Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

O2 now blocking sites

24567

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    has anyone made a complaint to the national consumer agency? ask them if their Commercial Practices Division can look into the whole sorry affair as these are the people that stopped three from changing "for life" offers recently without customers say-so and forced them to roll back for customers they had put on a new tarriff.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    The NCA will do very little. A truly toothless dog.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭jor el


    They are blocking Imageshack now!
    http://forums.o2online.ie/forums/showthread.php?t=6334

    Fucking idiots, is all I can say.


  • Registered Users Posts: 330 ✭✭MackDeToaster


    I refer you to this...

    "Blocking is designed to protect people from inadvertent access to potentially illegal images of child sexual abuse. No known technology is capable of effectively denying determined criminals who are actively seeking such material: only removal of the content at source can achieve that goal."
    Source - http://www.iwf.org.uk/public/page.148.htm


    "What is the IWF URL list? The IWF works with UK service providers to remove potentially illegal child sexual abuse content from the internet. As a result of work by our police trained Internet Content Analysts the IWF produces a list of URLs containing potentially illegal child sexual abuse content hosted overseas. This list is made available to IWF members under licence so that they can develop technical solutions to prevent their users from being inadvertently exposed to this type of content.

    The list is dynamic - updated twice a day - and typically, 50 ‘live’ URLs with potentially illegal child sexual abuse content are added each day. As the URLs are precise websites or web pages, the risk of over-blocking or collateral damage is minimised. The list only contains URLs of websites and does not extend to other internet services, such as peer-2-peer networks, instant messaging or chat room activities.

    The IWF operates a right of appeal whereby the website owner of any URL can challenge the website’s inclusion on the list."
    Source - http://www.iwf.org.uk/public/page.148.437.htm

    The risk of overblocking is minimized eh ? Tell that to hotfile.com, depostfiles, imageshack or Wikipedia.

    "What does potentially illegal mean?
    We refer to content as potentially illegal because a definitive legal judgement is a matter for the Courts. "
    Source - http://www.iwf.org.uk/public/page.148.437.htm

    Simply put, IWF is a vigilante organisation. They are private and unaccountable, they can talk about 'police trained' all they like, but they are NOT the police, a judge, or a jury, and I see no objective way in which they can claim they are 'fitter' or 'better' than anybody else in their judgement (once again, I refer to the Wikipedia incident).

    If a definitive legal judgement is a matter for the courts, then that is it, end of - the IWF have no business attempting to decide what is legal or not, and even less business trying to impose their views upon me.

    In their own words they have admitted they cannot ever stop criminals and paedophiles, so as it is they are mere self-appointed moral guardians, and I will forever reject and oppose their supposed right to decide for me what I can and cannot do on the internet - it is insulting, condescending and hugely offensive to me in it's direct implication that I need help and require looking after.

    The IWF is yet another self-interest group who's remit will grow larger and larger. If a site is hosting illegal content then the police can deal with it directly, and the IWF can fcuk right off with themselves.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    Stick that up on the o2 forum and see if they answer. ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 330 ✭✭MackDeToaster


    I wish I could, but they permanently banned me ! This was sometime before this fiasco and no reason was specified (I had two threads requesting help which were sorted by Daryll, and a single other post helping somebody out which was thanked by Daryll), so I don't know what they're at :confused:, but I'm starting to think they're completely schizo, the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing.

    However if you'd like to post this by all means please do.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭jor el


    "Blocking is designed to protect people from inadvertent access to potentially illegal images of child sexual abuse. No known technology is capable of effectively denying determined criminals who are actively seeking such material: only removal of the content at source can achieve that goal."

    They're not removing anything though, they're blocking. Content remains in place, so they've already failed to do what they've set out to do before they even start.

    This list is made available to IWF members under licence so that they can develop technical solutions to prevent their users from being inadvertently exposed to this type of content.

    Don't they mean so that they can unilaterally decide what everyone should see or not?
    As the URLs are precise websites or web pages, the risk of over-blocking or collateral damage is minimised. The list only contains URLs of websites

    Absolute and utter lies.
    and does not extend to other internet services, such as peer-2-peer networks, instant messaging or chat room activities.
    Where the biggest on-line risk to children can be found. And you're not going to block that? Well done IWF, you're even more useless than I could have ever imagined.
    The IWF operates a right of appeal whereby the website owner of any URL can challenge the website’s inclusion on the list."

    Would it not be better to contact the site admin first, give them the offending URL, ask them to remove it, and if they don't, then block it? Site owners probably won't even be aware that their site is on the block list, and hence will never know they need to appeal anything.
    Simply put, IWF is a vigilante organisation. They are private and unaccountable, they can talk about 'police trained' all they like, but they are NOT the police, a judge, or a jury, and I see no objective way in which they can claim they are 'fitter' or 'better' than anybody else in their judgement (once again, I refer to the Wikipedia incident).

    Even the police, or any law enforcement agency, have no right to unilaterally decide to block websites, without a court order to do so. The IWF have put themselves in a position above the law, and O2 have, rather stupidly, legitimised that position.
    The IWF is yet another self-interest group who's remit will grow larger and larger. If a site is hosting illegal content then the police can deal with it directly, and the IWF can fcuk right off with themselves.

    Which is the point I put to O2 numerous times now, without any response from them.

    I 2nd Bond's call, put that on the O2 forum. Send it in an email complaint too, so they can't say they (managers, customer service) never saw it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭jor el


    However if you'd like to post this by all means please do.

    http://forums.o2online.ie/forums/showpost.php?p=76507&postcount=74


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    /me awaits fallout. ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 330 ✭✭MackDeToaster


    Methinks ostrich - head - sand


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,065 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    O2 sell a lot of product to teenagers so maybe it is no harm . Most of the sites are porn sites in fairness, not filesharing sites.

    :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,065 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish


    jor el wrote: »
    Indeed, depositfiles is one they are blocking. You get a generic warning page with a link to the Internet Watch Foundation. Why a company like O2 are blocking file-hosting sites listed by an anti child-porn site is strange though. I've never heard of these sites being big on CP distribution.

    Every type of everything is hosted on fileshare sites.
    Bond-007 wrote: »
    Indeed. Hotfile is also blocked.

    I'm not with O" but thank fook, hotfile sucks balls


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    Indeed it may not be the best, but sometimes it is the only place to find stuff.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,065 ✭✭✭Fighting Irish


    Bond-007 wrote: »
    Indeed it may not be the best, but sometimes it is the only place to find stuff.

    Rapidshare ftw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 497 ✭✭Honda08


    Bond-007 wrote: »
    Indeed it may not be the best, but sometimes it is the only place to find stuff.

    surely its simple. contract signed with terms of service.

    terms breached, without consultation so the customer is entitled to cancel contract without penalty.

    as the service being contracted is not being delivered.

    what you think bond007


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 745 ✭✭✭cable842


    i have 02 over 2 years not and I couldnt download a pack of smarties online. now I have to wait 8 to 12 weeks to get ntl.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭jor el


    Honda08 wrote: »
    surely its simple. contract signed with terms of service.

    terms breached, without consultation so the customer is entitled to cancel contract without penalty.

    as the service being contracted is not being delivered.

    what you think bond007

    I believe so anyway, as do others. I'm awaiting a response from O2, 48 hours now, only 24 left before they say they "officially respond". After that, it's Comreg and further.

    At the very least, the customer deserves an explanation of what's happening, or even a bloody notification.

    The latest is that they will continue to block sites on the IWF list, though Imageshack and Depositfiles are currently unblocked.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 497 ✭✭Honda08


    jor el wrote: »
    I believe so anyway, as do others. I'm awaiting a response from O2, 48 hours now, only 24 left before they say they "officially respond". After that, it's Comreg and further.

    At the very least, the customer deserves an explanation of what's happening, or even a bloody notification.

    The latest is that they will continue to block sites on the IWF list, though Imageshack and Depositfiles are currently unblocked.

    ok so the contract is now materially different than the one the customers signed up to, and no notifications sent to customers.

    somebody needs to cancel and test o2's metal.!
    :D:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    Cancelling will do nothing as o2 won't allow anyone to cancel. All they will do is continue to bill and eventually after a few debt collector letters the whole thing will go quiet.

    They will never allow anyone to test their contracts in court.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    Bond-007 wrote: »
    Cancelling will do nothing as o2 won't allow anyone to cancel. All they will do is continue to bill and eventually after a few debt collector letters the whole thing will go quiet.

    They will never allow anyone to test their contracts in court.
    people need to write to o2 with formal complaints then when they respond with the same nonsense pass the complaint on to ComReg. there is little point saying over and over that ComReg are toothless etc when people dont even bother to inform them of the issue and let them look into it.

    also o2 can continue to bill unless the customer takes some kind of action like reporting the change in their terms and conditions to ComReg who should then take the appropriate measures to ensure that all affected customers are notified properly then allowed out of contract early and without any penalty!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 865 ✭✭✭Purple Gorilla


    Have you actually been notified that all your posts are being modified? After 10PM on weekdays, I'm 99% positive that after 10PM on weekdays, any posts you make will have to wait till the next working day to be approved by the moderators. This is a general rule on the forums


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Banning the likes of imageshack is an immediate breach of contract by O2 that renders their so called Broadband product not fit for the purpose .

    Therefore you set up an imageshack account and demand they unblock it .

    If they refuse to allow you to access your own photos the contract is void because O2 have made their own BB not fit for the purpose .

    Make sure you use the O2 online Mail system to contact them and cc your unblock request to info@comreg.ie as well as O2 themselves , business@o2.ie cc an external address of yours and inform them the product is not fit for the purpose . Put the phone number and account number in the email ( naturally :p)

    Ensure you STATE clearly in the email that "this is a FORMAL complaint" and that O2 have until ( insert date before end of your billing period) to resolve the matter in full and to unblock the photo site you store your personal photos on .

    Ensure that you inform Comreg/O2 that any effort to remove money from your account by direct debit after ( insert date before end of your billing period) will result in Comreg and O2 (both) being reported to the Garda Fraud Squad if the site is blocked on ( insert date before end of your billing period) .

    The good news is that anybody who wants out of an O2 contract ......even if they do not have 'issues' with sites being blocked can simply set up an account on a legitimate site like Imageshack or Photobucket and may escape the contract because of the O2 block as long as they get the email in on the day before ( insert date before end of your billing period)

    This is guaranteed because the IWF are really useless at raising blocks and O2 are pretty crap.

    Once O2 start losing customers to the likes of the UPC student contracts because their silly blocking leaves them open to sudden contract termination requests they will cop their asses on ....eventually.

    Furthermore O2 do not specify any rationale or reason why they use the IWF blocklist in their T&Cs , you are therefore out of the contract clean as a whistle ...but do stop using it on ( insert date before end of your billing period)

    Comreg will eventually fully extricate you from this unfair contract ...but you must keep at Comreg daily for about a month.

    Finally if O2 try to chase you for money afterwards you may sue them in court for defamation and fraud ..especially if they send ANY personal information of yours to a debt collector . Also complain to the data protection people if anything goes to a debt collector.

    Notice periods do not apply when O2 breach a contract , they blocked it so they made it not fit for the purpose ...themselves.

    HTH


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,189 ✭✭✭Gekko


    3 blocked me from viewing certain websites when I was using my 3Pay sim in my shiny new iPhone.

    How dare they or O2 decide what I can or can't view!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭jor el


    I got a response from O2
    O2 wrote:
    Thank you for your email. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience that has been caused.

    O2 has introduced the capability to block websites that contain illegal images of child pornography on our mobile internet and mobile broadband services using a list provided by the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF). Our parent company Telefónica has joined the GSMA Mobile Alliance Against Child Sexual Abuse. This group is an alliance of all major global mobile operators and one of its key commitments is the provision of a blocking facility to prevent access to illegal child pornography websites. By joining with the GSMA in this initiative, O2 in Ireland hopes to assist in combating the spread of illegal child pornography websites across the internet maintaining a safer mobile environment for all of our customers.

    Completely unrelated to my question, as the GSMA has nothing to do with O2 breaking contracts with their customers. Their motives may be good, but there's a right way and a wrong way to go about this. Burying people's heads in the sand will not do a single thing to stop the proliferation of this material on the Internet. In fact, it may have the opposite effect, as the peados are now free to distribute such content without the fear that some passer by might inadvertently spot it, and report it to the proper authorities. Well done O2 and the IWF.

    It goes on to provide an answer to my question, as follows.
    O2 wrote:
    With regard to the points you have raised surrounding our contractual obligations, we have queried this with our legal and regulatory team and we are satisfied that we have not breached the terms of contract.

    Thank you for providing us with your feedback. I will ensure that this is passed to the relevant area so that it can be included as review our future products and services. If you have any further queries please don't hesitate to contact us at customer.first@o2.com.

    PFO, in other words.

    Not too happy, I've responded
    me wrote:
    Thank you for your response, but it has completely failed to answer my question. Simply denying what I have clearly and concisely pointed out, with reference to the areas that O2 is in breech of, simply is not good enough. Can I ask you to answer this one simple question please?

    Does it, or does it not state, in your own Terms and Conditions, the following?

    O2 does not control or select this content and is not responsible for its availability or subject matter.

    And if so, are you now controlling and selecting the content that customers can access? If this is not a clear breech of the contract, then please explain why not? I have taken the time to research this information, and provide a detailed explanation to you, the least you could do is reciprocate instead of giving a stock reply that doesn't answer anything.

    I will hold off escalating this matter further, to Comreg, the National Consumer Agency, the Department of Communications and the Minister, until I receive a satisfactory response.

    Regards,
    And will give them until Monday to provide an answer that doesn't equate to; f*ck off and stop annoying us.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    They put the PR bunnies on the case here. As you said they are refusing to answer the questions. Let me reorganise the O2 case

    Originally Posted by O2

    "Thank you for your email. Please accept my smug self congratulation for any inconvenience that has been caused.

    O2 has introduced the capability to block websites on a whim but have additionally added in a list of sites that allegedly contain illegal images of child pornography accessible on our mobile internet and mobile broadband services using. We did this by using a list provided by the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) in order to cover our tracks with some worthiness.


    In order to improve our general image our parent company Telefónica has joined the GSMA Mobile Alliance Against Child Sexual Abuse. This group is an alliance of all major global mobile operators and one of its key commitments is the provision of a blocking facility to prevent access to illegal child pornography websites.

    We are not planning on allowing our customers to block cyberstalkers or to provide our customers with information on cyberstalking events against them . That might be seen as a principled stance to take but we would lose call termination revenue and we cannot have that can we ??

    We most certainly will not screen incoming MMS or permit our customers to do so. We would rather eat our kittens than to cc these to their parents to that their parents can keep an eye on their own children if they wish.

    We will not be bring in practical call cost control measures where parents can take control of any aspect of their childrens mobile telephony expenditures . We fear that would abuse our bottom line .

    By joining with the GSMA in this initiative, O2 in Ireland can loudly claim it hopes to assist in combating the spread of illegal child pornography websites across the internet while we can blame the IWF for any glitches or silly site bannings that we ourselves have initiated through poisoning our own DNS .

    We daily conduct our principled campaign by refusing to engage with our customers in our own fora and by email . Our PR bunnies meanwhile carry on gushing to anybody stupid enough to listen or to reprint their drivel about maintaining a safer mobile environment for all of our customers .

    With regard to the points you have raised surrounding our contractual obligations, we have queried this with our legal and regulatory team and we are satisfied that we have not breached the terms of contract but we will not of course detail the points we are claiming to be compliant with because our vapid legal people will not let us as they are not sure themselves.

    If anybody wants to tell us to **** off please don't hesitate to contact us at customer.first@o2.com and to shout if you wish"







  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,713 ✭✭✭✭jor el


    Nice one. Perhaps I should send an email to customer.last@o2.com and see what response I get?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    the best thing people can do is write to o2 asking them to terminate your contract and telling them you are stopping your direct debits and do just that! no other campany blocks the internet in this manner but every other company has got real proper and working "optional" child protection software and policies in place!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 745 ✭✭✭cable842


    to bew honest for the last 2 years using 02. I cant use my broadband the weekend and the evening during the week. they said to me thats its the fact that everyones using it.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,438 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    cable842 wrote: »
    to bew honest for the last 2 years using 02. I cant use my broadband the weekend and the evening during the week. they said to me thats its the fact that everyones using it.

    If you have a problem create a new thread, this is off-topic for this thread


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 497 ✭✭Honda08


    Bond-007 wrote: »
    It appears that o2 are now blocking some sites on the basis of a list supplied by the Internet Watch Foundation.

    File hosting sites are affected so far from what I can see.

    Any attempt to reach these sites is greeted with a o2 screen saying that they have blocked the site on the basis of what the IWF say.

    This can be avoided by not using o2's DNS settings.

    Seems we are headed down a slippery slope.

    any further updates?


Advertisement