Church Site Blocked By Mobile Networks, Classified Under 'Alcohol'
from the demon-drink dept
Against a background of the UK government teetering on the brink of imposing an opt-out Web filter “for the children”, here’s yet another example of how automatic categorization of sites for blacklists gets it wrong, as recounted by the UK’s Open Rights Group (ORG):
someone used blocked.org.uk to tell us about another church (St. Mark’s in Southampton) that is blocked — this time on [the mobile operator] Vodafone. We have confirmed that it is also blocked by Orange. The site is blocked on O2’s highest blocking setting, but not on their ‘default safety’ service.
Using O2’s very handy ‘URL checker’, we have established that they classify the site as ‘alcohol’. It is likely that this is the category that has led to its blocking on other networks, but this is not confirmed.
So why might a church be classed alongside sinful purveyors of alcoholic beverages? ORG has a suspicion:
It is likely that the reason for this categorisation is the use of the word ‘wine’ on the church’s website. The church is part of the ‘New Wine Network of Churches’. Their website explains that this means they “have the aim of ‘Equipping Churches to see Jesus’ Kingdom Grow'”. Their use of the word ‘wine’ is not related to selling or the use of alcohol.
Although it seems that the site has now been unblocked, that’s only because it was “manually reviewed”. As ORG points out:
It’s yet another example of how internet filters make simple and costly mistakes which often result in ‘over-blocking.’ Our report from May this year collected more examples of this. Since then we have seen political parties, technology news websites, and more recently a number of maternity health sites all blocked by mobile networks. It can be tricky and slow to get sites removed from block lists (although mobile networks say this is improving).
That last point is important. No system is perfect, and errors will always be made. But what matters is how quickly the mistakes are corrected. Unfortunately, the evidence so far is that not only are such automated filters unreliable when it comes to evaluating sites, but the correction mechanisms are pretty awful too — a worrying combination.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Filed Under: church, filtering, free speech, uk
Companies: o2
Comments on “Church Site Blocked By Mobile Networks, Classified Under 'Alcohol'”
Must be all the wine.
Re: Re:
I’d guess webpages that focus on WINE (Linux) are probably having the same issue huh?
Re: Re: Re:
Beautiful WINE allowing me to watch Netflix on Linux.
Oh, come on Mike (!!) it’s just some minor collateral damage for a greater good that is protecting our children from the boogey man and from receiving care from their parents. Imagine if the Government left parenting to parents? The horror!
/troll
Re: Re:
All religious websites should be blocked for the greater good.
/notroll
Re: Re: Re:
You are supporting censorship then? Shame on you.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely. In the same vein I’d like to censor detailed atomic bomb instructions on the web.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Because there are just sooo may ppl making A-bombs I have to agree. /s
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Yep;
Censor a-bomb details – less people killing with a-bombs.
Censor religions – less people will kill because of religion.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Considering one is a physical device, and the other is ideology… Try stopping ideology.
Especially when the brain washing starts so young. God warriors cannot be reasoned with.
Thou shalt not kill… hypocrites.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Workin’ on it!
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I would, but all I have is an iDialog.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Well, then we should absolutely block atheism then, since the largest killers in the 20th century were atheists (Mao, Stalin, Hitler).
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Given that Hitler wrapped his movement squarely in Christianity, you should leave him off that list regardless of whatever his personal views may or may not have been.
Also, atheism isn’t a religious belief. There is no “atheist” dogma that can be used to unify, unite, and motivate people to do things, either good or bad.
Re: Re: Re:7 Atheism is a religious belief
Not sorry to burst ye bubble.
Atheism is a religious belief as it deals with a belief in the existence of god, gods or god-like phenomena. It denies the existence but still discusses the subject. The actions and dogmas of atheist groups worldwide are religious in that they are used to unite, unify and motivate people to do things in relation to the subjects covered by any religious subject.
Many atheists that I have seen getting involved in the subjects relating to religious are as pig-headed, illogical, violent, uncouth, etc as the ones they are claiming are that who support religion in any form.
if you have ever actually studied Nazism that Hitler was the little tin-god of, you would realise that Christianity was anathema to the movement. He certainly knew how to wrap Nazism up as a religious experience, but the god he focussed on was himself not Jesus Christ.
So we can remove him from the atheist group if you like but only because he was Nazism’s god.
Re: Re: Re:8 Atheism is a religious belief
But but but… the atheists are the good ones, and the theists are eeevil, everybody knows that!
/SARCASM
Re: Re: Re:8 Atheism is a religious belief
And that isn’t atheism. Atheism is the DISBELIEF in any higher power, and a focus on science to explain the universe. Antitheism is a much better term. Hitler was most definitely not an atheist.
Re: Re: Re:8 Atheism is a religious belief
I think making yourself the supreme admired leader doesn’t make you ‘god’ – there is no evidence of Hitler expecting people to worship him.
The trouble with religious thinking is that it paints everything as religious. Atheism is not and cannot be a religion. Otherwise I have a ‘religion’ of not believing in the Easter Bunny. And you may have a ‘religion’ of not believing in Islam. Just because it is a ‘belief’ doesn’t make it a religion – otherwise all lotteries and gambling are religion! So atheism is a ‘religion’ in the same way that bald is a hair colour.
Re: Re: Re:8 Atheism is a religious belief
This is incorrect by definition. As the saying goes, calling atheism a religious belief is like calling baldness a hair color.
To not believe in something that there is no evidence for is not a matter of faith. It’s basic logic.
Some atheists are dicks, this is true — atheists are humans too, after all, and suffer all the virtues and foilables that come with that. However, this is completely unrelated to whether or not atheism is a religious belief.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Maybem, but neither Hitler nor Stalin nor Mao did it for the righteous ideology of Atheism.
Hitler didnt walk over to Poland and say my no-God is better than your God so I must kill you.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Censor a-bomb details – less people killing with a-bombs.
How many people have been killed by an a-bomb used by someone who didn’t invent it? (answer: zero)
Censor religions – less people will kill because of religion.
You seriously believe that?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Eh, why? It doesn’t matter one bit if you know how to make a bomb if you can’t get the materials to do so.
Besides, how to make a bomb hasn’t been a secret for a very long time. Detailed instructions have been publicly available since before the internet existed (often at your library). What difference does it make if it’s censored from the web?
Re: Re: Re:
Hopefully people will realize religions don’t matter and we’ll enter an era of religiosity, not religions. But for that we need tolerance. And this seems to be the time of intolerance.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hopefully people will actually try to personally live up to the moral standards of their religions (or in some cases non-religious philosophies) – rather than spend their time attacking those that they disagree with.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Exactly. Those who claim to be the most tolerant are often times the least so.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“Hopefully people will actually try to personally live up to the moral standards of their religions…”
Extortion, pedophilia, xenophobia, infant genital mutilation, suppression of science, condemnation of homosexuals, subjugation of women?
And that’s just a few from the major, modern religions!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Abortion, to the tune of 1.2 million per year just in the US. That is just one of the MAJOR problems of the non-religious.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Wait, are you saying that being pro-choice is a stance that is inherently atheist in nature? If so, then you’re wrong. There is little-to-no correlation between a person’s stance on abortion and a person’s religious affiliation.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
If you believe in God, then you have to accept he approves of abortion since he aborts roughly 40% of conceptions anyway.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
That’s his call, not ours.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Tell that to all the people running going claiming that they’re doing the Lord’s work.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Then please feel free to never attend a physician, as they are usurping His call to ‘kill’ you with an icky disease he decided that you deserve. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Extortion, pedophilia, xenophobia, infant genital mutilation, suppression of science, condemnation of homosexuals, subjugation of women?
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
See: The Holy Bible
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Personally, I feel sorry for anyone who needs religion to have any moral compass at all. Morals shouldn’t come out of fairy tails that are thousands of years old.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The ‘fairy tales’ can suggest morality, that’s fine. I have no problem with a bronze-age book saying “Thou shalt not kill”. I have a problem with this is imposed on me as an absolute morality, or I am hectored with it, or even worse, the hypocrites then go and kill people who don’t agree with them.
Re: Re: Re:
That attitude will get all the evolution sites, creation sites, atheist sites, hedonist, humanist, islamist, buddhist et al cut off.
May as well just switch off the internet now.
Because what’s left? Not even TechDirt or GrokLaw.
Acronyms aside
To be fair, they do serve wine….
Re: Acronyms aside
Nonsense. “New wine” isn’t even alcoholic. It’s grape juice. There’s no guarantee the church even serves alcohol.
Re: Re: Acronyms aside
Didn’t Monks create beer? Time to stop all of these religious people.
When did alcohol become illegal in the UK?
Alcohol gets blocked now?
Wow. This is just getting crazy.
No what matters is having a system that is not going to fuck up so easily in the first place. If the AI is not smart enough to do the job retire the damn thing until newer technologies come around.
Account based filtering almost makes sense on mobile networks, as the devices are personal, but it makes little sense on home connections where multiple users are behind the same connection. The problem is that the filtering tends to be all or nothing, and therefore can’t deal with differences in what should be allowed for different people on the same connection.
Given that mobile devices are locked down, they could do the filtering, which would also avoid the simple bypass of finding an open WIFI connection, with no filtering. Surely some means can be set up so that parents can control their children?s mobile devices, and they should be responsible for any filtering on a home connection, with the router providing the filtering, and even acting as an account based prosy server to allow different filtering for different people and children in the house.
With this approach, anybody can filter the Internet to suite their own tastes and family requirements. However those who shout loudest for filtering are offended if other people can access material that they find offensive, and will tgru to get ISP based filtering tailored to their tastes and morals.
Filtering under control of the individual, or parents, does not count as censorship, ISP based filtering is censorship, and will make mistakes that it is difficult for the individual to rectify.
they say it's NOT a metaphor
I wonder if they’ll block the Catholic church under “torture/vampirism/cannibalism”.
Re: they say it's NOT a metaphor
“Catholic church…vampirism/cannibalism”
I must have missed an article or two somewhere…
Re: Re: they say it's NOT a metaphor
WHOOSH. Oh, I get it. It’s a communion reference. Well-played.
Sites about breast cancer are also clearly porn sites.
Re: Re:
Probably child porn since a lot of the “models” are very flat chested.
FYI the term “new wine” is a reference to a statement Jesus made in the New Testament that you don’t put new wine in an old stretched-out wineskin or else it will break. This itself was an analogy for the differences between Christianity and the old rituals of Judaism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Wine_into_Old_Wineskins
That church may or may not serve wine for Communion, but that’s not what the “new wine” reference is talking about.
are they using OpenDNS by chance? I have been going back and un-doing a malicious anti-gun user’s votes. He’s voting a TON of sites as “weapons” even if it’s a Judo class…
Lovely, yesterday everybody was speaking about how evil that journalist dude was for celebrating censorship, now most of the comments here seem to go in the same line, i guess its true that “bad speech is the one i dont like”, talking about hipocrites.
Re: Bad Speech ..................
Everyone has their own pet peeves. As has been said many times, you need to watch out for what you wish for, you may just get it.
I don’t necessarily want to listen to or read a lot of the views expressed by others (since I am opposed to such views), but what they believe is up to them – they have responsibility for their choices.
I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, I have attempted to bring up my children to be the same. Two of my sons have chosen a different lifestyle (with which I do not agree) but that is their choice and their responsibility. They are adults and fully responsible for their decisions and the consequences therein. I am saddened they have chosen their respective lifestyles but that is still their responsibility and choice.
They are still my sons and I love them but the consequences are their own not mine. We live in a society that teaches people have rights but what we should be teaching is that people have responsibilities and privileges.
One of those responsibilities is treat others are you yourself want to be treated.
People choose to believe what they want and quite often get upset if you disagree with them even to the extent of murder (or if they have no moral compass, terminating with extreme prejudice).
Just remember that you as an individual are responsible for your own actions, reactions and choices and the consequences that follow on from that.
Perfect system
No system is perfect, and errors will always be made.
Unless there is no filtering system. No false positives, no false negatives, and cheaper too.