Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Great Firewall of UK Blocks Game Patch Because of Substring Matches

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the that'sextremely-stupid dept.

United Kingdom 270

Sockatume writes "Remember the fun of spurious substring matches, AKA the Scunthorpe problem? The UK's advanced 'intelligent' internet filters do. Supposedly the country's great new filtering regime has been blocking a patch for League of Legends because some of the filenames within it include the substring 'sex.' Add one to the list of embarrassing failures for the nation's new mosaic of opt-out censorship systems, which have proven themselves incapable of distinguishing between abusive sites and sites for abuse victims, or sites for pornography versus sites for sexual and gender minorities."

cancel ×

270 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (5, Interesting)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 8 months ago | (#46039431)

I do not understand. I just can not understand.

China is a communist country, a country in which the regime is NOT elected.

They have their "Great Firewall" in place in order to protect their totalitarian regime.

Why in the world the UK, with a supposedly "ELECTED" and "DEMOCRATIC" government, want to follow China in erecting their "Great Firewall" ??

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039445)

Same shit, different team.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (5, Insightful)

Cryacin (657549) | about 8 months ago | (#46039789)

In a word, control. It doesn't matter what flavour of politics you have, there are groups that want to control you, for your own good, of course. Some seek it to gain control as a dictator, but by far the most dangerous, are the ones that actually believe that their beliefs imposed upon society are for the betterment of society. Those are the ones who are stupid enough get their ambitions and capabilities mixed up.

The world will be destroyed with the best intentions at heart.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039841)

In a word, control.

The UK is a democracy. The problem is that the population elected the government themselves. You get what you elect.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (5, Informative)

msclrhd (1211086) | about 8 months ago | (#46040213)

Actually, the last election result was such that no party had enough votes to secure power. It was a hung parliament as a result (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010). The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed a Coalition, gaining the required combined majority to form a government.

Conservatives: 36.1%
Labour: 29%
Liberal Democrats: 23%

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (2)

monkeyhybrid (1677192) | about 8 months ago | (#46040471)

When you only get to vote for a government once every 4 years, a lot of shit can happen in the 4 years preceding the next opportunity to get them out of power. Most (all?) democracies really aren't very democratic at all when it comes down to it.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (0)

mlts (1038732) | about 8 months ago | (#46040229)

At least fixing a patch is a lot easier than trying to keep playing cat and mouse with the PLA:

1: Get a cryptographic hash of a file that is going to be installed and present on the user's system. A file necessary for game operation.

2: Encrypt patch with said hash as key, and a random salt/IV at the beginning of patch.

3: The patcher executable knows where to find the file and extract its hash, then uses said hash to decrypt everything.

4: The patcher executable, and just it is downloaded via HTTPS.

5: Problem solved, barring some cyphertext having words in it. The fix for that would be having part of the encryption process be encoding in a manner opposite of uuencode or MIME... instead, encoding without using human readable characters either in ASCII or Unicode. Of course, the downside is that the patch file just almost doubled in size due to this.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 8 months ago | (#46039455)

Because apparently if children see breasts, vaginas and penises, the whole fabric of British society will collapse.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (4, Informative)

Goose In Orbit (199293) | about 8 months ago | (#46039515)

Where the US leads, the UK inevitably follows...

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039557)

Say the word "nipple" to the average yank in games chat, gets usually a warning by yanky moderators... Even tho "ingame content is unrated".

Apparently Yanks don't have nipples.

One thing for sure, they sure don't have balls.. Other wise they would stand up and defend their constitution, but no they so far take it laying down for the past decade yet spout on forums about "one more straw and we will huff and puff... and eat more fries"

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (5, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 8 months ago | (#46039657)

It is unfair to paint all the "yanks" as ball-less.

Some of them still have their intact.

For example: Edward Snowden. That guy did what he had to do in order to dislodge enough information from the secretive (and apparently illegal) activities within the American government, and then revealed the information to the world.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (4, Insightful)

Cryacin (657549) | about 8 months ago | (#46039797)

And to such a great personal cost. Muchas Gracias indeed.

and Fox news (2)

goldcd (587052) | about 8 months ago | (#46039887)

wants to lynch him.
Maybe slightly off-topic, but the bit I could never quite understand in the States (and I accept you're a lovely bunch of people with differing views), was how the demographic allegiances are flipped related to pretty much the rest of the world.
Usual (for the rest of us) seems to be that the more affluent you become, the more right-wing your views - "I want to keep my money, not redistribute it to the proles"
The coasts of your country contribute the majority of tax-base to the country, and in return get the centre hoovering up the money whilst whining about 'big government'
Still, I can see the appeal of subsidized living and playing with an assault rifle in your 10-acre back-yard.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 8 months ago | (#46039665)

The US has a national censorship firewall? Since when?

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (5, Interesting)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 8 months ago | (#46039695)

What US has is not a "firewall" per se, but the effect would, at the end of the day, be similar.

By tapping into everybody's phone, email and whatnot, the US government is sending out a message to all (including the hundreds of millions of the American citizens) that they better be careful of what they wrote/talk (or even think), or they will be subject to very very close scrutiny.

Thus, what available in the USA is akin to "censorship via intimidation".

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 8 months ago | (#46039767)

You think those things are the same? Really?

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039829)

In the UK the Internet is being censored on a massive scale, they have to ask the government for permission to look at porn, and you can be arrested for insulting Islam or saying something racist. Don't pretend that the US even remotely close to the same.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (4, Funny)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | about 8 months ago | (#46039575)

You know your post will never make it through to the Brits, right?

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039589)

Because apparently if children see female breasts, vaginas and penises, the whole fabric of British society will collapse.

FTFY.

Male breasts are usually considered OK.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about 8 months ago | (#46039877)

I'm betting its a little more in detail then just images of genitalia as you would have us believe.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039491)

Must be a Windows Executable


Oh no!!!

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (2)

frisket (149522) | about 8 months ago | (#46039585)

Don't even get me started about trying to email a customer about their MSEXCHANGE domain...

--
How do we persuade new users that spreading fonts across the page like peanut butter across hot toast is not necessarily the route to typographic excellence?

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (3, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | about 8 months ago | (#46039809)

So the brits won't be able to access expertsexchange.com and pay to copy and paste code anymore?

And Nothing of Value Was Lost (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 8 months ago | (#46040323)

ExpertSexChange requires a paid membership anyway.

Re:And Nothing of Value Was Lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46040517)

that is what he/she/it said...

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (1)

manu144x (3377615) | about 8 months ago | (#46039499)

Since when is the queen elected? Last time I checked she became a queen by simply being born.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039601)

Last time I checked the monarch doesn't propose nor enact legislation.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039503)

They have their "Great Firewall" in place in order to protect their totalitarian regime.

The secondary benefit is to ruin people's lives and remove their rights.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (2)

mlgunner (219100) | about 8 months ago | (#46039541)

1. Elected by who exactly?
2. Democratic just means the lowest common denominator, the tyranny of the majority, and you can convince 50.1% of the people of almost anything long enough to get elected.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (2)

Xaedalus (1192463) | about 8 months ago | (#46039731)

In China, it's done in name of protecting the national harmony. In the UK, it's done in name of protecting the children. Either way, you've got millions of people who absolutely believe and support in this. They are the majority (and always will be).

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (2, Insightful)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 8 months ago | (#46039737)

Why in the world the UK, with a supposedly "ELECTED" and "DEMOCRATIC" government, want to follow China in erecting their "Great Firewall" ??

Why the "supposedly"? Do you have evidence that the UK's election results were not legitimate?

The British government is enacting this censorship policy with the full support of millions and millions of people who don't post on Slashdot.

I certainly don't support the filtering, but the fact that it's opt-out makes it VERY different from China's firewall.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (2)

GumphMaster (772693) | about 8 months ago | (#46040113)

The British government is enacting this censorship policy with the full support of millions and millions of people who don't post on Slashdot.

Quite possibly (almost certainly the bit about Slashdot), but they do not necessarily provide a majority with "full support" for the policy. The UK has voluntary voting. Only 65.1% of eligible voters voted in the 2010 election. Outright you can say the 44.9% non-voters are indifferent to the policy. If only 5.1% of the voters voted against this policy, or voted for it only because of other issues, then the majority of voters do not provide "full support" for it. There is no way to know for sure. Anyway, that's the electoral process they have, and the Government of the day sets the policy regardless of promises or actual majorities.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 8 months ago | (#46039787)

Wait until the Great Firewall of The United States, as carried out by business interests now that Net Neutrality is all but dead.

This site has been blocked by your content provider. If you feel this is in error, it is you who are terribly, terribly wrong.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (5, Informative)

91degrees (207121) | about 8 months ago | (#46039815)

Well, part of the problem is that most of what you read about the "UK porn filter" is bollocks.

Firstly, it's not a government filter. The only government involvement was the Prime Minister pressuring the ISPs to offer it.

Secondly it's entirely voluntary. It's not even "opt-out". You have to make an actual choice whether to enable it or not during setup.

China, on the other hand, has a mandatory government imposed filter.

I'm sure you can see the difference.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (4, Interesting)

pavon (30274) | about 8 months ago | (#46040351)

Secondly it's entirely voluntary. It's not even "opt-out". You have to make an actual choice whether to enable it or not during setup.

Not for long: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar... [wired.co.uk]

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 8 months ago | (#46040501)

Nope. Still going to be active choice. That article is based on what the government asked for, not what the ISPs actually agreed to.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (3, Informative)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 8 months ago | (#46039901)

They have elections in China.....
They just do not have official political parties, like many other democracies.

China is also mostly Capitalistic...

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 8 months ago | (#46039903)

I'm guessing it's one of those things where someone is getting a big fat government contract that they bribed the government into giving them. It's just insult to injury that not only are they taking tax dollars, but they're harming citizens to do so. If it were just wasteful spending, that would be bad enough, but wasteful spending taking away nudity is just rude.

This is my major beef with the Iraq war. Military industrial complex, next time just have the president and congress write you a big check and shake hands and then spend it. No need to actually start a war with real people dying. Plus then it would be all profit. Safer and more efficient, it's a win-win.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 8 months ago | (#46039991)

I'm guessing it's one of those things where someone is getting a big fat government contract that they bribed the government into giving them.

Since the ISPs are implementing this without any government funding, your guess is wildly wrong.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 8 months ago | (#46039945)

Why in the world the UK, with a supposedly "ELECTED" and "DEMOCRATIC" government, want to follow China in erecting their "Great Firewall" ??

Careful with that word: your message may be blocked by UK 'inteligent' filters.
Not because of the critique implied by your message, it happened [bbc.co.uk] before.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (5, Insightful)

Immerman (2627577) | about 8 months ago | (#46039977)

Democracy is orthogonal to communism. One is a type of government, while the other a type of economy. You can have a democratic communist country, just as you can have a totalitarian capitalist economy. The fact that we have had so many totalitarian "communist" countries is simply because waving a "communist" flag is a great way to attract the downtrodden masses to support your overthrow of the current regime.

In no sane sense can China actually be considered communist, even ignoring the capitalistic reforms they've been experimenting with. From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs, right? That's not particularly compatible with a group of elites that are radically wealthier than the general populace. From wikipedia

Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a classless, moneyless,[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production

Ergo, if you have a ruling class it's not communism.

In fact arguably the single core tenant of communism is communal ownership of the means of production - and the only way government ownership is compatible with that ideal is if the people own the government. And so far democracy is the only model that even attempts that, for all that it usually fails badly in its efforts. Therefore, a strong democracy is a necessary precursor for communism.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46040043)

The vast majority of the English are very docile and subservient because most of the people with the ambition to be more than just serfs left the country approximately 220 years ago. However, the ruling class in England has been very generous and given the cowardly serfs far more than they deserve.

It's unfortunate, but Germany and France are the only modern European countries that deserve any respect.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46040175)

Your comment is now cencored in the UK due to the word 'erect'.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46040301)

Why in the world the UK, with a supposedly "ELECTED" and "DEMOCRATIC" government, want to follow China in erecting their "Great Firewall" ??

Because the people who are proponents of such systems were elected. I wouldn't go as far as to call the UK's election system democratic though.

Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 8 months ago | (#46040381)

Same reason. Since the UK politicians can be voted out of office, they have even more reason to defend themselves.

Along with anyone who lives in Essex (5, Funny)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | about 8 months ago | (#46039435)

Or Sussex, or who is researching Wessex.

Re:Along with anyone who lives in Essex (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | about 8 months ago | (#46039493)

Just goes to show that most of the time when management types start talking about "smart" software, it's just as bloody-minded and primitive as ever. Software is software is software, at least until someone invents strong AI.

Re:Along with anyone who lives in Essex (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039521)

Or perhaps they have friends overseas with kids who play for the Butte County High School Butte Pirates [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Along with anyone who lives in Essex (1)

Livius (318358) | about 8 months ago | (#46039863)

And medical schools and all sorts of vital public health information...

Wow, that's embarassing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039441)

Getting caught playing LoL? Their faces must be red.

Is it really that sensitive? (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 months ago | (#46039449)

How sensitive is this filter really? How does it affect the residents of Sussex [wikipedia.org]

Re:Is it really that sensitive? (2)

dkf (304284) | about 8 months ago | (#46039641)

How sensitive is this filter really? How does it affect the residents of Sussex [wikipedia.org]

What about Scunthorpe [wikipedia.org] and Penistone [wikipedia.org] , hmmm?

Re:Is it really that sensitive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039715)

I wander if this great censorship epidemic will bring an end to cuisines like spotted dick [wikipedia.org]

And maybe sextants are already filtered too?

Uh oh (5, Funny)

Antipater (2053064) | about 8 months ago | (#46039457)

Across the UK, kids are running to their parents crying "the porn filter won't let me play my video game!" This might actually increase support for the firewall...

Re:Uh oh (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039599)

Worse, this is for LoL. If the little MOBA tykes get worked up over things like this and step outside for the first time in their lives, we might have hordes of twitching kids shouting obscenities at anyone who doesn't twitch at the exact same frequency as they do, and also they'll smell bad.

Re:Uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039989)

It's like some kind of self-selecting exile from civilization.

Re:Uh oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039667)

Across the UK, kids are running to their parents crying "the porn filter won't let me play my video game!" This might actually increase support for the firewall...

You don't have children, do you? The video game gives you a whole moment of hearing your own thoughts...

Think of the children! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039463)

Seeing "sex" in a url, what a horrible experience.

new trove clients taking photon showers together (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039501)

wearing google glasses? this is crazy? no wonder us hobbyist whiners seem innocuous

Reminds me of... (3, Insightful)

rock_climbing_guy (630276) | about 8 months ago | (#46039547)

This reminds me of the story I read in a /. comment about an overzealous filter that wouldn't let people at his office visit any URL with "sex" in it. There was a problem because they were using expertsexchange.com

Re:Reminds me of... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039603)

Why would anyone be going to ExpertSexChange.com at work?

Re:Reminds me of... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039655)

Congratulations on making a joke that's so old the company changed their domain to experts-exchange years ago and let the old one expire. You are indeed on the cutting edge of wit. Have you heard about Pen Island? I hear they have a humorous domain too.

Re:Reminds me of... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039793)

I'd pretty much forgotten about experts exchange... they must hate stackoverflow.

Old Blighty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039571)

is now not much better than China and our Chinese cousins what with their bloody great firewall. Who would have thought it would come to this?

There will be thousands ringing up their ISPs when they cannot check the local games at MiddleSEX, SEXton, or, even better, Titty-Ho. Those people will shortly be removed from official maps so as to not offend their neighbours.

Wankers.

the whole thing seems misguided (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039579)

all the worst pictures and content you see isn't stuff you seek out on porn sites, its the random crap someone links you while playing any online game.

Wrong name? (4, Insightful)

GameMaster (148118) | about 8 months ago | (#46039587)

Really, "Great Firewall of UK" is clumsy and doesn't doesn't make much sense in context. Perhaps we should call it "Hadrian's Firewall"?

Re:Wrong name? (1)

bruce_the_loon (856617) | about 8 months ago | (#46039791)

Nah, no Roman would ever condone blocking sex in any form. It was their national past-time.

Re:Wrong name? (1)

PhxBlue (562201) | about 8 months ago | (#46040357)

You're not kidding. "Orgy planner" was a valid career option [amazon.co.uk] in the days of Rome.

hardware.jpg (1)

Ken D (100098) | about 8 months ago | (#46039593)

Ah, reminds me when the slashdot had a "bolt" icon for the hardware posts and were blocked by a filter... because any internet image with "hard" in it was obviously porn.

Experts Exchange (1)

BenJeremy (181303) | about 8 months ago | (#46039605)

Reminds me of a time when I went to access expertsexchange.com on the job, to get a quick solution to a coding issue I was having, back around 2000... the web filter classified it as "sexually oriented" and it took me a minute to realize how the name had parsed out.

You can now get to the site via experts-exchange.com, though it is far less useful these days.

Verizon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039613)

When I went to register my username/email address for new Verizon FiOS service, I wasn't allowed to use my own legal name, solely because my last name contains the substring "noc". When they first told me, I jokingly said... "You have a lot of customers running a network operation center out of their home?", to which the sales tech answered, "Whew! I'm glad you understand what that is, because I wasn't sure how I was going to explain it."

Not just Verizon (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 8 months ago | (#46040225)

Pity the poor guy named A. D. Mindell who wants to use his real name on a Dell-oriented forum, but they don't allow spaces or punctuation.

opt-out censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039649)

As I understand it, the porn filtering is opt-out, but the censorship system isn't, as all packets are still routed through the same routers, inspected and possibly manipulated. Or are they?

Also is porn surfing over https possible? I'm no UK citizen, so I'm unable to look myself.

wtf are "gender minorities"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039679)

wtf are "gender minorities"?

Re:wtf are "gender minorities"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039937)

Gay, transgender, transsexual, bi-sexual.
It's the new euphemism for "not-hetero".

Simple (2)

nobuddy (952985) | about 8 months ago | (#46040103)

Anyone who is not male or female.

Attack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039681)

Maybe people should just launch an attack against the greak UK firewall, and be done with it.

Does anybody know where the filtering takes place? Building?

Censorship is tyranny by definition. (5, Insightful)

mlgunner (219100) | about 8 months ago | (#46039689)

When ever you have people making decisions for the "greater good", they end up making those decisions for their own greater good. So it doesn't matter in the long run what they are censoring, the act of Law in doing so is the objective. The fact that it is not doing what was intended doesn't matter, it just means the censorship must be "refined", and the filters need to be "fixed".
Liberty would mean removal of the filters and government intervention from an act of free will, i.e. looking at sexual content on line for example, and an act of responsibility from people, i.e. monitoring their children's internet access. This will never do for Big Government tyrants, because this would imply that people actually have their own freedoms that are not "given" to them by the government, and their free will and responsibility is more important than the governments ability to intervene.

People in Essex County (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039697)

might be a bit upset about dumb filters like this.

The most egregious example of this problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039699)

...would have to be Nintendo/GameFreak's profanity filtering for online submission of Pokemon battles.

The filter prevents battles from being submitted where one of the monsters' nicknames contains a profanity. Makes sense, probably wise. But it also prevents battles from being submitted containing a certain non-nicknamed monster [bulbagarden.net] (give it a nickname, and it'll go on straight through). I mean, how do you not have a whitelist for something like that?

Re:The most egregious example of this problem... (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 8 months ago | (#46039957)

I don't get it, how is Froslass profanity?

Re:The most egregious example of this problem... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039993)

ass

Re:The most egregious example of this problem... (3, Informative)

c0lo (1497653) | about 8 months ago | (#46040131)

I don't get it, how is Froslbutt profanity?

FTFY... [telegraph.co.uk] Also fixed in the past: President Abraham Lincoln was buttbuttinated by an armed buttailant after a life devoted to the reform of the US consbreastution

Blocked Summary (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 8 months ago | (#46039703)

from the that'sextremely-stupid dept.

Sorry, but we found the word 'sex' on this webpage, so we're going to have to block it.

Again, dreadfully sorry about all that.

Sincerely.
Her Majesty's Nanny-State

Morons are attracted to this type of work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039763)

Only the most mediocre of engineers is interested in this type of work, this is why it seems to be authored by morons who introduce brain-dead heuristics that a child could anticipate problems with and avoid.

Censorship is easy (3, Insightful)

hawguy (1600213) | about 8 months ago | (#46039825)

It's a good thing that there's no way to advertise a porn site with obvious keywords like Porn or Sex. In Britain, users should only be able to see safe sites featuring things like tasty Cream Pies and beautiful Pearl Necklaces and innocent Rimming sites to teach kids how to enjoy decorative rims. It's easy to filter out the bad stuff by looking for the obvious bad words.

Hysteria from the Guardian (5, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | about 8 months ago | (#46039849)

There's really no evidence that this is the case. Just speculation. PC Pro actually did some journalism and found that the actual ISPs had received no complaints [pcpro.co.uk]

So the Guardian is doing the Daily Mail thing of nabbing articles from reddit, and accepting them at face value without any actual research. No wonder traditional newspapers are dying.

What about sextants? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46039933)

So no more history of navigation classes, I would suppose.

gender minority? (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 8 months ago | (#46039965)

Gender minority? Since there's 2 genders and the minority is very slightly men (49/51-ish) that would be minority not minorities. Also nobody considers it one.
Anyway, do they have an inline word-destroying filter like some awful 90's filter instead of a point system with an all or nothing blocker? What cheap ass software suite are they even running?
Although, uncompressed and unencrypted plain text in patch file that contain vulgar words is a bit dumb on the developers' part. They shouldn't have allowed something like that to go out because it damn sure wasn't on accident.

Re:gender minority? (2)

91degrees (207121) | about 8 months ago | (#46040197)

Gender minority? Since there's 2 genders and the minority is very slightly men (49/51-ish) that would be minority not minorities.

They mean transgender people.

Anyway, do they have an inline word-destroying filter like some awful 90's filter instead of a point system with an all or nothing blocker?

No. The article is reporting informal speculation and wild guesswork by some LoL fans as verified truth. The ISPs have reported no complaints, and say their filters don't work that way, so it's probably a completely different issue, maybe even from software installed locally.

Re:gender minority? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46040221)

Although, uncompressed and unencrypted plain text in patch file that contain vulgar words is a bit dumb on the developers' part. They shouldn't have allowed something like that to go out because it damn sure wasn't on accident.

Assuming the filter is looking for case-insensitive matches, and pretty much random data (result of compression and/or encryption), any particular four-letter dirty word will show up by chance on average once per 256 MB of data, and a three-letter word in every 2MB. In Base64-encoded data, any particular four-letter work willl show up on average once per MB.

What about the gender-indeterminate?? (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 8 months ago | (#46040297)

At probably less than 1% of the population, people with chromosomes other than XY or XX are the real gender minorities.

Them and people whose reproductive biology is neither clearly male nor clearly female and people whose biology is clearly one gender but their chromosomes are the other gender.

These are the real gender minorities.

Googlebomb Cameron (3, Funny)

sir_eccles (1235902) | about 8 months ago | (#46039985)

Associate it with something "naughty" (ala Santorum) and demand it be added to the filter for the sake of the children and voila slowly but surely Cameron will be filtered out of UK life.

The 20th century called (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 8 months ago | (#46040147)

They want their mushrooms [merriam-webster.com] back.

This is a clbuttic mistake (5, Funny)

Minwee (522556) | about 8 months ago | (#46040193)

It happens when you buttume that doing a mbutt replacement of strings consbreastutes a good plan, when it's really just a reRichardulous buttbuttination of words.

It's somewhere between buttstounding and buttinine.

Call it mean... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46040271)

But I still think it would be a better idea to stop the British from reproducing.

Don't want their idiotic morals and ideas infecting the rest of the world now, do we?

"sexual and gender minorities" - LOL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46040281)

That's Jewspeak for "sick, depraved perverts"...

Great Tits Like Coconuts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46040291)

There, I've always wanted to make a valuable contribution to a porn filtering debate!

And Blue Tits in the cold........ (Ever seen pictures of the little things pecking the tops of milk bottles?)

Oooohhh!!! Missus!!!!

Yes, in the days of the AOL NannyFilter, ornithologists used to have problems too. Nothing changes!

The lure of the passive voice (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about 8 months ago | (#46040403)

“Sadly there is no silver bullet when it comes to internet safety and we have always been clear that no solution can ever be 100 per cent. It requires all of us to play our part,” said TalkTalk spokesperson to PinkNews.

Mistakes were made.... but not by us. It's your fault we had to censor you!

High time for naming reforms (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46040439)

I always considered names like Essex, Sussex, Middlesex (really!) ridiculous. It's great that this kind of nonsense will get wiped off the Internet. And it's entirely satisfactory that Analysis will revert to be counted among the forbidden arts.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>