UK Copyright Lobby attempting to restrict the Internet in the UK

Reza86 · 1 Jul 2011 at 20:22

One day governments will realise that the internet it way to hard to police, even china can't block everything, there are ways around. Law enforcement and security are two sectors that are always one step behind, they have to play catch up becuase nesesaty (I know that isn't spelt correctly) is the mother of all invention. We want our freedom so we find a way around what they implement, they then need to catch up with us.

Pho · 1 Jul 2011 at 20:42

The website they're trying to get BT to block already has measures in place to evade the block, so it's largely pointless

.

TheBigCheese · 1 Jul 2011 at 21:25

Pho said:
The website they're trying to get BT to block already has measures in place to evade the block, so it's largely pointless .

Can you elaborate on that a bit (keeping within forum rules obviously)?

Pho · 1 Jul 2011 at 21:41

TheBigCheese said:
Can you elaborate on that a bit (keeping within forum rules obviously)?

Well they can easily add new domain names (assuming they're blocking based on DNS) or add new IPs if they're blocking by IP - it'll be a never ending cat-and-mouse game between the ISPs and the sites they're trying to block.

People who know what they're doing could just use something like Tor (anonymous proxy) or VPN to a non BT / outside the UK server and bounce their traffic though it.

Or from the site theirselves:

I meant to mention this Firefox plug-in a while back but forgot, & I guess many of you will know of it already. To those who don't: it's a Firefox browser plugin that combats the US ICE's unlawful domain name seizure program. If they grab the [the site] domain the plugin will allow you to continue to come to our site by redirecting you to whatever new domain we are using. You would continue to type in '[the site].com' into your Firefox browser, as before, but with the plugin enabled you would be automagically redirected to our new site at http://[the site].mpaa.org/ (or whatever other address we have obtained).

Locky · 1 Jul 2011 at 21:42

Mafiaafire, vpn.

they wont be blocking the ip just the host name.

Change of host name, there is lots of ways to get round the block.

PermaBanned · 1 Jul 2011 at 21:50

Pho said:
Well they can easily add new domain names (assuming they're blocking based on DNS) or add new IPs if they're blocking by IP - it'll be a never ending cat-and-mouse game between the ISPs and the sites they're trying to block.

People who know what they're doing could just use something like Tor (anonymous proxy) or VPN to a non BT / outside the UK server and bounce their traffic though it.

Or from the site theirselves:

And then they try to ban the proxy IPs... as has been said, slippery slope.

JBod · 1 Jul 2011 at 23:22

I think people may be shocked to learn that the majority (if not all?) ISPs already operate a very small specific ban list of sites.

steve-h · 1 Jul 2011 at 23:35

jas72 said:
Ban children from the net...

JBod · 1 Jul 2011 at 23:39

steve-h said:

Yea its easy just use this:

frosty03 · 1 Jul 2011 at 23:46

Pho said:
Well they can easily add new domain names (assuming they're blocking based on DNS) or add new IPs if they're blocking by IP - it'll be a never ending cat-and-mouse game between the ISPs and the sites they're trying to block.

People who know what they're doing could just use something like Tor (anonymous proxy) or VPN to a non BT / outside the UK server and bounce their traffic though it.

Or from the site theirselves:

Not really. When they realise that they will fail, it will then move to a white list ONLY. ie everything else but what is on the list is blocked. It will be a walled garden of sites you will be allowed to see. If another site wants "in", it will need to apply for "permission" before users can access it.

JBod · 1 Jul 2011 at 23:50

frosty03 said:
Not really. When they realise that they will fail, it will then move to a white list ONLY. ie everything else but what is on the list is blocked. It will be a walled garden of sites you will be allowed to see. If another site wants "in", it will need to apply for "permission" before users can access it.

With a little more understanding of the internet you'd realise what they are proposing is impossible. They can block ip/dns but never all and there are always ways around it.

It would be like trying to stop water leaking from a sieve with only your hands to block the holes.

EdwardTeach · 1 Jul 2011 at 23:56

Don't trust the government on this at all. When digital economy act was being discussed I wrote to all my local candidate. The responses I got back from everyone suggested none of them understood a thing about the Internet, technology in general or intellectual property. I think vaizey is a certified idiot as well.

frosty03 · 2 Jul 2011 at 00:40

JBod said:
With a little more understanding of the internet you'd realise what they are proposing is impossible. They can block ip/dns but never all and there are always ways around it.

It would be like trying to stop water leaking from a sieve with only your hands to block the holes.

Actually, i think you misunderstand. They will block ALL ips. Except those on a whitelist. At an ISP level, they dictate only x y z ips are connectable. Would very much blanket block everything for 99% of the users. IIRC, it would be something like the WAP access (not internet) on mobiles, on a larger scale.

It's more like having a metal bowl, and only poking selective holes where you want them.

JBod · 2 Jul 2011 at 00:44

frosty03 said:
Actually, i think you misunderstand. They will block ALL ips. Except those on a whitelist. At an ISP level, they dictate only x y z ips are connectable. Would very much blanket block everything for 99% of the users. IIRC, it would be something like the WAP access (not internet) on mobiles, on a larger scale.

It's more like having a metal bowl, and only poking selective holes where you want them.

I can already thing of a few ways around that

Ignoring the fact that it would never happen.

Pho · 2 Jul 2011 at 00:47

If they were to do that (very unlikely I'd hope) then people would still manage to evade it; external hard drives, USB sticks - creating their own networks through lots of wifi access points etc.

People will always find a way around

.

frosty03 · 2 Jul 2011 at 00:53

JBod said:
I can already thing of a few ways around that Ignoring the fact that it would never happen.

The users of this board are more than likely not in the 99% who wont be able to. Besides, the propaganda that if you do breach the walled garden, you are most likely a paedo/terrowrist/immgrawant etc.....

It wont hit all at once, but it will start with the gradual blockage of more and more sites..... just like the slow boiling of a frog in cold water.....

Fr0dders · 2 Jul 2011 at 01:27

PermaBanned said:
And then they try to ban the proxy IPs... as has been said, slippery slope.

and then the act of using a proxy becomes illegal ....

Slipper slope indeed.

Captain Chaos · 2 Jul 2011 at 09:59

We could always revert back to smoke signals to get our un restricted message across to the masses lol.

Then again "The Man" would probably employ someone to float about in a hot air ballon with a giant fan lol

RomanNose · 2 Jul 2011 at 10:08

Though if this does happen, I can imagine local internets will be setup with long range radio equipment but I have no idea how these converge to form a internet.

SkeeterUK · 2 Jul 2011 at 10:14

The only stuff i want restricted is the really horrible stuff u stumble on my accident sometimes. Hate that stuff and wouldnt mind it being blocked. But torrent sites, porn (not the crazy stuff), any mostly everything else that is humanly decent id like still available. Just stop the deaths, fight vids, and other stupid stuff ppl put on websites.