Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • AndyPix
    • By AndyPix 15th Mar 17, 3:54 PM
    • 1,998Posts
    • 1,234Thanks
    AndyPix
    ISP Censorship
    • #1
    • 15th Mar 17, 3:54 PM
    ISP Censorship 15th Mar 17 at 3:54 PM
    Hi Guys


    Has anyone else read this info with a bit of trepidation ??


    https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/14/uk_new_realtime_live_server_blocking_order/


    It seems to me this is an initial test of real-time censorship , which is a sad day for the internet
    Running with scissors since 1978
Page 3
    • esuhl
    • By esuhl 16th Mar 17, 7:17 PM
    • 7,108 Posts
    • 4,991 Thanks
    esuhl
    At the moment, they only block websites, not servers.
    Originally posted by AndyPix
    Can you (or anyone) elaborate...?

    I mean, websites are only available on servers, so what is the difference between blocking a website and a server?

    Does website blocking only involve blocking HTTP(S)? Or were only HTML files blocked...? And now they're blocking an IP/domain...?

    And how does this work with cloud computing? As I understand it, a cloud server could be providing websites for thousands of unrelated organisations? Surely they can't just take out legitimate businesses if a single illegal stream is found?

    What if someone live streams a football match on, say, YouTube, are the ISPs going to totally shut down YouTube while the match is on?!

    Will the ISP's be responsible for paying compensation to businesses that are inadvertently affected by their actions?
    • debitcardmayhem
    • By debitcardmayhem 16th Mar 17, 7:34 PM
    • 7,982 Posts
    • 6,017 Thanks
    debitcardmayhem
    There's no news like fake news
    • debitcardmayhem
    • By debitcardmayhem 16th Mar 17, 7:49 PM
    • 7,982 Posts
    • 6,017 Thanks
    debitcardmayhem
    Can you (or anyone) elaborate...?

    I mean, websites are only available on servers, so what is the difference between blocking a website and a server?

    Does website blocking only involve blocking HTTP(S)? Or were only HTML files blocked...? And now they're blocking an IP/domain...?

    And how does this work with cloud computing? As I understand it, a cloud server could be providing websites for thousands of unrelated organisations? Surely they can't just take out legitimate businesses if a single illegal stream is found?

    What if someone live streams a football match on, say, YouTube, are the ISPs going to totally shut down YouTube while the match is on?!

    Will the ISP's be responsible for paying compensation to businesses that are inadvertently affected by their actions?
    Originally posted by esuhl
    What like TalkTalk blocking teamviewer ? As if....
    • esuhl
    • By esuhl 16th Mar 17, 8:07 PM
    • 7,108 Posts
    • 4,991 Thanks
    esuhl
    What like TalkTalk blocking teamviewer ? As if....
    Originally posted by debitcardmayhem
    Ha! That was outrageous! But did any businesses suffer financial losses as a result...?
    • Tarambor
    • By Tarambor 16th Mar 17, 8:10 PM
    • 407 Posts
    • 251 Thanks
    Tarambor
    Hi Guys


    Has anyone else read this info with a bit of trepidation ??

    (
    Originally posted by AndyPix
    No because I believe in paying for the content I watch, the software I use, the music I listen to. Only scum who ponce off others should be concerned by this. Personally I think its absolutely fantastic and needs to be done more, not less.
    • Robisere
    • By Robisere 16th Mar 17, 9:28 PM
    • 1,324 Posts
    • 2,073 Thanks
    Robisere
    The real problem is posed by the very few, very wealthy football clubs and film studios. Both have so much money that they can control the dissemination of their product and its content. The entertainment provided is all about the best talent they can buy in the form of players and actors. Most of that talent is discarded if it does not work for them as entertainment. Every other football club and movie studio struggles for success against the financial clout of the top few.

    When the day comes that the bloated top 6 clubs no longer have the resources and the bubble bursts, maybe we will see a level playing field again. No pun intended.
    There may be more than one way to skin a cat.
    But the result is always inedible.

    • onomatopoeia99
    • By onomatopoeia99 16th Mar 17, 9:31 PM
    • 2,721 Posts
    • 5,932 Thanks
    onomatopoeia99
    It seems to me this is an initial test of real-time censorship , which is a sad day for the internet
    Originally posted by AndyPix
    Sadly brought about by those that want to watch things they haven't paid for.

    I'm a supporter of free speech (campaigning effort and financially) but I can't support people that violate copyright simply because they don't want to pay the rights holder. If it's too expensive, go without. It's football, not food.

    And yes, it would suck mightily if people that want free football ended up getting VPN services that allow those living in oppressive regimes to communicate anonymously taken offline. But it would be the fault of the people that won't pay to watch football, no-one else.
    INTP, nerd, libertarian and scifi geek.
    Home is where my books are.
    • debitcardmayhem
    • By debitcardmayhem 16th Mar 17, 9:49 PM
    • 7,982 Posts
    • 6,017 Thanks
    debitcardmayhem
    Sadly brought about by those that want to watch things they haven't paid for.

    I'm a supporter of free speech (campaigning effort and financially) but I can't support people that violate copyright simply because they don't want to pay the rights holder. If it's too expensive, go without. It's football, not food.

    And yes, it would suck mightily if people that want free football ended up getting VPN services that allow those living in oppressive regimes to communicate anonymously taken offline. But it would be the fault of the people that won't pay to watch football, no-one else.
    Originally posted by onomatopoeia99
    IMHO drivel ....
    OK live football i.e. fans that go to matches , and without live fans football matches will be not much
    fun will they, but they pay this much for half of a season's matches without taking in travelling and pies.

    The problem is down to greedy broadcasters , clubs and "sportsmen" . The real fans get less for more than the cost of Sky/BT/etc. Oh and some of the people pay to watch these players and often wonder why. Before Sky you could watch MOTD via the free services, listen free to a radio broadcast , watch the FA cup and the clubs mainly depended on their fans, don't blame those who want to circumvent the system, blame the corporate/personal greed of those involved in the "game"
    • AndyPix
    • By AndyPix 16th Mar 17, 9:50 PM
    • 1,998 Posts
    • 1,234 Thanks
    AndyPix
    No because I believe in paying for the content I watch, the software I use, the music I listen to. Only scum who ponce off others should be concerned by this. Personally I think its absolutely fantastic and needs to be done more, not less.
    Originally posted by Tarambor

    Oh dear ... You are of course entitled to your opinion.
    But I believe you have wildly missed the point or are simply trolling


    This isn't anything to do with WHAT they are censoring
    It has everything to do with the free speech.


    If you cant see that then I haven't the inclination to argue that point with you.
    I would simply refer you to the great firewall of China
    Running with scissors since 1978
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 16th Mar 17, 10:44 PM
    • 10,502 Posts
    • 7,722 Thanks
    unholyangel
    Can you (or anyone) elaborate...?

    I mean, websites are only available on servers, so what is the difference between blocking a website and a server?

    Does website blocking only involve blocking HTTP(S)? Or were only HTML files blocked...? And now they're blocking an IP/domain...?

    And how does this work with cloud computing? As I understand it, a cloud server could be providing websites for thousands of unrelated organisations? Surely they can't just take out legitimate businesses if a single illegal stream is found?

    What if someone live streams a football match on, say, YouTube, are the ISPs going to totally shut down YouTube while the match is on?!

    Will the ISP's be responsible for paying compensation to businesses that are inadvertently affected by their actions?
    Originally posted by esuhl
    What I'm about to say could be entirely wrong as I don't have any kind of training or experience in the area but the way I would imagine it working would be the websites being like directions/shortcodes and the server being the address.

    You can have multiple websites set up to point to the same content/server. Think of it like driving on the roads - can have several different routes to get to the same location. One is blocked off, you just take another. What they're talking about doing is blocking the location - so no matter what route you take, you cant get to it. I know websites I worked on previously would occasionally have routing problems where the website address wouldnt work but the server IP would.

    However, if i'm not mistaken, it should still be a relatively easy work around - its been a while since I heard anything about them but from what I remember the pirate bay used to have a legion of back up servers waiting just in case their own servers were compromised/seized.

    And here in lies the crux. No matter what they do, no matter what they spend there will always be pirates doing it better. Case & point was the ps2 - spent millions designing anti-copyright safeguards....and the hack/workaround was found & released before even the console itself was released.
    Last edited by unholyangel; 16-03-2017 at 10:49 PM.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • esuhl
    • By esuhl 16th Mar 17, 11:11 PM
    • 7,108 Posts
    • 4,991 Thanks
    esuhl
    No because I believe in paying for the content I watch, the software I use, the music I listen to. Only scum who ponce off others should be concerned by this. Personally I think its absolutely fantastic and needs to be done more, not less.
    Originally posted by Tarambor
    You seem to have (deliberately?) misunderstood the issue.
    • AndyPix
    • By AndyPix 17th Mar 17, 7:48 AM
    • 1,998 Posts
    • 1,234 Thanks
    AndyPix
    Eshul ..
    The difference here is that they are actually going to block servers , thats right ..


    As im sure you are aware, if they simply block the URL, then the provider and just point a different URL at the server in seconds.
    What they are intending to do here is actually block the IP address of the server, Or possibly block certain traffic types/protocols communicating with that server.


    They aren't publishing exactly what it is.


    And yes, you are right, this will have an impact on any other (possibly legit) services that also live on that server ..


    That is why this is a test case, as no body is sure yet what impact this is going to have..


    However, i wouldnt expect any "mainstream" services to be affected by this as the dodgy streams tend to live on obscure servers in parts of the world where they dont risk getting taken down because of copyright laws etc ..


    Its all a bit wooly, which is why this is such an unprecedented step !!
    Running with scissors since 1978
    • kwikbreaks
    • By kwikbreaks 17th Mar 17, 10:52 AM
    • 8,531 Posts
    • 4,244 Thanks
    kwikbreaks
    As the blocking is supposedly at ISP level and not some plan to fiddle with non-ISP owned routers sfaik I fail to see how they expect blocking the IP as opposed to just a URL is going to stop a VPN simply bypassing the block. I'm guessing we will soon know whether it works or not and I'll be very surprised if it does.
    • Strider590
    • By Strider590 17th Mar 17, 11:14 AM
    • 10,911 Posts
    • 6,070 Thanks
    Strider590
    Sadly brought about by those that want to watch things they haven't paid for.
    Originally posted by onomatopoeia99
    No, not at all.

    Your not seeing the forest for the tree's, your taking the bait story and missing the truth.

    They're pushing this forward by using piracy as way of getting the general public support for something much more sinister, which will affect everyone.

    Piracy is not as big an issue as everyone is being led to believe and those of us who speak out against this censorship/filtering are not doing so because we want to steal movies, we're speaking out because of the wider implications that most people are being blinded to by these constant diversionary tactics designed to appeal to the British public sense of "fair play" in order demonise and silence those who speak the truth.

    Back before we had Camerons porn filter thing, anybody speaking out against it was labelled as supporting !!!!!philes, sections of the news/media passively suggested that anyone criticising it was involved in child porn.

    They want to shame those who speak out, so that their voice is not heard, but those speaking out are doing so on YOUR behalf.

    I mentioned Russia earlier, these tactics don't work in Russia, because they don't have our sense of "fair play", they have a culture based around "win at all costs or die trying", which is why over there the authorities just censor whatever they like and make no excuses for it.

    Decades ago ISPs were also considering a pay as you go model for the internet, where much like a TV subscription, you would get set websites that you can view depending on what package you buy and how much you pay per month. Maybe you'd be allow to pick 50 websites for £10 a month, 100 sites for £18 a month, 200 sites for £25 a month and 1000 for £30. Who'd like that?
    People would have supported this decades ago, but now I think most of us are aware of just how detrimental that would be and same applies now, they're doing something that nobody is going to regret until it's too late.
    Last edited by Strider590; 17-03-2017 at 11:33 AM.
    Having the last word isn't the same as being right.......

    "Never confuse education with intelligence"
    • AndyPix
    • By AndyPix 17th Mar 17, 11:18 AM
    • 1,998 Posts
    • 1,234 Thanks
    AndyPix
    As the blocking is supposedly at ISP level and not some plan to fiddle with non-ISP owned routers sfaik I fail to see how they expect blocking the IP as opposed to just a URL is going to stop a VPN simply bypassing the block. I'm guessing we will soon know whether it works or not and I'll be very surprised if it does.
    Originally posted by kwikbreaks

    It isnt.


    They know tech savvy users will work around this.


    The content providors/ISP's are more concerned that due to the explosion of the sales of these "pre loaded" firesticks, it has brought this technology to the masses.
    They dont know or care how it works, they only know they can buy one for £25 quid, stick it in their telly , and watch free illegal stuff.


    Now if they had to install a VPN, or even know what a VPN was, then that would instantly kill 90% of the userbases connection.


    In my opinion of course
    Last edited by AndyPix; 17-03-2017 at 11:43 AM. Reason: typo
    Running with scissors since 1978
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 17th Mar 17, 12:18 PM
    • 1,845 Posts
    • 1,736 Thanks
    DoaM
    Agreed. And the other 10% would happily continue as they were, and some of the 90% would go back to finding streams via their web browser (there would always be some that would slip through the net), like they did before they got a "box".

    And the content providers would be no better off since hardly any of the 90% would actually take out a subscription.

    All in all - an utterly pointless exercise (based on what the court order states). The reality is likely more to do with post #54, and this is just the test to see whether the technology works.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • RumRat
    • By RumRat 17th Mar 17, 2:20 PM
    • 2,245 Posts
    • 1,163 Thanks
    RumRat
    It isnt.


    They know tech savvy users will work around this.


    The content providors/ISP's are more concerned that due to the explosion of the sales of these "pre loaded" firesticks, it has brought this technology to the masses.
    They dont know or care how it works, they only know they can buy one for £25 quid, stick it in their telly , and watch free illegal stuff.


    Now if they had to install a VPN, or even know what a VPN was, then that would instantly kill 90% of the userbases connection.


    In my opinion of course
    Originally posted by AndyPix
    My reading of the reasons that the ISP's were wholly on board was to protect bandwidth as much as anything else. Of course getting a few more customers on the back of it would be a nice little bonus.
    I'm sure you are right, they are not that interested in the tech savvy minority as the ever ending fight in that corner would cost more than it does to ignore.
    Of course I would never condemn Pirates and think that those watching stuff for free on the internet should be renamed as it's giving us Pirates a bad name......
    Drinking Rum before 10am makes you
    A PIRATE
    Not an Alcoholic...!
    • AndyPix
    • By AndyPix 17th Mar 17, 2:24 PM
    • 1,998 Posts
    • 1,234 Thanks
    AndyPix
    Haha quality
    Running with scissors since 1978
    • kwikbreaks
    • By kwikbreaks 17th Mar 17, 5:11 PM
    • 8,531 Posts
    • 4,244 Thanks
    kwikbreaks
    The content providors/ISP's are more concerned that due to the explosion of the sales of these "pre loaded" firesticks, it has brought this technology to the masses.
    They dont know or care how it works, they only know they can buy one for £25 quid, stick it in their telly , and watch free illegal stuff.
    Originally posted by AndyPix
    You don't need to be very tech savvy to know whether something works or not so i would expect preconfigured devices to appear that do work so long as that remains technically possible.
    • AndyPix
    • By AndyPix 17th Mar 17, 5:15 PM
    • 1,998 Posts
    • 1,234 Thanks
    AndyPix
    Yes but you are now nitpicking.
    The average firestick/kodi user wouldn't even attempt to put VPN on their stick even if they knew what it was.
    They would just find the service not working all of a sudden.


    And yes, I expect pre-configured devices would appear. Set up of course by someone who is tech savvy


    This is detracting from the main point
    Running with scissors since 1978
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,792Posts Today

5,097Users online

Martin's Twitter