Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

goawaycameron.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 166 posts

Re: Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

#111

Post by joering2 »

desas wrote: post #90
summerdown2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference being that this is centrally controlled. Because of this, it's speed of censorship will be much quicker. Places I expect this to block in future: 1. Discussions of how to bypass the filter (eg Tor) 2. News articles the Government doesn't like (eg discussions barred by injunction such as Ryan Giggs) 3. Information during times of disorder (eg the tweeting by people involved in the Arab Spring). 4. Whate…

This is not centrally controlled. The ISPs that have been pushed into this run their own filters, the government don't run the filters, don't have access to the filtering software and don't recommend a particular filtering product.

For how long? In United States every radiostation output it plugged to Government blackbox before its aired. Supposedly ut was for safety and emergency transmissions but of course they can cut you off transmitting at any point.

Re: Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

#112

Post by gaius »

rmc wrote: post #85
gaius wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was both bemused and disturbed when it seems the entire female population went nuts for 50 Shades Of Grey recently. On my commute on the train on the way to work, you would see them twirling their hair, chewing their lower lips, writhing in their seats, sometimes even (subconsciously I'm sure) rubbing themselves. Can you imagine what would happen tho' if a bloke was reading a porn mag or watching a movie on his lap…

Can you imagine what would happen tho' if a bloke was reading a porn mag That does happen. The likes of "Nuts" or "Zoo". Most of those lads mags are as pornographic. The double stardard is that if a straight woman has lots of sex, she's a slut who should be ashamed; yet if a straight man has lots of sex, he's a stud and should be congratulated.

I have not read either of them but I suspect we may have different definitions of pornographic. Are we talking photos of actual sexual activity here, or just girls in their underwear? Do you consider Page 3 to be porn?

Re: Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

#113

Post by gaius »

MisterWebz wrote: post #64
dijit wrote: post #30

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 commu…

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…

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.

Re: Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

#114

Post by SilkRoadie »

DanBC wrote: post #87

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…

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.

Re: Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

#115

Post by RyanZAG »

dagw wrote: post #110
RyanZAG wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I initially assumed your comment was a joke of some kind - but I think you might actually be serious? Could you explain how it's reasonable?

Pornography is not created in a vacuum. There is a large industry surrounding it and, at least according to some, some of the practices of parts that industry is troublesome. There are also reasons to believe that watching porn might in some scenarios affect the viewer in negative ways that abstract sexual fantasy does not. Reasonable people can of course disagree to the scope and accuracy of the above objections, bu…

Dildos are not created in a vacuum and has a large industry surrounding it - and a lot of the practices involved in that are troublesome too. Sweatshops?

I'm sure there is pornography created by people who want to make it. I'm less sure there are dildos created by anyone who wants to be making dildos (the actual workers, not the boss).

I'm sure some people would find a wife using a dildo as degrading to the husband and morally objectionable. Probably most of the middle east. That certainly doesn't give me the right to call it bad, though.

Re: Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

#116

Post by teh_klev »

adnam wrote: post #59
nubela wrote: post #2

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!

@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 y…

Why would this be any different from someone outside the US using a proxy to access BBC content say via GigaNews Vypr and their UK proxies? It's not like the underlying stream and any DRM is being tampered with, in which case the above might happen.

As an aside, if you're in the UK there are a other independent ISP's who provide unfiltered internet access [1]. I've used Andrews and Arnold since 2009 and can't fault them. Yes you pay a bit more each month, but you know that old adage about "you get what you pay for".

[1]: http://aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-unfiltered.html

Re: Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

#117

Post by clarry »

darkbot wrote: post #47

You can't beat politics with technology http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-11/18/peter-sunde-h...

"Go away Cameron" is a strong political statement. If this thing gets lots of media attention and users (I hope it does!), then it's definitely sending a message. Actually using technology sounds like a great way to influence politics for people who otherwise can't do much besides vote and whine.

Re: Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

#118

Post by amvp »

This looks to be from the same team that produced singapore's 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.

Re: Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

#119

Post by iaskwhy »

adnam wrote: post #59
nubela wrote: post #2

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!

@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 y…

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?

Re: Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

#120

Post by nly »

alan_cx wrote: post #19
treerock wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it. Or I'm going to have some trouble. I reckon a large proportion of people will opt out and I wouldn't be surprised if they try to remove the opt out option in the future.

I would go with that if it were opt in. But deliberately, its not. Have to ask why, and what that implies. The whole point is to humiliate people who want access to porn. It has nothing what so ever to do with protecting children. The UK gov is enforcing a morality on the UK people which frankly its rarely applies to its self. Also, BT are going to or are blocking proxy and proxy info sites. Why would any one want to…

Exactly. In an opt-in system, enabled means "they displayed a preference against incidental access to porn" and disabled means "they've never bothered to change it". In an opt-out system enabled means "they've never bothered to change it" and disabled means "this guy irresponsibly exposes his kids to sleaze, and spends his free time downloading demeaning hardcore pornography".

We all know that, at some point, the status of some poor schmucks ISP filter is going to be used as supporting evidence of their lifestyle against him or her in court.

Post reply on HN