The precise number of websites blocked in the United Kingdom is unknown. Blocking techniques vary from one Internet service provider (ISP) to another with some sites or specific URLs blocked by some ISPs and not others. Websites and services are blocked using a combination of data feeds from private content-control technology companies, government agencies, NGOs, court orders in conjunction with the service administrators who may or may not have the power to unblock, additionally block, appeal or recategorise blocked content.

Overview There are a number of different web blocking programmes in the UK. The high-profile default ISP filters and IWF filters have been referred to as a "pornwall", "porn filter", "Hadrian's Firewall", "Great Firewall of Britain" and the "Great Firewall of Cameron". However the programmes are usually referred to interchangeable or individually rather than collectively. Programme Content Organisation Implementation Coverage Active Child porn and obscene content blocking Child Pornography & Criminally obscene adult content Internet Watch Foundation ISP implementation of child abuse image content list 98.6% as of 2009 Copyright infringement site blocking Copyright infringing sites subject to court orders Rights holder organisations court orders ISP implementation of secret court orders Default ISP Filters Varied, see ISP Default network blocking category comparison Broadband ISPs with varied technology partners ISP Content-control softwareSee Technologies 93% of new consumer connections since January 2014Unknown percent of active connections Mobile Internet Filtering Varied, see Mobile Internet Blocking Mobile network operator with varied technology partners within the British Board of Film Classification framework ISP Content-control software 100% of new contracts since 2004"What mobile internet filtering tells us about porn blocks", Open rights Group, 31 May 2013. Unknown percent of active connections Wifi Hotspot Filtering Varied, see Public Wi-Fi Arqiva, BT, Sky, Nomad Digital, Virgin, O2 ISP Content-control software 90% of public Wi-Fi as of 2013 Private Hotspot Providers 49% of wifi hotspots as of 2013 Library and educational filtering Varied including Payday loans, see Libraries and educational institutions Local government Content-control software Majority of SchoolsMany Libraries Corporate network filtering Often social media, may extend to wider content Company IT Department Content-control software often with SSL deep packet inspection Unknown Technical threat blocking Malware, Phishing, Spyware etc. ISPs with technology partners Blacklisting Optional, usage unknown Planned Extremist material blocking Extremism and Terrorism Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit URL Blocking List Currently Public Estate Blocking Only Proposed Government White List Websites incorrectly filtered UK Council for Child Internet Safety TBA Not in effect Social Media and Communications blocking Social Media, BlackBerry Messenger - Unknown Proposed for emergencies Network-capable device level mandated filtering Pornography - Device manufacturers Proposed

Inciting racial hatred was removed from the IWF's remit on the setting up of a police website for the purpose in April 2011.

The technical measures used to block sites include DNS hijacking, DNS blocking, IP address blocking, and Deep packet inspection, making consistent verification problematic. One known method is ISP scraping DNS of domains subject to blocking orders to produce a list of IPs to block.

The Open Rights Group has proposed adding the new HTTP status code '451' to help streamline and add transparency to the process of determining when a site is blocked."451 unavailable - Site blocked for legal reasons", Open Rights Group. Retrieved 23 November 2013."Open Rights Group revives 'unavailable for legal reasons' HTTP error code plan", Simon Sharwood, The Register, 16 August 2013. Retrieved 23 November 2013.

Active programmes

Copyright

Court-ordered blocks It is an established procedure in the UK for rights-holders to use 'Section 97' court orders to require ISPs to block copyright-infringing sites. For instance, court orders obtained by the BPI in October 2013 resulted in the blocking of 21 file-sharing sites including FilesTube and Torrentz. There is a private agreement in principle between leading ISPs and rights holders, made with encouragement from government, to quickly restrict access to websites when presented with court orders. The court orders are not made public and "overblocking" is sometimes reported, such as the accidental blocking of the Radio Times, Crystal Palace F.C., Taylor Swift and over 100 other websites in August 2013.

The practice originated as a result of a court order applied against an incidence of copyright infringement that was taken out by the Motion Picture Association in December 2010 at the request of Hollywood studios. The Association applied for an injunction to block access to NewzBin2, a site which provided a search service for UseNet content, indexing downloads of copyrighted content including movies and other material shared without permission. The application was lodged against BT, the largest Internet service provider in the United Kingdom with around six million customers. It required BT to use Cleanfeed to block its customers' access to the site. In July 2011 the High Court of Justice granted the injunction and in October 2011 BT was ordered to block access to the website within fourteen days, the first ruling of its kind under UK copyright law. The precedent set was described by the Open Rights Group as "dangerous".

BT did not appeal against the ruling and put the required block in place on 2 November 2011. Subsequent attempts to access the site from a BT IP address were met with the message "Error – site blocked"."Error - site blocked", Screenshot of error message from browser, i.imgur.com. Retrieved 17 November 2011. Newzbin released client software to circumvent the BT blocking, using encryption and the Tor network. Newzbin claimed that over 90% of its active UK users had downloaded its workaround software making the BT block ineffective. However, further court orders resulted in Sky blocking access to Newzbin in December 2011 and Virgin Media blocking access to the site in August 2012. On 28 November 2012 Newzbin announced the closure of its indexing service.

Meanwhile, in May 2012 the High Court ordered the blocking of The Pirate Bay by UK ISPs to prevent further copyright infringing movie and music downloads from the website."Pirate Bay must be blocked, High Court tells ISPs", Matt Warman, The Telegraph, 30 April 2012"The Pirate Bay cut off from millions of Virgin Media customers", Christopher Williams, The Telegraph, 3 May 2012 The blocks were said to be quickly bypassed and a spokesman for The Pirate Party said public interest in the service following the ban had boosted traffic to the party's website."The Pirate Bay 'breaches' BT's ban of the filesharing site", BBC News, 22 June 2012 In December 2012, the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) threatened legal action against The Pirate Party after the party refused demands sent at the end of November to remove their proxy to The Pirate Bay.

In September 2013 an Ofcom survey revealed that 2% of Internet users are responsible for 74% of all copyright-infringing downloads in the UK, and that 29% of all downloads are of content which violates copyright.

In October 2014 the first blocking order against trademark infringing consumer goods was passed against the major UK ISPs by Richemont, Cartier International and Montblanc to block several domains.

ISP Default network blocking Internet customers in the UK are prohibited from accessing a range of web sites by default, because they have their Internet access filtered by their ISPs. The filtering programme has applied to new ISP customers since the end of 2013, and has been extended to existing users on a rolling basis. A voluntary code of practice agreed by all four major ISPs means that customers have to 'opt out' of the ISP filtering to gain access to the blocked content."Internet porn block 'not possible' say ISPs", BBC News, 20 December 2010. Retrieved 25 January 2011. However, the complex nature of the active monitoring systems means that users cannot usually opt out of the monitoring and re-routing of their data traffic, something which may render their data security vulnerable. The range of content blocked by ISPs can be varied over time. Categories blocked across the major ISPs include: Dating, Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco, File sharing, Gambling, Games, Pornography, Nudity, Social networking, Suicide and Self-harm, Weapons and violence, Obscenity, Criminal Skills, Hate, Media Streaming, Fashion and Beauty, Gore, Cyberbullying, Hacking and Web-blocking circumvention tools

History The idea for default filtering originated from manifesto commitments concerning "the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood" given by the parties forming the Cameron–Clegg coalition government in 2010. This was followed by a review (the Bailey Review) and a consultation by the UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS). Campaigning by Claire Perry MP and the Daily Mail newspaper resulted in significant public support for the idea of Internet filtering for the purposes of child protection. By 2013 there had already been considerable adoption of in-home filtering, with 43% of homes with children aged 5–15 having filters installed on their family computer. Nevertheless, Prime Minister David Cameron made it clear in July 2013 that his aim was to ensure that by the end of 2013 all ISPs would have a filtering system in place. As a result, three of the Big 4 major ISPs (TalkTalk, Sky and BT) began applying default filtering to new customers in 2013 with the fourth major ISP, Virgin, doing so in February 2014. Default filtering of existing customers was implemented by all four major ISPs during 2014 with the aim of ensuring that the system applied to 95% of all households by the end of the year.

TalkTalk already had content-control software available to comply with government requirements. Their HomeSafe internet filtering system was introduced in May 2011 as an opt-in product and was used for default filtering of new customers from March 2012. HomeSafe was praised by Cameron and is controlled and operated by the Chinese company Huawei."Chinese firm Huawei controls net filter praised by PM", David Lee, BBC News, 25 July 2013. After initial resistance other ISPs had to commission new filtering systems to fulfil Government demands. Some smaller ISPs expressed their reluctance to take part in filtering, citing concerns over costs and civil liberties but the government stated: "We expect the smaller ISPs to follow the lead being set by the larger providers"."Government wants default blocking to hit small ISPs", Open Rights Group, 31 July 2013. Cameron said ISPs should choose their own preferred technical solution, but would be monitored to ensure filtering was done correctly. Nevertheless, the ISP Andrews & Arnold does not censor any of its Internet connection all its broadband packages guarantee a 12-month notice should it start to censor any of its traffic.