UK Internet Blacklist Censors Fileserve File-Hosting Service

Ernesto
November 18, 2011
114
Censorship,
fileserve,
iwf
Print

UK users of the popular Fileserve file-hosting service are currently unable to download any files as the site is being blocked by the Internet Watch Foundation. Since early this week the blacklist, which aims to disable access to sexual child abuse content, has been preventing users from accessing their personal files and downloading those uploaded by others. Fileserve expects the issue to persist for at least a couple of days.

iwf With hundreds of millions of page views each month, Fileserve is listed among the 10 most-visited file-sharing sites on the Internet. The site allows users to store files in the cloud for personal use or subsequent sharing with the rest of the world.

For the past several days, however, many Fileserve users from the UK have noticed they are unable to download files to their computers using the service.

Initially, users got a standard error message that the download could not be completed, but yesterday users got an updated message telling them that their downloads are being blocked by the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF).

Internet Watch Foundation is a self-regulatory body that maintains a list of URLs that point to sexual child abuse and criminally obscene adult content. This list is used by all major UK Internet providers to prevent their subscribers from accessing these files. Unfortunately, however, the blacklist sometimes takes out legitimate services as well.

Fileserve users who try to download a file now see the following message which suggests that upgrading to a premium account will solve the problem, but TorrentFreak has learned that this is not the case. Premium users are also blocked.

Commenting on the issue, Fileserve confirms that a recent addition to the IWF blacklist is indeed causing problems for UK users. Although Fileserve expects that it will be eventually resolved, the file-hoster doesn’t think this will happen on short notice.

“Once again IWF has put Fileserve into watch list until further investigation from their side is done. It is not expected to be lifted within the next few days. IWF for UK is being very thorough in filtering Fileserve users,” the file-hoster informed one of their users.

“Please be reminded that it is not our will to have our UK users suffer from this, our Tech team are now looking into possible solution in getting around this IWF issue,” they added.

At this point little is known about the origin of the problem. It is clear that IWF has started to block one or more Fileserve URLs, but why all downloads are affected remains unknown. This is not the first time that the IWF blacklist has rendered legitimate content unavailable though.

In 2008 the blacklist censored the Wikipedia entry for the album “The Virgin Killer” from the German band Scorpions. This page was reported to IWF by a member of the public, and only after Wikipedia appealed twice did the IWF board decide to take it off the list.

Early January 2009 Archive.org’s Wayback Machine was entirely blocked by a UK ISP because one of the pages was listed on the IWF blacklist. This time the problem was due to conflicting incoming headers at Archive.org, beyond the control of IWF or the ISP.

The above suggests that Fileserve’s problems don’t necessarily have to result from a reconfigured blacklist.

In a week where Internet Censorship is a hot topic, the above is yet another reason why baking censorship tools into law has to be done wisely. In the case of Fileserve the IWF blacklist has rendered their site completely unusable to hundreds of thousands of UK users, something that may cost them if the problem persists.

TorrentFreak contacted the Internet Watch Foundation for a comment, and we will update this article when a response comes in.

Update: IWF confirmed to TorrentFreak that they added a single URL of Fileserve to their list, not the entire domain.

“We received a report of child sexual abuse content hosted on a Fileserve URL which was assessed as criminal under UK law. It is not uncommon to see child sexual abuse content hosted on legitimate cloud storage sites, in our most recent Annual Report we identified this trend as increasing. Our members Virgin Media have been investigating an issue regarding a Fileserve splash page message, the IWF have no control over any of the messages provided by Fileserve,” we were told.

Previous Post | Next Post

Follow @torrentfreak

Realizer

Fileserver is a legitimate business? Grow up. Look at your own screenshot. The whole site is about earning money.
- Guest
  
  So a business is only “legitimate” in your eyes if it’s free? All businesses make money – they HAVE to – that’s what a “business” is dipshit. There’s plenty of legal content on Fileserve, not all of it is copyrighted, as with all other free filehosts.
  - Guest
    
    No. A business is legitimate only if the corporate entertainment parasites say it is and this regardless if the business is free or not.
    
    Let’s kill them all!
    - http://tinyurl.com/profit-robot Morgan Johanson
      
      Let’s not get to crazy. Maybe out back to the wood shed for a strapping might be better.
  - Pelouze
    
    The copyright material on cyberlockers like Fileserve vastly outweighs the legitimate material.
    
    The business model is based on sharing copyrighted material and a legal loophole….always has been.
    - Ursaring93
      
      That not true it’s just that you can’t see most of the “legitimate material” because most of it is for private use only.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “The copyright material on cyberlockers like Fileserve vastly outweighs the legitimate material.”
      
      Legitimate? Wheter or not material is coyrighted does not determines if it’s illegitimate?
      
      Cyberlocker’s work 100% within the law, and therefore 100% of the material is legitimate, regardless of if it’s copyrighted or not.
      
      If you have a different definition of legitimate, such as based on what you personally subjectively believe is ok, that’s the same thing as saying you don’t care about what the law says, but instead your personal desire is the reference point which everything should circle around. Another word for that is megalomania.
      
      > “The business model is based on sharing copyrighted material..”
      
      The business model works in one single manner, regardless of if any of the files are copyrighted or not, therefore the business model can not be based on sharing a certain type of material.
      
      > “..and a legal loophole….always has been.”
      
      Such as VCR’s, double cassette tape decks or libraries? The fact that a service or product is mainly used with copyrighted material, does in no way mean that the legality of such service or product is based on a legal loophole.
      
      Cyberlockers can’t work in any other way than how they work today, since it’s impossible for them to verify whether or not a person uploading a copyrighted file has the legal right to do so, or if the link is publicly available, or if it’s private just available to a few people, which has a legal right to upload and download the files.
      
      It’s not a legal loophole, it’s the way Cyberlocker’s have to work, the courts have already put their foot down on that particular point, that it’s unreasonable to demand that they operate in any other way, besides responding to take down notices, and there’s nothing illegitimate with it.
      
      The fact that you, who obviously has no deeper understanding for the judicial system and why certain prohibitions are unreasonable to put in legislation, claims something in the opposite direction of experienced courts and unbiased legal experts, that really doesn’t make something a legal loophole or illegitimate.
    - Anon
      
      Pay no attention to Fredrika. She has no interest nor use for the facts of anything. Let her redefine what she wants and believe as she wishes. She’s harmless and utterly ineffective that way. :-)
    - Guest
      
      @ Anon (and Pelouze)
      
      Same as yourselves then.
    - Scary Devil Monastery
      
      As usual a straw man argument – take note that the article isn’t mentioning copyright. What it says is that a self-regulatory NGO is depriving massive numbers of consumers from accessing their own content. Without any form of explanation.
      
      In real life the relevant comparison would be that you woke up one morning just to find that the road outside your house had been removed and the bus lines shut down.
      
      Without any explanation other than a vague indication that some of your neighbors might have engaged in a DUI.
- Anonymous
  
  Why does enabling people to earn money prevent a business from being ligitimate?
  - Pelouze
    
    What, legitimate like a chop shop, or vendor of counterfeit goods ?
    - Fredrika
      
      Your confused response has no relevance to the previous post or the argumentative thread that it follows.
      
      The initial post incorrectly claims that Fileserve is illegitimate because it is a company with intent to profit.
      
      The second post that you answered to responds to that erroneous objection with the question why “enabling people to earn money prevent a business from being ligitimate?”
      
      The answer is, it doesn’t. The initial poster is simply incorrect.
      
      Then you object with an illogical comparison to two other forms of operations, that are illegitimate and illegal not because they intent to profit, but because they are breaking the law, which Fileserve in return is not doing.
      
      Is it completely impossible for you to stick to the actual subject and follow an argumentative thread, without resorting to illogical Ad hominen-rhetoric’s, and guilt by association arguments?
    - Scary Devil Monastery
      
      “What, legitimate like a car salesman, or vendor of screwdrivers ?”
      
      Just thought I’d fix that sentence for you. Of course, according to your arguments we should hold Ford responsible for rising crime since they manufacture so many getaway vehicles.
  - Misterpopo70
    
    go try http://www.deviloid.net for your 0 dayz porn !
- Guest
  
  That’s what businesses do…earn money.
  Maybe your idea of a business is Oxfam.
  Maybe you have no idea, whatsoever, of what you’re smoking.
- Anonymous
  
  FileServe and most other cyberlockers do provide free downloads for all files for all people. Their premium service is for heavy users who want very fast downloads and good online storage to upload.
  
  Also since they follow DMCA law including take-down requests they are fully lawful. I would like to hear why a lawful business cannot aim to profit which would certainly help their huge storage costs and massive bandwidth bills.
  - Pelouze
    
    They don’t follow DMCA lawfully. One part of the DMCA is to remove other infringing material of the complainant when notified in the original DMCA. They don’t do this.
    
    Also, they will keep a master file of the material. That’s hardly removing the material from their servers is it ?
    - Fredrika
      
      > “They don’t follow DMCA lawfully.”
      
      You accuse me of not sticking to the actual facts, yet it’s you who’s continuously spreading out right lies!?
      
      Can you show a precedent court ruling from a higher court in Hong Kong that says cyberlockers located in Hong Kong, such as Fileserve, must follow DMCA takedown notices in that manner, to be considered lawful according to Hong Kong law?
      
      No you can not. So your accusation of Fileserve’s not following DMCA lawfully is again another one of your lies.
      
      > “One part of the DMCA is to remove other infringing material of the complainant when notified in the original DMCA. They don’t do this.”
      
      Which is irrelevant, since exact DMCA rules is something only relevant for North American based companies.
      
      > “Also, they will keep a master file of the material. That’s hardly removing the material from their servers is it ?”
      
      You claim to have knowledge about about what Fileserve does behind closed doors? However, there’s nothing illegal according to the relevant legislation with keeping one of their own physical copies, that Fileserve owns. You again seem to have seriously misunderstood what copyright legislation controls. It controls manufacturing and distribution of copies. It does not forbid continued ownership or possession of already existing copies.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “They don’t follow DMCA lawfully.”
      
      You accuse me of not sticking to the actual facts, yet it’s you who’s continuously spreading out right lies!?
      
      Can you show a precedent court ruling from a higher court in Hong Kong that says cyberlockers located in Hong Kong, such as Fileserve, must follow DMCA takedown notices in that manner, to be considered lawful according to Hong Kong law?
      
      No you can not. So your accusation of Fileserve’s not following DMCA lawfully is again another one of your lies.
      
      > “One part of the DMCA is to remove other infringing material of the complainant when notified in the original DMCA. They don’t do this.”
      
      Which is irrelevant, since exact DMCA rules is something only relevant for North American based companies.
      
      > “Also, they will keep a master file of the material. That’s hardly removing the material from their servers is it ?”
      
      You claim to have knowledge about about what Fileserve does behind closed doors? However, there’s nothing illegal according to the relevant legislation with keeping one of their own physical copies, that Fileserve owns. You again seem to have seriously misunderstood what copyright legislation controls. It controls manufacturing and distribution of copies. It does not forbid continued ownership or possession of already existing copies.
    - Pelouze
      
      To Fredrika.
      
      Doesn’t seem like you know how Filelockers operate at all. Not the business model (which benefit greatly from a loophole) but the basic profit structure and what they allow their uploaders to do.
    - Fredrika
      
      > “Doesn’t seem like you know how Filelockers operate at all. Not the business model (which benefit greatly from a loophole) but the basic profit structure and what they allow their uploaders to do.”
      
      I know very well how they work, and that does not change the facts that your previous claim about what is unlawful is entirety incorrect as it was written?
      
      Filelockers, such as Fileserve, operate within the relevant laws. They are considered legal. No higher court has decided in a precedent sentencing that their operations is unlawful. Can you get this through your head? Your personal subjective opinion about filelockers, or that this is the result of a legal loophole is completely irrelevant for what’s illegal.
      
      As i explained yesterday, the courts have already put their foot down and decided that’s it’s unreasonable to legislatively demand that filelockers operate in any other manner that how they do today. It’s therefore not a legal loophole, but it’s the way the law is drafted, and there’s nothing illegitimate with it.
      
      There’s nothing wrong with profiting from offering services or products that rely on user controlled and initiated use of copyrighted material, even infringing such, as with selling VCR’s or double cassette tape decks, or operating bitlockers. This was decided by society and the courts over 30 years ago.
    - Amir Ahmad
      
      They don’t do this.
      
      Errr. They do.
      
      Also, they will keep a master file of the material. That’s hardly removing the material from their servers is it ?
      You’re confusing them with megaupload, who are the only ones who do that.
    - Guest
      
      Given that a certain studio has admitted to deleting files to which they had no rights to delete (some were even freeware), it seems prudent to make backup copies of everything. Call it a mistake, call it vandalism, call it overzealousness, call it what you want, but many people depend on the cloud to keep backup copies safe (eg., you can make as many backups as you like…but one house fire and you have NOTHING except ash).
      
      Backups exist for a purpose. To safeguard data.
      
      Put Luddites like you in control we would be back to the stone age in 2 years.
    - Anonymous
      
      I have seen FileServe take-down hundreds if not thousands of files on copyright holder request. They may be in Hong Kong but to not follow DMCA law would hardly make them seen as a lawful business.
      
      Your complaint may be use of take-down requests in invalid formats, not stating the URL of the infringing file or not including proof of ownership.
    - Anonymous
      
      You claim lots of things yet i do not see any proof. You say they are outside of the law, yet the police think they are ok. Show me your proof of faul play and go to the police. When a JUDGE convicts them on it, than they are guilty. Not before. But when they would win that case i hope they burn your ass for your slander and false accusations.
    - Pelouze
      
      Why is it that after a few posts, all the reply buttons get pushed off the side of the page and you have to reply to yourself rather than the poster ?
      
      When any of you have to send DMCA’s and new links for exactly the same material reappear within minutes of receiving a filelockers “removal confirmation” then you’ll have an idea as to what’s happening. We’re not talking about 1 file here, you can DMCA 100 400mb files and as soon as you get the confirmation, they’re are back up with new links.
      
      Amir. Thats not true that megaupload are the only ones who do it. Filesonic, Wupload (same people) Oron.
      
      The masterfile exists so an uploader can quickly obtain new links and continue to make money. Its not for data backup or safety. Why would a file locker think its prudent to keep a back-up of an unreleased movie like “Thor” ?
    - Fredrika
      
      > “Why is it that after a few posts, all the reply buttons get pushed off the side of the page and you have to reply to yourself rather than the poster ?”
      
      You don’t have to reply to yourself. You can reply to the correct post through the Disqus Dashboard.
      
      > “When any of you have to send DMCA’s and new links for exactly the same material reappear within minutes of receiving a filelockers “removal confirmation” then you’ll have an idea as to what’s happening. We’re not talking about 1 file here, you can DMCA 100 400mb files and as soon as you get the confirmation, they’re are back up with new links.”
      
      Yes? What weird with that? If one link goes down, an uploader uploads the file again, which takes him a few seconds? Again, this does not make the Cyberlocker’s operation illegal, which was what your initial clueless post stated.
      
      > “Thats not true that megaupload are the only ones who do it. Filesonic, Wupload (same people) Oron.”
      
      As has been explained to you several times, obviously filelockers keep their own physical copy(that they own) as a backup? If they get counter sued by a uploader who claims to have had his upload file incorrectly removed, they must have a copy?
      
      > “The masterfile exists so an uploader can quickly obtain new links and continue to make money. Its not for data backup or safety. Why would a file locker think its prudent to keep a back-up of an unreleased movie like “Thor” ?”
      
      You accuse me of not knowing how filelockers operate, yet it’s you who seem to believe that they verify what every single file, that’s get a take down notice, contains?
      
      Secondly, again, what do you actually know about what they keep backup’s of? Reading your latest comment it’s clear that everything you claimed about filelockers is based on your guesses, and they are not that educated.
      
      The fact that you call it “masterfile” explains a lot. What would constitute a masterfile is determined by the release group of a rip.
      
      That’s the same identical file that all uploaders upload hundreds of times over an all different filelockers.
      
      All the uploaders obviously has this identical file in their own possession? They do not delete it once they’ve uploaded it once. The keep it, and upload it again and again if needed. Every such single upload takes a few seconds, which is the reason why you experience that they appear immediately after one has been removed.
      
      To summarize, not only is your knowledge about how filelockers operate very limited, based mostly on guesses, it’s also completely irrelevant to the fact that filelockers operate fully legal, and that courts have determined that this is the way they are allowed operate, and that it’s unreasonable to demand through.legislation that they operate in any other manner.
- Mental Extension
  
  Every torrent you upload works as promotion for ad-filled torrent indexers. There is ALWAYS be financial gain for somebody when it comes to file sharing. TPB makes a lot of money on piracy. I know a lot of people don’t want to believe it, but that’s the way it is.
  - Adgsag
    
    sure they do, but they do it to buy new servers and defeat mafiaa
    they do this for the people
    if you dont want ads, install some ad blocker
  - Gae
    
    I think most people dedicate a good portion of their life to financial gain. Is that some kind of problem?
- Ursaring93
  
  Are you saying that any business that not a financial failure is wrong and should have it’s websites by block by a child porn censor, even if it there not child pornographic?!?!
  - Guest
    
    Hey!!! Took me ten minutes, but I deciphered what you wrote!
    Big self-pat on the back for me.
- Riot
  
  the best file hosting for porn is: http://www.deviloid.net/torrents.php
- http://www.deviloid.net Cybersho000ot
  
  http://www.deviloid.net is the best Porn fileshare hosting
  
  fileserve is shit
- http://www.deviloid.net Yoyo
  
  I think the best share hosting for PORN is here : http://goo.gl/4cL8U
  
  MHUAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHA !!!
  I’m THE BEST !!
- Lililili
  
  the best filesharing site is here : http://goo.gl/4cL8U
- Lililili
  
  The best filesharing site is here : http://goo.gl/gBlmK
- Rererere
  
  This is the best filesharing server for PORN !! http://goo.gl/gBlmK
- FuzzyDuck
  
  > Fileserver is a legitimate business? Grow up. Look at your own screenshot.
  > The whole site is about earning money.
  
  Love your logic.
  
  The movie and music industry is all about earning more, therefor (by your logic) it is not legitimate and they should be shut down.
  
  Thank you for playing.
- peaon
  
  lols at you
- http://tinyurl.com/choose-incomee Karen Willey
  
  That is how a business survives so people will have jobs , so people can feed their families.
- Masterjacky
  
  what about going to relax at http://goo.gl/4cL8U ??
  
  MHUAHAHAHAHAHAHA i’m the best !!
  - Guest
    
    Yes you are. Well done. You are the saddest pervert in the world.
    Now go away you simple minded idiot.
- Misterpopo7
  
  Why not just going to http://www.deviloid.net/torren… for your daily porn ?
  
  That’s the best !!!
- MisterX
  
  it’s now official, http://www.deviloid.net/torrents.php
  
  It’s the best !!
Guest

I can upload/download fine, and I’m in the UK. My ISP is TalkTalk.
- Zzzz
  
  Works here with Virgin Media.
  - http://www.facebook.com/people/Tom-Evans/549591812 Tom Evans
    
    works here with O2 as well
  - http://www.facebook.com/people/Tom-Evans/549591812 Tom Evans
    
    works here with O2 as well
- noko
  
  My ISP is TalkTalk and I couldn’t download from it…
  - Scrumpy
    
    My ISP is TalkTalk, too. I’m DL-ing things fine from Fileserve!
Anonymous

Well I just gave Fileserve a test run. Hmmm something sexual so Paris Hilton here I cum.

Download is working no problem on this 1.4GB file. Strange then that my BT link is the most uncensored in the UK despite their court order to block NewzBin2 which apparently they are not doing.

This makes you wonder when their CleanFeed service is the one to block such unlawful porn and it could well be off-line for this one. I hope BT soon update all with what is going on.
Anonymous

TF please post details on how to circumvent this. I dont use it but i want to be damn sure that any attempt to block my access to anything on the internet fails!
- Anon
  
  buy a vpn
  - Fdashjklfdjs
    
    fileserve and most if not all other file hosters only allow 1 ip/1 connection for normal users
    it will only work if you have a premium account + a vpn
Dwpbike

filetram is better – it has a search function
- Fredrika
  
  Filetram is not a filehost, it’s a search engine.
Thisisnotme4

no filetram is shit http://www.deviloid.net is far better, it’s the best all over the fucking world !!!
- Guest
  
  What are you some 12 year pre-pubescent loony? Stop spamming you perv.
Anonymous

Luckily I am on Xilo, an ISP who does not subscribe to the IWF. The IWF don’t even implement clear blocking, they just return fake error messages making it impossible to tell if the website is having problems or the IWF have decided to block yet another file hosting site. I am so glad that a subscription to The Great Firewall of the UK is not mandatory, it is just a shame so many ISP’s were pressured into getting it.
- David
  
  Your ISP may get bus-loads of new customers if this continues.
- David
  
  Your ISP may get bus-loads of new customers if this continues.
Zan

in uk downloads fine.
Zan

in uk downloads fine.
Ampdewd

I’m guessing it working again now? (well it is for me)
http://twitter.com/AlyssaBlindy Alyssa Blindy

It’s censorship. The UK users should use a proxy or something along those lines. This is legitimate censorship, and the ISP shouldn’t allow people to be censored involuntarily like this.
- David
  
  I agree, the censorship that the IWF system uses is robust against alternative DNS servers like OpenDNS as it uses a transparent proxy service to the affected site, this means they can spoof error messages (which they currently do) besides other nefarious purposes, it needs to stop NOW.
Sir disconn

http://drleecher.com/ <– brothers in the UK use this service
- Danny
  
  Why make a site just for black people?
  - Twice Daily
    
    Because, like copyright, racism only works one way.
Guest

There is a reply from VM about this at the following url:-

http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/General-broadband-questions/Fileserve-now-being-filtered-by-the-IWF-proxy/m-p/858693/highlight/true#M24771

However, this issue is yet another example as to how attempting to block an individual file can affect all sorts of other traffic.
- Guest
  
  Good point.
Pingback: UK Internet Blacklist Censors Fileserve File-Hosting Service | TorrentForce Blog
http://twitter.com/Mathew30 Mathew Lisett

well im in the UK and i dont have any issues with fileserve
http://tinyurl.com/Commision-command Polly Jenkins

I agree with them blocking certain files that pertain to child abuse, I don’t agree that because of a few bad apples others should be punished too.
- Be ashamed troll
  
  Uploading child porn is against the fileserve TOS. Instead of blocking a legitimate business, if the IWF forwarded the concerned CP links to Fileserve, they would have been more than happy to not only delete those files & ban the user who uploaded those files but also hand his IP over to the cops.
Anonymous

phlpn.es/7x9vmd
MD3

In the near future, I see the time when the MAFIAA starts embracing VPN providers in a joint-venture to make huge cash together.
Huhuhu

the best file hosting for porn is: http://www.deviloid.net
Pingback: Los principales ISPs británicos bloquean el acceso a Fileserve
Lardarse

Shouldn’t the acronym IWF stand for Internet Witch Finders
The new hysteria whipped up by those who want to profit from others who make the profit instead
The new world order is coming thick and fast
Kelly

I think this is the sign of the end of the world !!!!
Down the server if you can´t download anythig !

http://www.kellymodas.com.br
Pingback: Major Inconvenience Over Minor Issue…Popular cloud computer file hosting website, Fileserve is blocked by the IWF « Melon Farmers Blog
http://torrentfreak.com/ Rob8urcakes

Looks as though the Internet ‘Watch’ Foundation needs to be re-named. How about the “Internet Ouch Foundation”?

Clearly the IWF and their friendly ISP’s have made yet another major muck-up of the censorship régime that all ‘decent’ people Worldwide would never object to – ie, the proper protection and safety of children.

But blocking a whole site in this manner is simply criminal, and the sooner the Internet Ouch Foundation AND the ISP’s get their act together the better. This situation is quite simply intolerable and will lead to MAJOR grief all around, as well as the possibility of furthering child porn accessibility via these horrendous errors.

Epic FAIL
- David
  
  Not only that, but if enough of an ISP’s userbase gets pissed off about it, it may cause said ISP to pull out of the IWF filter altogether, while its still voluntary anyway..
Anonymous

phlpn.es/7x9vmd
Anonymous

OK you have to admit that is QUITE annoying to say the least.
secure-surf.at.tc
Malakas

I’m downloading stuff from Fileserve right now… no problem at all.
Guest

This sort of issue can arise because of the way that the IWF/Cleanfeed system works. The IWF identify the url of the specific file, image etc, to be blocked, and it is only what they specify that is blocked. I do not think that any reasonable person would take issue with that at all.

The problem is that at the ISP point, all traffic to the same IP as corresponds to that url (and that can be other parts of the web site in question, or other web sites on the same IP) gets proxied through the second stage of the process. The traffic reaches its destination (apart from the blocked url), but when it arrives there, it carries the source IP of the proxy and not that of the user. That process can make lots of traffic to a site appear to originate from the same IP.

That can engage measures that sites have to prevent overuse of free facilities, to counter multiple spam messages on forums, excessive use of search facilities etc. and so on.

The IWF does not have that many blocked url’s at any given point in time and the list is revised on a daily basis. Also, where problems such as this arise, the IWF contact and discuss the matter with web sites that are affected, but resolution is not an automated process.

If the Cleanfeed system is going to be used for other purposes, then I hardly imagine that the IWF are going to provide some sort of free service to sort out this type of issue. The other problem is going to be that when it does happen, those who have to investigate it will not know whether it is an IWF issue, or something to do with the other purposes.

This is a contingency that has not been catered for in the Newzbin/BT injunction but something that is going to have to be addressed. Hopefully, the other ISP’s will not follow in BT’s footsteps, and they will go to court armed with the proper and correct information and arguments, with all of these issues properly raised.
- Scary Devil Monastery
  
  Really, the answer is obvious – run a DNS benchmark tool. Most such tools generate false queries against obviously illicit sites as standard as part of the test. You end up with a list describing latency times, ping times, and on whether or not the DNS or ISP is blocking the queries.
  
  If you end up with a list where queries are blocked and you can see your ISP’s DNS server among them, switch ISP or run a VPN as permanent standard. That’s all there is to it.
  
  The reason, for me, is simple. When an NGO sets up a watch list meant to combat child pornography and the contents of a leaked list turn out to be 98% “Not Child Porn” then you know that these watchlists have been set up to combat “Whatever the hell anyone, anywhere, thought to be objectionable”.
  
  And I won’t accept filtering as haphazard as that on the information available to me. Neither should anyone else.
Anonymous

Fileserve should send them the bill for implementing their filter wrongfully and costing them money. Just make them pick up the tab, see if they are more careful next time.
Guest

CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY I CAN’T POST LINKS? I am a legit user and can’t post but the spammers can!? What the fuck?!
- Guest
  
  Fvck Google shit.
  test
  - Guest
    
    TorrentFreak
    - Guest
      
      The problem was the fucking RECAPTCHA. https://ssl.scroogle.org/
- Guest
  
  Fvck Google shit.
  test
Misterspy

comon get your porn at http://www.deviloid.net !!!
- Guest
  
  Hello again asshat.
  - Jmorse43508
    
    Just flag him. I did, much like that other link spammer below.
Anon

VirginMedia, non-VirginMedia DNS, works for me.
Anon

VirginMedia, non-VirginMedia DNS, works for me.
Anonymous

phlpn.es/7x9vmd
Pingback: The Technology Blog: UK Internet Blacklist Censors Fileserve FileHosting Service
pedobear.jpeg

Does anyone know where I can find this list?
- David
  
  The list isn’t available unless you pay membership fees to the IWF, pricing info is on their site, try http://www.censorleaks.com
- David
  
  The list isn’t available unless you pay membership fees to the IWF, pricing info is on their site, try http://www.censorleaks.com
Pingback: UK Internet Blacklist Censors Fileserve File-Hosting Service | Remove spyware and malware, latest IT security news
Anonymous

phlpn.es/7x9vmd
Pingback: UK Internet Blacklist Censors Fileserve File-Hosting Service - techtime's posterous
Anonymous

smlk.es/96s7qL
Anonymous

phlpn.es/7x9vmd
http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell

Pelouze = Anon’s new name.

The fact is that Fileserve, Rapidshare, etc. CANNOT run their businesses if they have to filter every single file on their networks for copyright violations.
It’s too man-labor intensive, too computer-labor intensive, etc.

Add into it that the computer means could be easily gotten around by using encryption of the files uploaded with obfuscated names, and you see why these places cannot legitimately be required to police their sites for pirated content.

On the CP thing….. who would use a flash-enabled (which allows you to see through TOR proxying from warnings on various legal porn websites) site for uploading that?

Something reeks about that and I think that the only people uploading CP to those websites are the police themselves.
Pingback: Los principales ISPs británicos bloquean el acceso a Fileserve | ideasweb.info | Noticias, Software y novedades. Las mejores aplicaciones web, con los trucos más útiles y toda la información en nuestro blog.

TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

UK Internet Blacklist Censors Fileserve File-Hosting Service

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

NewsBits

Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

Pirates Can Be Identified Despite Sharing IP Addresses, ISP Claims

Feds Seize Cash from Major Bitcoin Exchange’s Dwolla Account

MostDiscussed

Pirate Bay Takes Over Distribution of Censored 3D Printable Gun

McAfee Patents Technology to Detect and Block Pirated Content

Pirate Bay Finds Safe Haven in Iceland, Switches to .IS Domain

Game Pirates Whine About Piracy in Game Dev Simulator

The Pirate Bay Moves to .SX as Prosecutor Files Motion to Seize Domains

CopyQuote

PopularArticles

VPN Services That Take Your Anonymity Seriously, 2013 Edition

Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2013

Which VPN Service Providers Really Take Anonymity Seriously?

What’s The Best VPN / Proxy for BitTorrent?

BTGuard Review: How Does it Work?

Optimize Your BitTorrent Download Speed