Archive for category Internet

I have recently switched from using dircproxy as an IRC bouncer to ZNC and it is turning out to be a better piece of software. (Not least of which is decent SSL support and a handy web interface that allows easy reconfiguration) However, it suffers from the same problem as many other bouncers – it doesn’t log Private Messages when you’re online. This is annoying because I may have left some machine somewhere connected that I might not return to for a day or two, or I might be on a mobile device that’s prone to losing it’s connection due to train tunnels etc. (Which results in ZNC thinking the device is still connected until it times out and messages are lost completely)

So, for anyone who uses ZNC who finds this similarly problematic, you can download a copy of the logging module I’ve worked on here. It compiles cleanly against the Debian version of ZNC 0.202 cleanly using just “znc-buildmod pmlog.cpp”, and you can install it simply by coping the resulting pmlog.so file to ~/.znc/modules and enabling it from the web interface.

There are no configuration options yet so it’s rather rough and basic and should be regarded as Beta-quality code at best, but time permitting I should add more soon. When you connect, it will simply play back inbound/outbound private messages sent since you loaded the module.

A recently released report prepared for OfCom – remember, they’re the folks who are going to be responsible for setting the rules on policing content on the internet – classes anyone downloading free content as someone they “deduce” to be involved in illegal file sharing. Here’s the culprit question:

Q4: Which of these have you used in the last three months in order to download or share files through the internet? Multi-code, Do not rotate
1. Peer-to-peer such as BitTorrent, Gnutella, eDonkey, Limewire and Ares
2. Commercial websites such as iTunes, Blinkbox, Amazon, Lovefilm, Movieflix, Napster, Play, or Spotify
3. Social Networking sites such as Facebook, Myspace, or Bebo
4. File sharing websites such as Rapidshare, Yousendit, or Easyshare
5. Messaging programs such as Windows Messenger or Skype
6. FTP
7. Email
8. Other (please specify)
9. Can’t remember

Apparently an answer other than 2 (Commercial websites) marks you as an illegal downloader. They do note the following:

Of course, those responding to Q4 (methods used to share or download files) may have had things other than the categories in Q3 in mind when talking about file sharing (e.g. photos they had taken) and the question will clearly need tightening in the tracking survey – even when filtering on those downloading or file sharing one of the six categories. This reinforces the recommendation (Recommendation 3 in Section 3) that Q4 be asked for each category of download.

However, even that does not help fully. For example, I tend to download software such as Debian or Ubuntu quite legally (They’re free software) via Bittorrent. It’s not unheard of in the commercial sector either as I have a legitimate copy of DCS: A-10C, a game/simulator that is distributed by the software house themselves over Bittorrent. (Requires a key to activate)

But it’s not just limited to software. Here is the list of categories that the report uses, with examples of legal content I personally have from sources other than “commercial web sites”.

• Software or applications – Ubuntu, Debian, Thunderbird, many other items.
• Video games – DCS: A-10C.
• Films – Sintel
• TV programmes – None. (I’m currently using NetFlix. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and let them refer to BBC iPlayer as “commercial”)
• Books – Anything from Project Gutenburg.
• Podcasts – The Pod Delusion.

Unsurprisingly, they deduce a higher number of “illegal downloaders” in the report than people actually admit to.

The court-ordered block on Newzbin2 for BT customers was a while ago, but implementation was delayed due to discussion on the exact wording of the order. Yesterday, it was back in court and the precise details were set.

Reading the full judgement this morning is interesting, as it appears ineffective. The court is ordering BT to use Cleanfeed (Paragraphs 6 and 9) in order to block the site, but Cleanfeed does not work on HTTPS (Which is encrypted) as it is unable to examine the request to determine exactly what has been issued. Cleanfeed was only designed to stop “casual” access to child porn.

I notice that Newzbin2 already has HTTPS access.

Oops.

From multiple reports this morning, it seems the Big 4 ISPs are not too happy with Camerons announcement of his anti-porn initiative, and he’s made out it’s far more wide-reaching than it is really. But we do have a few answers, courtesy of Slightly Right of Centre (Who first reported on the ISP response), the Telegraph, the Guardian and of course El Reg.

Is it opt-in or opt-out? “Active choice” has been touted – customers will need to answer one way or another, without any default. However, reading between the lines it seems ISPs are (unsurprisingly) leaning towards a more opt-in model and it will not be switched on be default for existing customers.

Who decides what will be blocked? Will the block list be public? How do you appeal? Who can appeal? It’s wide ranging, which is worrying, as we’re told “as well as pornography, parents will be able to block access to gambling and other adult websites.” “Other adult websites” likely includes “things parents might or might not disagree with morally, such as sites to help LGBT youth”. It’s entirely possible that this initiative conflicts with Cameron’s recent focus on forced marriage. If web blocking becomes more widespread, with many options on what can be blocked and no central regulation, those who need help may well be unable to get it as easily.

But every ISP will apparently be using different technology, so it’s possible that there will not be any central block list but the possibility of some sites being blocked on one ISP and not on another with no clear route to resolve issues. With blocks on mobile devices, it is already very hard, if not impossible, to get an inaccurately listed site allowed as there is simply nobody to get in contact with about it. “ParentPort” (Which is a non-government collaboration between various media regulators) is repeatedly mentioned, but that may just be a clearing house for reports.

Who pays? No answer on this one, but it’s sounding like it’ll be the ISPs are going to be funding it – which means a slight increase in Broadband cost for everyone.

How is it going to work technically? According to the Telegraph, Cameron has been accused of “misunderstanding what is technically possible“. So it’s quite possible this hasn’t been figured out yet – more than likely, with secure sites and proxies, the blocks will only stop casual access. This is at least slightly mitigates other problems as anyone that needs help on a topic may be able to get around the filters.

“Confusion reigns” over the new proposal to filter internet access, because it has not been properly announced yet. Or, more likely, because it’s not been properly thought out. What we do know is that we know very little, but that’s OK because that well known technical expert, David Cameron, will be telling us all about it “later today”.

Is it opt-in or opt-out? Opt-out, i.e. switched on by default, is clearly a bad thing. The big four ISPs involved in this seem not to know themselves, but commercial pressures will tend towards it being opt-in only. Filtering costs money, and there are very small margins in the retail ISP industry.

Who decides what will be blocked? Someone has to make some policy decisions on what is acceptable – is what going to be the government or ISPs? Do we block just hard-core porn? What about page 3 images? Sites linked to terrorism? Sexual health sites? Sites accused of providing access to copyrighted material? Sites for dealing with LGBT issues, domestic violence, forced marriage… the list goes on. This is a big issue, because of the danger of further marginalising certain groups. What is acceptable content to one group is not acceptable to another.

Who pays? If it’s free, then you are effectively paying a tax on your unfiltered broadband service in order to subsidise those who do want filtering. Or will there be government money for this?

Will the block list be public? If a site ends up on the list without intending to, because of one image, will they be notified? This happened to Wikipedia with the IWF kiddy porn list, because of differences of opinion in what constituted child pornography, but the IWF list is not public.

How do you appeal? Who can appeal? Another messy area. Your site ends up on the block list, what now? Is there a presumption of removal until it’s shown it’s definitely infringing? For commercial sites, being blocked for even a few days could send them out of business. What if it’s a foreign site, does the site owner need to appeal or can anyone do it?

How is it going to work technically? We already have the IWF child porn block on many ISPs, but that is only intended to stop accidental, casual access. It’s trivial to bypass. If a site switches to secure connections (HTTPS) what then? Or connections on ports other than the default web port? Will whole sites be blocked or just the specific image or page that’s a problem? What about proxy sites? I’d expect well-advertised proxy sites and software to spring up the moment any filtering system goes live. “No dear, I’m not looking at porn online. How can I, we have a filtered connection!”

I don’t expect these to get answered today of course, because from the reactions of the big four ISPs it appears that this hasn’t been thought through.

From time to time (OK, pretty much constantly – hundreds every month) we get copyright takedown notices from rights holders. We don’t do anything about them, we’re not their enforcement arm, but a handy little script automatically forwards them on to our customers via email. Most of them are of the form “WE’RE GOING TO SUE YOU UNLESS YOU STOP THIS RIGHT AWAY! Although, we may sue you anyway” wrapped up in some opaque legalese. So, it’s refreshing to have seen the following go past over the weekend:

Recently BayTSP detected an infringement of TV TOKYO Medianet Inc.’s copyright interests on your IP address. TV TOKYO Medianet Inc. appreciates that you enjoy their anime and hopes you can support them and the original creators directly by watching their programs at http://www.crunchyroll.com/watchbleach where they are making a strong effort to provide their content legally.

Supporting the content legally ensures that TV TOKYO Medianet can continue to broadcast more of the high quality anime which you crave. Crunchyroll.com gives anime fans access to the anime they want as soon as possible, allowing fans to watch episodes of their favorite series as they premiere in Japan. TV TOKYO Medianet urges you to show your support by going to the website below and watching content legally.

http://www.crunchyroll.com/watchbleach

TV TOKYO Medianet appreciates your interest in their anime and hopes you continue to be a fan.

Hopefully we’ll see more of the same in future, to my mind it’s a much more constructive approach than the usual one. (Oh, it then launches into the standard BayTSP WE’RE GOING TO SUE YOU UNTIL YOU BLEED legal language, but you can’t have everything. Most people probably don’t read that far down.)