BT / NTL /b/ Block - Stuff we know.

What follows has been posted in various other threads and has been repeated in IRC - but I thought it was probably an OK idea to post it all together in one place if only so I could point them to it - anyway:

As far as we have been able to work out someone has informed and organisation in the UK called the Internet Watch Foundation http://www.iwf.org.uk/ of our little place on the net and they have deemed it to be unacceptable due to either race hate OR childporn... probably both. They have place ONE SPECIFIC URL on a block list.

Seemingly NTL and BT subscribe to this block list to different degrees (although oddly some people are still getting through from at least NTL not sure about BT). The URL they are blocking is the main /b/ http://img.4chan.org/b/imgboard.html one which is why you are seeing a 404/403 on that one, but are still capable of seeing links within /b/.

There are quite a few ways to get around this, the two that I employ when Im on my work BT line is by using the IP address of the of the /b/ server, so then the URL would be: http://66.207.165.178/b/imgboard.html - this also works for NTL users. NTL users can also just add a '?' mark to the end of the normal URL to get around it thus: http://img.4chan.org/b/imgboard.html?
You can also use proxies and tunnelling an other crap, such as http//securebar.secure/...
or installing your own copy of squid maybe.

BT users only are currently finding them selves banned completely from the img.4chan servers, I have no idea what that is about as I dont think anyones said.

Are BT/NTL logging failed connects to the boards? No idea. How long is this gonna last? No idea. Is there anyway to ge the block lifted? Having read the IWFs complaints procedure... only if you want the police at your door if its still found to be CPy.

I think thats it, be brave /b/tards. You can get through this.

D.

You fuckers are still going on about this? It was solved months ago.

Long live the dead horse!

Anybody in Britain who posts on /b/ is probably being stalked by scotland yard by now.  Enjoy your slap on the wrist you criminals!

>>283

Oh shi

so who watches the Internet Watch Foundation and their fascist practises?

i'll put a $500 bet down right now that some senior members of Internet Watch Foundation are in fact pedo's.

>>285

NO WE'RE NOT, WE COME HERE FOR THE FUNNY PICTURES OF CATS

>>286
"cats" is the codeword for "cp" yeah?

>>287
cat
pictures

hi /v/!

hi /v/!

I hate to be the one telling you all this, but this is a bigger problem... SOB:s are monitoring traffic between clients and servers. This is only a symptom of the Orwellisation of the entire network. Welcome to the future.

The cheap way to fix it is to write a script that generates /b/:s at reqular intervals. Luckily moving things in unix is pretty easy and generating the link is no harder. You can also use a symbolic link. They can ofcourse ban the whole site, which they probably will given some time.

Which brings me to the real solution: SSL and gateways. By proxying(gateway) the server instead of the client the admin can know the IP:s of the clients. SSL means the ISP has a harder time spying on the packets - even if you keep the encryption pretty trivial like RC4 or DES, I doubt they will ever notice. This will ofcourse cost, but it is preferable to the annihilation of /b/.

>>291
How the fuck do you Know exactly?

>>292
Packet sniffer. Best packet sniffers, Packetyzer for windows and Wireshark for Linux. They probably have scripts too which pick up the more interesting snippets(eg. the 'JFIF' in a jpeg header) from the logs. It's the way the internet works, anything can be picked up at any point inbetween client and server, unless it is encrypted. This is why everyone uses SSH now instead of TELNET. And if >>253 is true that is exactly what is happening.

>>292
And yes, gb2 Alabama with that knowledge is criminal attitude. They teach this stuff at school.

>>294
Oh well, If they are going to those lenghts to catch out the handful of /b/ britfags, let them, make them earn their cookie. Fuck it, I really con't be bothered with all this conspiracy bullshit. IMA GO BACK TO /b/ NAO.

Sage

NTL = Virgin Media nao

I'm still seeing bee penis on all the boards the only way I can go on it is with a proxy. So anyone wanna help with the no proxy thing?

>>291
I don't understand what any of the "real solution" means.

How do you proxy the server instead of the client? What's the difference between the server and the admin? How do you use SSL? What will it cost?

300 get

Hopefully

>>>What's the difference between the server and the admin?
>>What's the difference between the car and the driver?
>What's the difference between the hammer and the hand?

Dunno. They all seem related.

hey guyz anonymous is on the news

>>304
really

>>6

problem is BT being the nazi cunts they are have blocked that webcache and block your access to the internet until you change it.

any other solutions to british nazicom blocking /b/?

>>306
Yes, change to different ISP.

Sorry to bump this after it's been stale for a month, but it seemed somewhat apropos.

U.S. users are about to get something similar, it seems:

"US net firms to block child porn"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7446637.stm
"Three of the biggest US internet service providers have agreed to block access to bulletin boards and websites that carry images of child sex abuse."

The ISPs in question are Verizon, Sprint, and Time-Warner.  The article goes on to say that New York's Attorney General (who is spearheading the campaign) is in negotiations with other ISPs, as well, so we will probably soon have no choice.

What it DIDN'T say was that these ISPs are also notifying their customers that their net use is to be monitored, and that any CP or SUSPICION of CP will be reported to the authorities.  As impractical as this seems, it is still a privacy issue (yes, I know we've BEEN being monitored for anti-terrorism purposes for some time now, but this purpose is new).

This is odd to me, as I always understood that ISPs, being common carriers, were not legally allowed to filter or monitor content.  I'll be a little surprised if there isn't a legal challenge to this (last I knew, the monitoring issue was ALREADY being challenged).

I'm not in favor of CP, but I don't like censoring the internet, either.  A further, practical problem lies in WHO determines what is and isn't "child sex abuse," and what it means to "carry" those images.  Will I soon lose access to 4chan, despite its best attempts at being anti-CP?  What about 420chan, which has had run-ins with hosting services before?  Will not4chan be blocked and browsing it risk being turned in to the police, despite the fact that it is full of drawings and not photos?  Furthermore, where does it stop?  Today it's CP at issue, will it be piracy tomorrow (Comcast is already doing that, aren't they?)?  These issues, even more so than the basic question of censorship, seem to be glaring problems to me.

>>308

I was under the impression that they were ignoring everything BUT Usenet, and that they'd start to filter out some Usenet groups and posts.

Some of them already filter Usenet for spam.

About the COMMON CARRIER stuff - does that still work if they have strict AUPs/TOSs?  Can they claim to be a COMMON CARRIER if they don't allow abusive posting?

>>309
Yeah, the more thorough article I read today said it was MOSTLY just USENET.  They will not, after all, be BLOCKING websites, though they will be more vigilant than before about TOS'ing sites they host.  Sprint and Time-Warner are dropping USENET entirely, while Verizon just plans to remove certain parts of the tree (I won't be too surprised if they stop carrying alt.binaries.* entirely).  The monitoring aspect still bothers me a lot, though.

As for the common carrier thing, I suspect you have a point.  They've been trying to have it both ways for a while now.  Personally, I wish they'd go back to the true common carrier approach, and let the network police itself (and make the RL police do their OWN damn job according to the rule of law, instead of doing it FOR them in such a way as to get around privacy rights).

I'm worried some of the images i clicked on may have been child abuse.  Is there a chance i could get caught for clicking on the links?

No. You are 100% safe

>>312
anon speaks comforting lies....

Doesn't work... it seems like my ISP which isn't listed here has it blocked, but has also blocked access to it via the proxy as said earlyer

Doesn't work... it seems like my ISP which isn't listed here has it blocked, but has also blocked access to it via the proxy as said earlyer

Any britfags on sky broadband?

Seems that /b/ is blocked for me :(

>>316
No, /b/'s down.

Any news on this?

GAY

HELLO FROM SLASH DOT