
UK courts have not been forthcoming with access to website blocking orders - JayEnn
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/org-asks-court-for-web-blocking-documents
======
bowlofpetunias
If we want to effectively fight _censorship_ , we should stop using the
language of those who falsely claim this is not censorship, and the courts
that abuse their power to violate the people's rights.

It's not the _sites_ that are being blocked, it's the _people_.

The sites are still there, fully connected to the internet, and there are
dozens of ways to access them.

It's the _people_ who's digital movements are being restricted, in a way that
is virtually analogous to the restrictions totalitarian regimes impose on the
freedoms of their citizens to access information and leave the country.

We are becoming the virtual prisoners of a regime not formed by politburos or
generals, but judges with a total and complete disregard for the very
foundation of the legal system they are supposed to serve.

Because let it be abundantly clear: as a citizen of a free and democratic
country, I have every right to visit the Pirate Bay, read their blog or browse
the thousands of torrents they have to offer. Nothing about this is illegal,
in fact, my right to do this is supposed to be protected. It is part of the
very foundation of our society that these rights are protected. Blood has been
spilled to protect them, and these courts are spitting on the graves of those
who have laid down their lives for our freedom.

There cannot be a functioning democracy if the courts can restrict the
freedoms of millions without while the government looks the other way.

~~~
harrytuttle
Thanks for the insight into the people versus sites blocking. This never
occurred to me and is possibly the strongest way of promoting opposition to
it.

------
DanBC
BT use cleanfeed. Imagine there's a problem with Cleanfeed, and BT need to
"turn it off and on again" \- they are not allowed to do so without the
written permission of the studios, or without a Judge telling them that it's
okay to do so.

([http://www.bailii.org/cgi-
bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/...](http://www.bailii.org/cgi-
bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/2714.html&query=Newzbin&method=boolean))

16 & 18.

> _BT also requests the inclusion in the order of the following provision: "In
> the event that [BT] forms the reasonable view that for operational reasons
> relating either to the stability of its system or the functioning of the
> Cleanfeed system in respect of the IWF watch list it needs to shut down
> either Cleanfeed itself or the addition to the Cleanfeed system of IP
> addresses pursuant to [this order] on a temporary basis, [BT] shall not be
> in breach of this order by such shutting down provided that it applies to
> the Court as soon as is reasonably practicable but at any rate within 72
> hours of such shutting down with an explanation as to why such action was
> necessary and the duration thereof."_

> _Instead, I will provide that BT will not be in breach of the order if it
> temporarily suspends the operation of either Cleanfeed or the addition of IP
> addresses or URLs with the written consent of the Studios or their agents.
> If such consent is not forthcoming, BT will have permission to apply to the
> court on notice. In cases of urgency, an application may be made on short
> (and informal) notice. For the avoidance of doubt, in cases of real urgency,
> BT will be entitled to apply to the court without seeking the Studios '
> consent first._

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
Wow. Public rights completely inferior to Studios' rights.

~~~
DanBC
I was amazed.

BT's request (essentially, "in emergency we'll shut down Cleanfeed for
maintenance, and ask for permission from the court within 72 hours of doing
so") seems very reasonable, but is not allowed.

------
notahacker
This is what happens when the website or IP blocking orders go wrong
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23699681](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23699681)

It would be interesting to see a media company that loses revenue due to
wrongly being included in a list of blocked sites taking legal action against
the entity that blocked them. I suspect the daily ad-revenues of a website
like radiotimes.co.uk are sufficiently large to make it worth them pushing for
a settlement, whilst effectively blocking a genuine streaming website has
essentially zero impact on the Premier League's revenues. Making misdirected
blocking expensive is probably the most effective way of undermining
censorship efforts.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_the...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_the_United_Kingdom)

------
casca
If you live in the UK or have any personal or professional interest in the UK
internet, I'd encourage you to make a regular donation to the Open Rights
Group. They do fantastic work and the money goes a long way.

------
jheriko
it would be interesting to know who is being blocked. is it really all
copyright issues? i'd feel much happier if it was the really nasty stuff you
know - child porn, snuff videos or whatever that were being blocked - you know
things that actually damage society not just the pockets of the disgustingly
rich who need to grow up and adapt their business models so that they work
instead of litigating to try and keep their unjustifiable income... :/

~~~
brador
Could you get a uk VPN and brute domain names looking for ISP holding pages?

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
How would you suggest we get a list of every domain name currently registered?
And how would you suggest we identify blocked domains as opposed to
redirected, offline, or similar? And how do you recommend we pay for the
billions of comput' hour such a task would take?

So in other words: It isn't feasible.

~~~
brador
Don't be so negative. You can get the master .com domain list from Verizon as
a download. Identify blocked domains by the holding page and header info. I'm
guessing they do something like the guys here with a big page saying seized.

