When will Plusnet tell people that they are behind a [proxy]?

[#1]

Quote

what is the difference though, if the government can get you to tell who it is if somebody has downloaded a DVD or music or something, then what is the difference if the police come asking for a list of possible offenders from the proxy?

That is exactly my point. The difference is that it isn't logged and we don't have a list of "possible offenders from the proxy". We are required to keep details of connected IPs and who they were used by however, and that information is therefore available to the law enforcement agencies should they have enough evidence to get an appropriate court order. All we know is that the solution is working from a technical level (there are test sites built into the system) not what effect it is having specifically.
With that TCP response, you would see connection reset I believe, rather than a 403 page cannot be displayed.
---
On RIN I believe BT have had their own solution in place to do the same thing for a number of years. As I say, we are pretty late to the game on this one.
Ian

[#2]

So how long before the same system is used to decide what else can't be viewed?
Could PN answer my question from earlier.  What record is kept of what we all download and view?
I don't want my ISP making moral decisions for me. I'll make my own.

[#3]

That isn't what I asked. I asked if any trace or record was kept of anything downloaded or viewed.
I don't want PN or anyone else recording what articles I read on BBC London, what Google searches I make or any of it.

[#4]

Quote from: thehatman

I don't want my ISP making moral decisions for me. I'll make my own.

They are not making moral decisions for you - they are preventing you from accessing illegal material.

[#5]

It's surely been answered over and over: "What record is kept of what we all download and view". Answer: No such records are kept whatsoever (As part of this system or not)... Can I be clearer?
I think we need to stop going round in circles here. I see no reason why there would be any change in the use of this system whatsoever, unless the IWF’s CAIC (Child Abuse Images and Content) database changes, at which point I think there should rightly be discussion, and probably outcry from customers of  all the ISPs using this. Until then, I don't see what more we can say at any rate.
Ian

[#6]

Quote from: jelv

They are not making moral decisions for you - they are preventing you from accessing illegal material.

I wanna make my own choice on that too.  If I go to a shop, for instance,  I'll decide whether I want to shoplift or not and whether I view that as immoral or not.
[Moderator's note by Peter (PJ): Fixed quote tags]

[#7]

The point is what comes next. The implication will soon be: support further restrictions on the net or you're supporting peodophiles.
Next will be no peer2peer, no alternative news sites - all for your own protection of course. I'd like my ISP to resist that.

[#8]

Quote from: thehatman

Quote from: jelv They are not making moral decisions for you - they are preventing you from accessing illegal material. I wanna make my own choice on that too.  If I go to a shop, for instance,  I'll decide whether I want to shoplift or not and whether I view that as immoral or not.

But Plusnet carrying the traffic while you access the illegal material is akin to someone carrying your bag for you while you shoplift. Plusnet have made it quite clear they are not prepared to do that and have taken steps to ensure that they cannot be co-defendants should you chose to commit a criminal act. They have every right to do that.
You might also like to refer to the terms and conditions which include

Quote

14. Use of the Service 14.1 You will not use the Service, and will take all reasonable precautions to ensure that no one (including you) uses the Service: 14.1.1 fraudulently or in connection with a criminal offence or in breach of any law;

If you are genuinely not prepared to accept Plusnet using the IWF I suggest that you start looking for an ISP in Russia or similar for a connection to the internet because no matter how much fuss you make on this Plusnet ain't going to shift and what ISP's there are left who don't do this will also start blocking these sites sooner or later.

[#9]

In case it needs saying I have zero sexual interest in children.  My point is that certain subjects are used to stifle free debate and discourage free thinking. That's what the "Brass Eye Peodophile Special" spoof news programme was about.
Go straight to outrage, do not pass brain.

[#10]

The IWF are blocking images which in their opinion are illegal. So we have a presumption of guilt but without arrest - that's novel isn't it?
It would be very simple for the IWF to add a bundle of URL's that don't have anything illegal on them. Perhaps not now, but in a year or two...
Since this is a fait acompli I am forced to carry on using the censored access allowed to me. I expect the situation is similar (very much more severely) in places like China, USA, Burma etc..

[#11]

Quote from: axisofevil

The IWF are blocking images which in their opinion are illegal. So we have a presumption of guilt but without arrest - that's novel isn't it? It would be very simple for the IWF to add a bundle of URL's that don't have anything illegal on them. Perhaps not now, but in a year or two... Since this is a fait acompli I am forced to carry on using the censored access allowed to me. I expect the situation is similar (very much more severely) in places like China, USA, Burma etc..

Exactly. But the "moral majority" aren't going to get that until the storm troopers are on their doorsteps. People at the margins of society notice first.

[#12]

Just a thought. If it is illegal to view the images, how do the IWF know they are blocking the right sites without checking first?
Please note I am not looking for answer, just thought I would post the question for people to ponder.

[#13]

true spider, im happy with what pn have done, i just have some views on it myself! anyway, im saying nomore on the subject!
have a nice xmas!

[#14]

What we dont need is a restriction on our freedom.  What we do need is tougher law put onto the abusers.
I have seen and heard of sex offenders getting alnost no punishment whatsoever, link:censored and I'm sure everyones local paper has a story at some time.
As long as the system which spies on us lets these people get away with it, they will do it.  I have Kids and Grandkids and think the nonces should be shot.. No second chance, no appeal, No rights that the rest of us enjoy.  They are below us and should stay there.
If the system dealt with these people properly, we wouldnt be having this thread. 
A guy selling a bit of weed to another is punished more than a guy who messes with a 7 year old girl.... FACT!
What does this say.. A joint is worse than messing with kids?
We spend millions looking after these people when a £1 bullet would do us all and our kids more good.  We dont need spies.
If I come accross ANYTHING of this nature, I would report the ISP to the police without hesitation, as would ANY DECENT citizen of ANY country.  We dont need spies!
cp:green I have removed the names given in your post, as I do not believe that it is appropriate . mod:end

[#15]

Absolutely right (except the bits about shooting and bullets) - very long jail sentences would be sufficient.
At least if errors are made, the innocent can be released. Of course while they are in jail they had better watch out for the actions of fellow prisoners...
[Moderator's note by Jonathan (chillypenguin):  Please stop posting full quotes of the preceding post. Forum Rules ]