HTTPS bad, Filtering good - UK ISPs name Mozilla as "Internet Villain"

[ARikozuM]

You know you're doing something right when the ISP's hate you. 

 

The only question now is how long until Mozilla gets bought or shut down by them. 

[jagdtigger]

14 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

The only question now is how long until Mozilla gets bought or shut down by them. 

Trying that would be a waste of time and money. Its open source so a new fork would appear immediately.....

[MoonSpot]

23 hours ago, rcmaehl said:

Internet service providers in the UK [have] nominated Mozilla for this year's award of "Internet Villain" because of the browser maker's plans to support the DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) protocol

I can see the 'sinister' folks volunteering their time at firefox while reading/receiving this news.

 

[Aimi]

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

Trying that would be a waste of time and money.

So in other words, exactly what the UK will try?

[Guest]

I had no idea there was even an association of ISPs, lol. Firefox is their villain, not everyone else's.

[RejZoR]

2 hours ago, Mihle said:

So:

Blocking because copyright infringement = Bad

But

Blocking because government says so = Good

 

I would expect either both of them to be true or neither of them, it being like that is weird.

Britain has been a meme of itself for quite a while now...

[Monkey Dust]

On 7/5/2019 at 3:03 PM, leadeater said:

The only way the Brits could get organized enough to actually Bexit is if they just say they have on the news then all proceed as if it were true, no one will notice either way.

We'd need a functional government to implement such a plan. Otherwise that is the kind of fuckwittery they might try.

[Anomnomnomaly]

Govt bodies... if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear from our blocking/monitoring of all your internet activity.

 

Me: If i've done nothing wrong, then there's NO REASON to be tracked, monitored and put up with censorship... and I WILL take any and all steps to protect my right to privacy. This includes using a VPN, HTTPS everywhere and now DNS over HTTPS.

 

I also use as DNS that does not track you in the first place... NEVER use the one your ISP assigns and NEVER use googles DNS.

 

It's your privacy... PROTECT IT AT ALL COSTS.

[suicidalfranco]

What is their solution going to be? ban the use of FF in the UK?

Can already see Scotland yard foaming from their mouths because there is no one to arrest

[Nowak]

You're doing something right when the authoritarians hate you.

[vanished]

Wow, well if there was any doubt that they were actually "internet villains" themselves, this should put that to bed.  Taking up opposition against a company that's well known to be in favour of privacy, freedom, openness, rights, etc. online and calling them out as going against your policies is just a fancy and highly effective way of making it clear that you're actually terrible. 

[Drak3]

55 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Wow, well if there was any doubt that they were actually "internet villains" themselves, this should put that to bed.  Taking up opposition against a company that's well known to be in favour of privacy, freedom, openness, rights, etc. online and calling them out as going against your policies is just a fancy and highly effective way of making it clear that you're actually terrible. 

Something something sounds like Fascism, you Nazi.

 

 

/s

[Thaldor]

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

No government is particularly good at internet law stuff.  It is a brand new mine field of issues largely made worse by ill informed and outspoken lobbyist.  And to top that off you can't even discuss it because people are so enraged at the big bad government for trying to deal with it (and keep everyone happy) that you just get labeled moron for even trying to be reasonable.

EU has shown to be quite good with it, even if quite often they get misunderstood and blown to whole new levels of extravagancy (mostly by Americans because law in EU isn't written with Crayons needing a lot of more laws to be written to make exceptions). Hell, they have kept UK with all of their mad ideas about "how to protect kids from the internet" in lease for quite some while (like the porn pass fiasco that UK tried first time around 2008(IIRC?) to get the whole EU commit to it, but they were laughed off because the whole idea is A) unmanageable B) too hard to implement right C) easily bypassed and D) stupid). EU has even shown that they actually know something about tech when they forced ISPs from collecting crazy amounts of money out of roaming data usage while traveling and stating that the internet access is a human right and enforcing that privacy is more important than corporate business (the GDPR and later basicly putting stop to copyright-trolling with a conviction that with only IP-address and some test pieces from a torrent companies aren't allowed to get user information from ISPs) and also enforcing net neutrality.

With that kind of track record I would say single countries should not try to make any kind of internet laws, ever. There should be maybe some global board or something far more bigger to make those guidelines and laws so that there would be less probability of silliness and corruption. And no, UN isn't a place for that, thanks for extremely stupid veto rights for certain countries which will never let each others ideas even to be considered. Just completely new organization where every country would be represented equally and helped by actually hired professionals (and I don't mean hired by tech companies, but by the organization so they would have the knowledge but no ties to the tech companies from which 80% will try to fuck everything up).

[Drak3]

24 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

There should be maybe some global board or something far more bigger to make those guidelines and laws so that there would be less probability of silliness and corruption.

No. Globalism of any form ignores the values of all cultures except the one in control, and large government attracts more corruption.

[mr moose]

39 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

EU has shown to be quite good with it, even if quite often they get misunderstood and blown to whole new levels of extravagancy (mostly by Americans because law in EU isn't written with Crayons needing a lot of more laws to be written to make exceptions). Hell, they have kept UK with all of their mad ideas about "how to protect kids from the internet" in lease for quite some while (like the porn pass fiasco that UK tried first time around 2008(IIRC?) to get the whole EU commit to it, but they were laughed off because the whole idea is A) unmanageable B) too hard to implement right C) easily bypassed and D) stupid). EU has even shown that they actually know something about tech when they forced ISPs from collecting crazy amounts of money out of roaming data usage while traveling and stating that the internet access is a human right and enforcing that privacy is more important than corporate business (the GDPR and later basicly putting stop to copyright-trolling with a conviction that with only IP-address and some test pieces from a torrent companies aren't allowed to get user information from ISPs) and also enforcing net neutrality.

With that kind of track record I would say single countries should not try to make any kind of internet laws, ever. There should be maybe some global board or something far more bigger to make those guidelines and laws so that there would be less probability of silliness and corruption. And no, UN isn't a place for that, thanks for extremely stupid veto rights for certain countries which will never let each others ideas even to be considered. Just completely new organization where every country would be represented equally and helped by actually hired professionals (and I don't mean hired by tech companies, but by the organization so they would have the knowledge but no ties to the tech companies from which 80% will try to fuck everything up).

I quite like the laws Australia is implementing and the jurisdiction the courts are holding over ISP and copyright interaction (and government).   They are grossly misunderstood.

 

I also dislike the "it's not 100% effective therefore pointless" arguments.  There is no place for them in any debate.  Anti vaxxers use them, they can be used to dismiss seat belts, so why would anyone think it is logical to use them to justify ignoring issues with the internet.

 

 

[Thaldor]

27 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

No. Globalism of any form ignores the values of all cultures except the one in control, and large government attracts more corruption.

Well, you are free to move to UK and (probably soon) buy your own porn pass, or Australia which is probably the first "western" country to ban E2E encryption (in a way), or take the wildcard China with it's great firewall and other great laws or even the North-Korea with it's completely own internet. Or then just US with it's "capitocracy" where companies are completely free to do what ever they find profitable, even if it would fuck up every user they have and those users couldn't even have any other option because monopoly.

 

Also there is this modern thing called "internet" that has greatly helped for governments to be more open about their decision making and who is lobbying who. It's extremely hard to be corrupt when every decision you make is free and open to be inspected by the public who can also see who has been lobbying you and in the most open countries public can even see how much money you have made in the past years and in which companies you have had or have decision making seat.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

Well, you are free to move to UK and (probably soon) buy your own porn pass, or Australia which is probably the first "western" country to ban E2E encryption, or take the wildcard China with it's great firewall and other great laws or even the North-Korea with it's completely own internet. Or then just US with it's "capitocracy" where companies are completely free to do what ever they find profitable, even if it would fuck up every user they have and those users couldn't even have any other option because monopoly.

 

Also there is this modern thing called "internet" that has greatly helped for governments to be more open about their decision making and who is lobbying who. It's extremely hard to be corrupt when every decision you make is free and open to be inspected by the public who can also see who has been lobbying you and in the most open countries public can even see how much money you have made in the past years and in which companies you have had or have decision making seat.

Australia hasn't banned e2e encryption, that is the grossly misunderstood part of he law.

 

 

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

Well, you are free to move to UK and (probably soon) buy your own porn pass, or Australia which is probably the first "western" country to ban E2E encryption,

You completely miss the point of what I'm saying. If this discussion were a game of baseball, you'd be at the public pool calling out 'Marco.'

[Thaldor]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I quite like the laws Australia is implementing and the jurisdiction the courts are holding over ISP and copyright interaction (and government).   They are grossly misunderstood.

 

I also dislike the "it's not 100% effective therefore pointless" arguments.  There is no place for them in any debate.  Anti vaxxers use them, they can be used to dismiss seat belts, so why would anyone think it is logical to use them to justify ignoring issues with the internet.

 

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Australia hasn't banned e2e encryption, that is the grossly misunderstood part of he law.

I edited that "in away" part because that law is quite a huge maybe for practical E2EE ban just because so much is written in "could have done" and so much is resting on one government official.

 

Nothing is ever 100% effective, but quite often when some internet laws pop up their effectiveness in scales of 10-30% (at most) and mostly that is the part of population which is completely tech illiterate and usually not even the part of population which the law should affect. Like the UKs porn pass which is bypassed so easily that when, at last, it comes every minor can bypass it without any problems and the ones who suffer from it are mostly a lot older people who have hard time even turning on a PC and even then probably only fraction of the internet really cares for that law and there will be porn available without the porn pass with only a single google search (there probably will be porn sites marketing that they can be accessed without the porn pass); And basicly so the whole porn pass is just wasting public funds for something that really couldn't work even in the beginning.

Don't take me wrong here. I do share the opinion that in quite many cases the "it's not 100% effective" argument is bad. I just draw the line probably around when the thing is at least 50-70% effective the argument is stupid, but when the thing is as effective as homeopathic medicine scientifically (if you trust in homeopathic treatment then this is very bad comparison and I apologise), it's quite a good argument.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

 

I edited that "in away" part because that law is quite a huge maybe for practical E2EE ban just because so much is written in "could have done" and so much is resting on one government official.

Nearly all law is written that way,  it is necessary or else you have to write further laws for all the legitimate exceptions.  However the Australian law has it specifically spelled out in a bout 5 different parts of the legislation that it must not prevent companies from implementing or improving any security/privacy measures in their products. I linked to and quoted these provisions quite extensively in other posts about that.

 

5 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

Nothing is ever 100% effective, but quite often when some internet laws pop up their effectiveness in scales of 10-30% (at most) and mostly that is the part of population which is completely tech illiterate and usually not even the part of population which the law should affect.

 

I am going to have to call those figures out, how do you know it's 30% at most.   most of the population don't even know what DNS is or how a Vpn works.  In fact i would argue that if you can't find it by typing it into google most of the population doesn't even know it exists.   I think a basic ISP block of porn sites probably has a higher than 60% effectiveness on pre teens (the ones who actually need to be protected).  Who cares if a 16 yo can bypass it (I highly doubt anyone bar a few religious zealots cares).

 

5 minutes ago, Thaldor said:

Like the UKs porn pass which is bypassed so easily that when, at last, it comes every minor can bypass it without any problems and the ones who suffer from it are mostly a lot older people who have hard time even turning on a PC and even then probably only fraction of the internet really cares for that law and there will be porn available without the porn pass with only a single google search (there probably will be porn sites marketing that they can be accessed without the porn pass); And basicly so the whole porn pass is just wasting public funds for something that really couldn't work even in the beginning.

Don't take me wrong here. I do share the opinion that in quite many cases the "it's not 100% effective" argument is bad. I just draw the line probably around when the thing is at least 50-70% effective the argument is stupid, but when the thing is as effective as homeopathic medicine scientifically (if you trust in homeopathic treatment then this is very bad comparison and I apologise), it's quite a good argument.

I don't think porn pass will be that ineffective (nothing is as ineffective as homeopathy ).  But i certainly think the age at which it becomes ineffective is moot because it is not really doing that much damage (that we know of).  Older people will know how to buy a porn pass, as a middle aged man who had to buy his porn from the local newsagent, this isn't actually a problem.  And anyone who thinks it is (IMPO) spoilt with modern technology and anonymity.

[Eaglerino]

imaging thinking free speech isn't safe

[XR6]

11 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Trying that would be a waste of time and money. Its open source so a new fork would appear immediately.....

Yeah but we're talking about British ISPs here, eventually they'll try to do whatever they can to shut Mozilla down.

They don't care that it's a waste of time and money, they're going to do it to "protect the children".

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, XR6 said:

Yeah but we're talking about British ISPs here, eventually they'll try to do whatever they can to shut Mozilla down.

They don't care that it's a waste of time and money, they're going to do it to "protect the children".

I can assure the bottom line means more than moral obligation.  "think of the children" is only a thing while it sells the product.

 

Another one of the ill desired side effects of social media is virtual signalling.  while it did exist before it is seriously more pronounced and effective now.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, Thaldor said:

Also there is this modern thing called "internet" that has greatly helped for governments to be more open about their decision making and who is lobbying who. It's extremely hard to be corrupt when every decision you make is free and open to be inspected by the public who can also see who has been lobbying you and in the most open countries public can even see how much money you have made in the past years and in which companies you have had or have decision making seat.

A rather amusing recent example of this was a scammer selling computer parts on TradeMe (our local ebay) but to do that you have to have a registered business with an address for that business (foreign seller requirement), but not just that also your personal name and address which in other countries that information is not public information so the scammer actually used their real name and real address which meant we found their Facebook account and basically everything about this person. The business address was fake, just some random address in a city here that was in no way possible to be that business.

 

I can understand why they thought they wouldn't get found because the country they live in also has public business records but does not allow free access to that extra information about the person who registered the business, you have to pay for access where as here it is free. They did need a legitimate address because documents etc are sent to it.

[vorticalbox]

On 7/5/2019 at 3:13 PM, Thaldor said:

For real, UK just leave already. Anything related to UK is just getting more and more silly and I fear the worlds #1 nanny country award is soon given to UK.

I wouldn't call us names we might get offended...