British ISPs restrict access to Wikipedia

[#1]

Common sense may have prevailed on this occasion but I remain concerned that there exists a body which can effectively censor anything it likes (and PlusNet will go along with it because it doesn't know what it's censoring until it's already in place) without any regulation ('self-regulated'!) or review of the list they're using.
They've demonstrated that they lack the competence to back up their power; which suggests it needs reducing.
And the first step would be some openness from PlusNet rather than forged reset packets.
The sad thing is we now don't have a "known blocked" image which we know isn't illegal to test with.

[#2]

Quote from: gladman

I think that one thing that PlusNet ought to do is to make the censorship by the IWF clear to their users when it occurs.

I agree too. Anything which helps to expose the extrajudicial framework in which the IWF operate should be encouraged.

[#3]

I see that Plusnet are still blocking that image - which has been approved by the IWF Board of Censorship.

[#4]

Quote from: axisofevil

I see that Plusnet are still blocking that image - which has been approved by the IWF Board of Censorship.

I received an e-mail from the IWF just after 7pm this evening informing me that they had removed the URL from the blacklist.
Our implementation is set to pull the full URL list twice a day from the IWF servers, and the next scheduled download is 6am tomorrow morning. At that point, anyone who wants to view the image will be able to.
Phil

[#5]

I am curious to see what all the fuss is about (blame the IWF) - I wouldn't normally bother with that kind of "content".

[#6]

Quote from: pwebb

Our implementation is set to pull the full URL list twice a day from the IWF servers, and the next scheduled download is 6am tomorrow morning. At that point, anyone who wants to view the image will be able to.

Does PlusNet have any intention of changing its implementation in the light of this debacle?
Are you going to follow the example of ISPs like Demon and display something to let us know we've triggered a censorship filter? Or are you going to continue to forge reset packets and let us think there's something wrong with the remote server?
I'm hoping not to run into the censorship filter, but I seriously doubt this will be the last incident and I'd like to be with an upfront ISP if it happens again; and from the looks of this thread I am not alone.

[#7]

Have to agree. I feel that when a page is blocked through censorship then the 'error page' should be specific stating what the problem is. What concerns me most regarding the latest incident is the double standards being applied. The claim was that the image was potentially illegal to view so was blocked, but the page that contained the image and text was not.

[#8]

I'm surprised PN don't show a page informing us of why we can't access a particular page, if the reason is known to them.
The 'Open and Honest' nature of PN would surely suggest that a page explaining the block and its reasoning would be the most equitable solution for all.

[#9]

Quote from: James_G

I'm surprised PN don't show a page informing us of why we can't access a particular page, if the reason is known to them.

Hi James,
I think we've given the reason for this earlier in the thread - we don't want people to be able to run scripts against us to determine the contents of the list. As the list in itself is potentially very valuable in the wrong hands. We're going to review that to see if that's still the right view to take but it's one that we know most of the other major ISPs follow and one that we came to after considering this in detail.

[#10]

Quote from: axisofevil

I am curious to see what all the fuss is about (blame the IWF) - I wouldn't normally bother with that kind of "content".

You are not alone. A quote from the news article on the IWF website:

Quote

IWF’s overriding objective is to minimise the availability of indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect. We regret the unintended consequences for Wikipedia and its users. Wikipedia have been informed of the outcome of this procedure and IWF Board’s subsequent decision.

[#11]

Quote from: Neil

...............................I think we've given the reason for this earlier in the thread - we don't want people to be able to run scripts against us to determine the contents of the list. As the list in itself is potentially very valuable in the wrong hands. ......................

I'm sorry Neil, but this sounds like total BS to me. Surely any sicko's that want to know the contents of the list will already have found it out as someone will have done whatever it takes to do that, either on a PN connection or elsewhere, and secondly this sounds like a bit of a security issue here. Although I wouldn't have a clue as to how to go about it, running scripts that will determine the content of a supposedly encripted list sounds, in this instance, like a sick joke!

[#12]

Quote from: Neil

I think we've given the reason for this earlier in the thread - we don't want people to be able to run scripts against us to determine the contents of the list. As the list in itself is potentially very valuable in the wrong hands. We're going to review that to see if that's still the right view to take but it's one that we know most of the other major ISPs follow and one that we came to after considering this in detail.

- anyone who wants to get hold of this sort of stuff isn't going to be concerned about any list; the IWF can't possibly even censor all they'd need to on HTTP let alone all the other protocols that build our internet
- personally I believe the list should be public anyway, but I can see you won't budge on that
- other major ISPs are being open with their customers (see Demon's 403 example) and anyone who wants to run scripts can do it with one of them
- I've not run TCP analysis software but I bet your forged reset packets can be identified as such, and so to anyone writing scripts they're probably just as useful as a 403. However to the 'average user' (and TBH the above-average user) they represent successful deceit.
Censorship that sticks big black bars across things (like Demon) is annoying, but at least you can see it's there. Right now PlusNet's implementation of it is to hide away and pretend the content was never even there.
I can guarantee PlusNet will lose business over this, even if it's only me and those who ask for my advice.

[#13]

well I hope all those who want to look at Illegal photos or images (under British law) do go and leave PN, I for one dont want them here

[#14]

Quote from: newlay

Right now PlusNet's implementation of it is to hide away and pretend the content was never even there.

Hi there,
As I said in my earlier post, "We're going to review that to see if that's still the right view to take..."
When we implemented this a year ago we wanted to make sure that an owner of a site which contained material identified by the IWF couldn't 'test' their site on our implementation and therefore get warning of when to change their URL. We took that choice along with other ISPs based on the advice we received and our own judgement. Given Demon have gone a different route, that argument potentially no longer stands up.
We're in the process of writing a detailed blog about how our filter works and why we have it which will hopefully allay some fears and shed some light on this difficult issue.

[#15]

Quote from: pierre_pierre

well I hope all those who want to look at Illegal photos or images (under British law) do go and leave PN, I for one dont want them here

So do I.
The point is, that image was not illegal.
Sooner or later, something else will end up on the blacklist that's not illegal (perhaps there already is?). If/when that happens I'd like there to be a similar furore to this one. And if people don't even know their access is being censored (and I mean with a big warning like Demon's rather than a post on a support forum) we risk that not happening.
I don't want to leave PlusNet; apart from the non-standards-compliant smtp relay (which may have been fixed) I've had no problem with them in over 6 years of use and recommendation. But given that I still have a choice of ISPs who aren't censoring, and ISPs who are censoring but being upfront about it, I'll move if I have to. But my preferred option would be for PlusNet to move into one of those two categories itself.
Great quote from Wikipedia at the moment (not sure if there's an original source):
It is necessary for tolerated censorship that people are made aware of when they are being censored, and the reasons why this is occurring.