ISP Ordered to block access to web site...in the UK

[stonetools]

Well, the proof of the pudding will be in the enforcement order , which will come out in October. I expect a lot of ISPs the world over will tailor its anti-piracy policies in accordance with this order, in order to forestall lawsuits.
Generally, pirate sites are pretty easy to identify and it won't take much investigation to establish that they traffic in mostly copyright-infringing material.
This approach is going to work much better than suing individual consumers or closing down individual sites. There are going to be privacy issues, but hey, if pirates didn't pirate, we wouldn't have to worry about this.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

The problem is not that the site is shut down, the problem is that an ISP is ordered to "prevent access" to this site (an exercise in futility if there ever one was). It's like asking the Royal Mail to stop delivering parcels to certain "rogue" addresses.

Actually, no. All major UK ISP's already use a site-blocking system which is used to prevent access to such things as child pornography sites. Blocking access to this site would simply be a case of adding its URL to that list.

[rogue_librarian]

So how's that working for you? Who decides what goes on that list anyway? And how exactly does it work, DNS based? Deep packet inspection?

[HarryT]

I don't know how it works from a technical perspective, but I understand that the list of "banned" sites is provided by the police.

The practical effect is that if you attempt to access a blocked site, you get shown a page saying that access has been blocked in accordance with British law.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't know how it works from a technical perspective, but I understand that the list of "banned" sites is provided by the police.

The practical effect is that if you attempt to access a blocked site, you get shown a page saying that access has been blocked in accordance with British law.

Actually you don't need to be police, anyone can suggest sites for them to censor. The Internet Watch Foundation is a charitable organisation supposedly outside of governmental control. A bit like our film censors, except nowhere near as transparent about what they censor.

The IWF are probably most famous outside the UK for banning Wikipedia a few years ago over a 1970s album cover by a heavy metal band.

With regards to the original topic, see also:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14293730

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

And how exactly does it work, DNS based? Deep packet inspection?

DNS based, IP blocking and DPI.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The IWF are probably most famous outside the UK for banning Wikipedia a few years ago over a 1970s album cover by a heavy metal band.

It was one specific page that was blocked, if I recall correctly, not the whole of Wikipedia.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A much more sensible approach than attempting to punish individual downloaders.

Just like punishing the publisher of a yellow pages is so much more sensible than punishing individual pawnshops for fencing stolen goods.

It is so much easier and really, the aggregator and the yellow pages should send someone around periodically to make sure those listing are on the up and up. If they won't do that both should be shut down.

Its for the children.

[Arrghus]

BT provide a means of communication. ISPs should not be forced to become the police of the internet. Not only is it technologically infeasible, it is also unfair.

It is akin to asking BT to prevent users from talking about certain topics over the phone. After all, what's the difference? Voice data is transferred from handset to handset, in pretty much the same way packets of data are sent from computer to computer (most commonly through the very same telephone lines one makes a call from).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Arrghus

BT provide a means of communication. ISPs should not be forced to become the police of the internet. Not only is it technologically infeasible, it is also unfair.

As has already been stated, it's not "technologically infeasible"; the mechanism for doing so already exists and is already used to block certain sites.

Who is it unfair towards? The owners of the criminal web sites involved?

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Just like punishing the publisher of a yellow pages is so much more sensible than punishing individual pawnshops for fencing stolen goods.

It is so much easier and really, the aggregator and the yellow pages should send someone around periodically to make sure those listing are on the up and up. If they won't do that both should be shut down.

Its for the children.

Yellow pages aren't allowed to display ads touting the distributors of stolen goods, as in "GET YOUR FREE OR DISCOUNTED STOLEN GOODS HERE!!".

[Arrghus]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As has already been stated, it's not "technologically infeasible"; the mechanism for doing so already exists and is already used to block certain sites.

Who is it unfair towards? The owners of the criminal web sites involved?

But that mechanism is routinely bypassed, ergo, it is not working.

It's unfair that the onus is on the ISP to police the internet. If people choose to abuse the use of a service and utilise it for criminal purposes, is it really the fault of the ISP?

P.S. If a terrorist uses a mobile phone to communicate with other terrorists and plot an attack, is if the fault of the network carrier for not stopping them?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Arrghus

But that mechanism is routinely bypassed, ergo, it is not working.

Isn't that like saying that because houses still get broken into, door locks aren't working? Sure it can be bypassed by the determined criminal. This measure will, however, stop the "average joe" from accessing the site, and that's the purpose.

It's unfair that the onus is on the ISP to police the internet. If people choose to abuse the use of a service and utilise it for criminal purposes, is it really the fault of the ISP?

Nobody's saying that it's the ISP's fault that criminal sites exist on the Internet. But all major UK ISP's already use a system which blocks certain sites - mainly child pornography sites. Blocking this site is simply a matter of adding its name to a list. The work involved for the ISP is minimal.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Arrghus

It's unfair that the onus is on the ISP to police the internet.

The ruling requires BT to enforce a decision made by the courts, not to make their own decision. It is explicitly not up to BT to make any decision about what to block or not to block.

[Arrghus]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The ruling requires BT to enforce a decision made by the courts, not to make their own decision. It is explicitly not up to BT to make any decision about what to block or not to block.

It's a slippery slope.

Also, in effect, following this ruling ISPs WILL have to police the internet, as they will not want to have to pay the legal fees BT have undoubtedly incurred as this case went to through the courts. They will want to avoid having to be ruled over.