Claire Perry, the MP behind the porn blocking plans announced by the Prime Minister this week, has been left red-faced after hackers defaced her website with references to porn.
Perry went on to claim over Twitter that notable blogger Guido Fawkes had sponsored the attack, having already confused a screenshot posted by Fawkes with a direct link to her site.
Fawkes posted a screenshot of the hacked page, which he claimed contained explicit adult images. He noted the irony that the site would have been blocked if the new rules to put a default block on pornography had already come into effect. That page is currently inaccessible.
But when Perry noticed Fawkes’ blog, she went on a rant over Twitter, initially claiming Fawkes had been “hosting a link that distributed porn via my website”, which was not the case.
“Apologies to anyone affected by the hacking of my website sponsored by @GuidoFawkes – proves so clearly what we are dealing with,” she tweeted, before suggesting Fawkes remove the non-existent link from his site.
Fawkes said Perry appeared “very confused”, denying any involvement with the attack on Perry’s site. Perry then said she would be contacting the blogger’s editor at the Sun on Sunday, for whom Fawkes also writes.
Paul Staines, who runs the blog, told TechWeekEurope he will be suing unless Perry offers a full retraction of her claim he helped hack her site. He had earlier placed a poll on his site asking whether he should take action.
The plans to censor porn by default have received much derision, with many noting how easy it would be to get around the filters that ISPs will be forced to impose. Many others believe parents should decide what filters are used, not the government.
Claire Perry said she had no comment on the matter.
What do you know about Internet security? Find out with our quiz!
German foreign minister warns Russia will face consequences for “absolutely intolerable” cyberattack on ruling party,…
Google is reportedly laying off at least 200 staff from its “Core” organisation, including key…
Investor appeasement? Apple unveils huge $110 billion share buyback program, as sales of iPhone decline…
Tesla retreats from pioneering gigacasting manufacturing process, amid cost cutting and challenges at EV giant
No skynet please. After the US, UK and France pledge human only control of nuclear…
Microsoft's AI investments continue in south east Asia, after investments in Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia, as…
View Comments
I do not mind that Claire Perry wants to protect children, and I give the benefit of the doubt to her on this and believe that she is sincere. However, it is grossly offensive for her to refuse to listen to technological experts over the very real technical and legal reasons for not proceeding with the ISP level filter. In short, Not only will it NOT work, it CANNOT work.
Kids will still see porn. The proposed filter levels are ridiculously easy to by-pass and fail to stop porn on social networks or direct messages or SMS media.
Additional harm will occure when legitimate safe non-porn sites will be blocked wrongly. When they tried this in Ireland, the rape crisis website was blocked. When sussex council fitted filters to their own networks, they ended up blocking their own website because Sussex contains the word "sex".
Only a complete IT idiot would proceed with her plans. And in her response to mixing up a screenshot with a link? This only enforces the impression that she is utterly clueless and a rank embarrasment and a complete idiot.
Do not let Claire Perry near a computer. She is a classic example of a little knowlege being a very dangerous thing.
I do not think it possible to remain polite and be able to also express how incomprehensively idiotic, brainless and ignorant Claire Perry is on this issue.
I do not want to don a "tin-foil hat" over this but surely she cannot be so utterly thick as to ignore all the best evidence of the industry experts on this to pursue an utterly unworkable solution? Or are they going to go to ISP level filtering of porn to allow filtering and tracking and eventual control of all web-traffic?
Are they going to be restricting the self harm sites? then the anerexic sites, the climate change denial sites, anti-immigration sites? alternative news sites? and so on?
Are they going to be using this irrational fear of consensual adult porn, as an excuse to be tracking all our surfing and building a threat profile on each of us to use against us?
That is the only plausible reason for such a draconian measure, which ignores industry expert advice.
I'd like to comment on Ken Hall's comment, paragraph by paragraph. In terms of the argument:
Yes, agree here with first part - and last part. Yes, yes yes, yes. Yes - yes; yes again, yes and finally, yes.
If that does not express sufficient agreement, +1
I work in IT.
Only cowards use censorship.
Do not let Claire Perry near a computer.
This.
x 1,000,000
Censorship: deference to idiocracy.
As for Perry herself: U MAD, HO?
Has no one noticed the pornography (general nudity) on British tele? So it's okay if it a broadcast medium, but not web based?
Already there is word that ISPs will be forced to give up information on whether an customer has opted into porn..... This will then be used against them in court cases, child custody hearings etc
Sometimes its idiots like Claire Perry that are more of a risk to democracy than the terrorists gun and bomb.
Democracy requires freedom of expression and privacy to thrive, her ideas are the direct opposite of that. Worse she doesn't even realize it!
This is going to turn into an interview question for support techies.
1) You are using a internet connection using a government mandated porn filter, how do I get to youporn.com
I you answer you get considered, if you come up with a novel and innovative answer you get hired on the spot.
"1) You are using a internet connection using a government mandated porn filter, how do I get to youporn.com"
Easy - you don't use the same connection as me. I can haz jobz?