed.

Is the code up on github or somewhere else?

------
adrianlmm
Can't you just call your ISP and opt in for porn?

Ain't that easier?

------
gygygy
Tor.

~~~
dijit
Tor.

except where your exit node is another machine in the UK, or you need faster
than dial-up speeds.

How long until this is also illegal?

~~~
nly
You can, in theory, choose your exit node.

~~~
Gepser
You can't choose but you can change your exit node until get some one you
want.

------
Xelom
Am I the only one around here who tries to match every article with "Go"
keyword with Golang?

------
rythie
Does anyone know if the so called Cameron filter, blocks HTTPS/SSL sites?

~~~
timthorn
There's not one filter, each ISP can implement whatever they like.

------
kirk21
You can try zenmate.io as well if you want to do this.

------
lio32
How long before the censorship is extended to sites which help you bypass
censorship?

~~~
dtf
In general with these things there's a time lag of approximately one or two
Daily Mail articles.

