Oh, no one saw this comming...

[Technical Ben]

Well, we knew they would probably mess something up with the DNS blocking scheme, but never thought it could be used to attack others!
http://torrentfreak.com/skys-court-ordered-piracy-filter-blocks-torrentfreak-130809/

I guess they will now introduce a "whitelist" which does not get automatically blocked. Oh, but no, only they can decide who goes on the good list. While I trust them not to put places like IDNetters on the bad list, what's the chances they mess up? (I'll not attribute malice to what idiocy can cover )

[pctech]

The blocking appears to be IP based so I suspect a lot of sites could get wound up in it if their hosting company or connectivity provider is also hosting or connecting those hosting what they want to block.

Like DRM this will backfire on them.

[Simon]

The whole thing is a disaster waiting to happen. 

[Simon]

I wonder how long it will be before one of the big ISPs challenge the court order, and win, on the grounds of unreasonable restriction of customer usage, or something to that effect?

[Gary]

Whats IDNets stance on this?

[Simon]

We've not heard anything. 

[Gary]

Quote from IDNet on facebook 'We do not favour censorship of a kind but obviously we will comply with the law if we are forced to'

AAISP's statement "The government wants us to offer filtering as an option, so we offer an active choice when you sign up, you choose one of two options:-

    'Unfiltered Internet access - no filtering of any content within the A&A network - you are responsible for any filtering in your own network, or
    Censored Internet access - restricted access to unpublished government mandated filter list (plus Daily Mail web site) - but still cannot guarantee kids don't access porn.

If you choose censored you are advised: Sorry, for a censored internet you will have to pick a different ISP or move to North Korea. Our services are all unfiltered"

Is that a good enough active choice for you Mr Cameron'

[mervl]

In fairness to the Government  I think they made a working assumption that the idiots who need nannying join the big ISPs, those with the smaller ISPs know what they're doing and can look after themselves. Fair enough.

[Simon]

That's what I was hoping for.  But I guess, if its overall legislation, then all ISPs will have to comply.

[Technical Ben]

That's what I was hoping for.  But I guess, if its overall legislation, then all ISPs will have to comply.

Very very simple option. Change the name from an "ISP" and become a "Data Access Fiber Transport Server" or an "Automated Relay of Signals Enterprise".

[Simon]

Yes, I'm sure some will find a way around it. 

[mervl]

But I guess, if its overall legislation, then all ISPs will have to comply.

I suspect it's "persuasion" from Dave "The Persuader". The Government gets itself in all sorts of tangles when it tries to legislate to make men good (trying, I suppose to improve on God and women) -  oops I've just breached all the forum rules about discrimination and blasphemy haven't I? - one of the beneficial effects of the Human Rights Act stuff.

[Simon]

 

[pctech]

All this will do is cost ISPs in terms of hardware and labour, it will achieve nothing else.

[cavillas]

Camaron is a moron concerning the Internet and all modern electronic communication stuff, he lives in the past of Government controlling how people have to act, think and behave.  Time all politicians embraced and entered the modern world.

[Technical Ben]

Ah... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/15/site_blocking_after_court_orders_against_sites_illegally_serving_copyrighted_material/

Well, there goes the neighborhood... 

Even DuckDuckGo was hit.

[pctech]

Yep it was DuckDuckStopped

[Technical Ben]

Do we have a :moan: smiley? 

[pctech]

I was at work and had to amuse myself some way.

[Simon]

How about doing some work? 

[pctech]

We've got a quiet period at the mo.

[Technical Ben]

That's ok, a colleague was multiboxing on Friday...