BwheKLxCQAAdzAP.jpg large

Filters Are For Coffee – Not The Internet

Today is International Coffee Day so what better day to take the Open Rights Group tag line of “Filters Are For Coffee Not The Internet” and investigate the capabilities of the Internet filtering at various coffee locations.

Costa Coffee / Cafe Nero – O2 Wifi

DNS Spoofing: Partial
MiTM SSL: No
Deep Packet Inspection: Yes
Destination IP Transit Interference: Yes

O2 WiFi requires two-factor registration via a phone number and SMS claiming that it is a legal requirement. This is easily traversed with a disposable PAYG phone (e.g. EE have a Nokia 106 for £4.99 – an excellent option for a burner phone). Once you’ve completed the two-factor check (the first being they record your MAC address) you can start browsing.

The first thing to notice is that unlike their mobile offering the WiFi has several layers of filtering, some DNS queries are intercepted to send you to a block page and even if you resolve the A record out-of-band Squid will intercept and block.

If you manually query a 3rd party DNS server for the record in question then it appears to return normally.

This level of blocking however is hit and miss with domains such as the thepiratebay.se suffering the worst interference but others that are blocked by the default mobile filters aren’t blocked on the WiFi.

Thankfully all the usual bypass methods (Tor, RoutingPacketsIsNotACrime.uk, SSH SOCKS5 tunnel and SSL) work flawlessly despite the use of Squid and DNS interference.

Interestingly O2 have chosen to force Google to not allow SSL searching (so they can inspect the content and block stuff) which also means anyone else in the coffee shop can spy on your browsing. DuckDuckGo.com does still offer SSL searching and isn’t blocked.

Breaking down an O2 Intercept

The packet capture for this attempt to hit http://reddit.com/r/nsfw is here, the pertinent part of the HTTP transfer is below;

GET /r/nsfw HTTP/1.1
User-Agent: curl/7.34.0
Host: reddit.com
Accept: */*

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 10:28:51 GMT
X-Template: blacklisted
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Length: 195
Cache-Control: no-cache
X-Cache: MISS from Squid
Via: 1.1 Squid (squid/3.2.11)
Connection: keep-alive
< !DOCTYPE html>


    
    



Despite getting the correct A records back from the nameservers in packet 5 we can see in packets 12 onwards that the O2 Squid server (ironically the same software PacketFlagon.is uses to bypass censorship!) returns back some HTML with a meta refresh that instantly directs the browser to their block page.

As shown in this packet capture there is no IP/Host matching it is all done on the GET path and the Host header so Hosts files hacks won’t work either.

High Court blocks are solved using DNS and an attempt to resolve thepiratebay.se returns 127.0.0.1.

Finally some other blocks such as the block of torproject.org are achieved by just silently dropping the packets.

Starbucks – BT / Friendly WiFi

The people at Friendly WiFi appear to be quite zealous about blocking “pornography” and come out with ridiculous claims such as that by putting in their filtering one gets a “porn free city”

Thankfully their blocks are almost as easy to bypass as O2′s. Interestingly, unlike O2, Starbucks and BT don’t believe they are required to legally know who is using their WiFi and no registration is required.

DNS Spoofing: Yes
MiTM SSL: No
Deep Packet Inspection: Yes
Destination IP Transit Interference: No

Websites that are blocked due to sub-content (e.g. reddit.com/r/nsfw) are blocked over HTTP but accessible over SSL. Interestingly thepiratebay.se is reachable over SSL e.g.

curl -k -v https://194.71.107.27 -H 'Host: thepiratebay.se'

Using PAC files such as RoutingPacketsIsNotACrime.uk was hit and miss and requires some more investigation but other bypass options such as SSL, Tor and using an SSH SOCKS5 tunnel all worked without issue.

BT also force Google to downgrade search to a non-ssl version which means others could monitor your search terms.

Breaking down a BT Intercept

When trying to hit reddit.com/r/nsfw this packet capture shows a HTTP 302 is returned rather than the site we’re after.

GET /r/nsfw HTTP/1.1
User-Agent: curl/7.34.0
Accept: */*
Host: reddit.com

HTTP/1.1 302 Found
Location: http://217.41.225.106/redirect/starbucks/index.html

An attempt to reach thepiratebay.se resulted in a forged DNS reply for 193.113.9.167 that simply displays the words “Error – site blocked”

Interestingly as shown in this packet capture, resolving the A record out-of-band and then passing a HTTP request through works fine!

Bonus – EE Hotspot

During my travels between coffee shops I stumbled across an EE hotspot which had a completely different set of filtering as it uses OpenDNS.

DNS Spoofing: Yes
MiTM SSL: No
Deep Packet Inspection: No
Destination IP Transit Interference: No

Much like O2 you are required to register using a phone and EE uses www.picopoint.com to do this.

The filtering is very lax with reddit.com/r/nsfw and the Pirate Bay being allowed through however shock sites like rotten.com resolve to 67.215.65.130 which results in an OpenDNS block page.

Since the filtering is entirely DNS based out-of-band resolution, RoutingPacketsIsNotACrime, Tor and SSH SOCKS5 tunnels all work fine.

I’ve drank far too much coffee today and it’s a shame that public establishments feel it necessary to put censorship technology that performs excessive over-blocking (how is torproject.org sexual?) but at least it is still easy to bypass.

coffeecoffee

O2

How to Bypass O2′s Internet Filtering without a Credit Card or Identifying Yourself

O2 were next on the list for a tear-down of their filtering anyway but as luck would have it they blocked RoutingPacketsIsNotACrime.uk which meant I had control of both ends of a TCP/HTTP connection that was being filtered. Being able to investigate what happens from both sides is an opportunity that is too good to miss.

You can buy an O2 PAYG device such as a phone, dongle or MiFi in cash and with a name that doesn’t require verification.

This will however result in you receiving a SIM with the “Default Safety” level of filtering enabled. Attempting to visit legitimate, non-sexual and legal websites such as RoutingPacketsIsNotACrime.uk can result in a block page;
o2-block

The good news is that the O2 filters are quite easy to circumnavigate.

DNS Spoofing: No
MiTM SSL: No
Deep Packet Inspection: Partial
Destination IP Transit Interference: Yes
-
Unique Reason for Block: No
Categorised Block: No
Ability to report incorrect block: No

Tor

The goto advice is, as always, to download Tor as it will not only bypass all filtering but will also help mask those who need to use Tor to aid in protecting their privacy if configured as a relay too.

With Tor installed and configured to listen on port 9050 as a SOCKS proxy (or using the bundled Tor Browser if using the Tor Bundle or the Android port Orbot) you will be able to bypass all filtering (including the censored blocks forced on you even if you are over 18)

SOCKS5 SSH Proxy

If you don’t want to use Tor then creating a SOCKS tunnel via SSH is also an excellent option. Visit LowEndBox.com where you can get tiny cloud servers (e.g. 128Mb of RAM) for as little as £5 a year that can be paid for in advance with a prepaid Visa/Mastercard.

Once you’ve purchased or otherwise acquired a server running OpenSSH (or any other variety that supports tunneling) simply connect to it specifying the -D option to create a local dynamic tunnel;

ssh -D 9050 proxy1.survivetheclaireperryinter.net

Once connected you can configure your browser to use 127.0.0.1 port 9050 as a SOCKS5 proxy (Edit – Preferences > Network > Settings > SOCKS Host) and bypass all filtering.

SSL

O2 cannot Man in the Middle (MiTM) SSL connections so any website that has an SSL component and not yet subject to a High Court Order block is accessible over SSL.

This also means that you can use a RoutingPacketsIsNotACrime.uk PAC file to get around all filtering despite them banning the HTTP path.

Attacking from Both Sides

Since this is the first time I’ve had access to both sides of the filtering fence I can examine what is happening to our packets to see how O2′s filtering works.

A first attempt at connecting provides the attached packet capture where we can see that our host (OpenBSD) does a DNS lookup for both the A and the AAAA record. The MiFi dongle returns the correct IP addresses for both queries indicating that there isn’t any Nominum style DNS interference going on.

Packet 5 is the start of the HTTP sequence and everything is going fine, in packet 8 curl sends the host header we’re after, at this point there’s a rogue TLSv1 encrypted connection to 185.29.44.9 (o2bb.winint.net and mobilebroadbandaccess.o2.co.uk – we’ll delve into this later) which is from an earlier session.

Packet 11 appears to be an ACK from my server in response to packet 8 however packets 12 and 13 shows that the server sent a 302 redirect to send the browser to http://assets.o2.co.uk/18plusaccess. Well we know that this isn’t true. Interestingly we then get some packets (16,17 and 19) that Wireshark flags as out of order and duplicate responses to the earlier packets.

From this we can make a couple of assumptions, the first that O2′s filtering system relies on a deep packet or proxy inspection of the host header and secondly that there is possibly a race condition for returning HTTP packets.

Hacking RFCs

RFC 2616 section 14.23 dictates that a valid HTTP/1.1 request will contain a host header but doesn’t specify how many (for obvious reasons), so lets see if we can abuse this by manipulating the HTTP headers using curl e.g;

curl 89.151.84.121 -H 'Host: o2-censor.com' -H 'routingpacketsisnotacrime.uk'

The HTTP request is allowed through without issue however the web server at the other end will also ignore the second Host header and attempt to serve the first.

Passing the first host header as an empty string and the second as the host we want results in a block. Maybe we’ll come back to this later (custom build of apache + browser plugin?).

The next test is to see if there is coupling between the IP and HTTP host.

curl 46.4.22.9 -H 'routingpacketsisnotacrime.uk'

Still results in a block. OK, well we know that O2 can’t interfere with 443, it’s possible that they see the cypto handshake or that they see it’s not port 80 and ignore it so I tried setting an apache host to listen on 8081 but the Host header was still detected and blocked.

On a whim I tried using a RoutingPacketsIsNotACrime.uk PAC file served over SSL and that worked which was a relief.

Anyhow, back to messing with host headers. Since we know that O2 rely on the Host header lets set a rubbish DNS name in /etc/hosts (or C:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts for you Windows people) and configure apache to serve the censored website on a given IP regardless of host header (a default vhost if you will).

127.0.0.1   localhost localhost.localdomain localhost4 localhost4.localdomain4
::1         localhost localhost.localdomain localhost6 localhost6.localdomain6
89.151.84.121 routingpacketsisgreat.fucko2

Success! As you can see in packet 4 of this Wireshark packet capture we sent a Host header of routingpacketsisgreat.fucko2 and received the correct response back from the server which is a 302 to https://RoutingPacketsIsNotACrime.uk and since we know that SSL is not interfered with the connection continues.

For completeness sake lets see what a censored connection looks like from the server side.

When sending a HTTP GET to wtfismyip.com the IP returned was consistently 82.132.245.233 however as we can see from the packet capture the IP that reached out to my server was 82.132.245.111. It starts the first part of the TCP handshake and then sends a TCP reset.

From within the O2 network this server appears to be listening on thousands of ports whereas from an outside source it appears that there are no listening ports.

All servers within the 82.132.244.0/24 have a PTR record of dab-rcn1-h-xx-3.dab.02.net where xx does increase with each IP but does not correlate to the IP itself.

There appears to be a limited form of session or IP ‘stickiness’ with repeated connections to differing remote IPs always coming from the same host (e.g. a.b.c.d ‘sticks’ to dab-rcn1-h-ab-3.dab.02.net but e.f.g.h ‘sticks’ to dab-rcn1-h-xy-3.dab.02.net).I didn’t test the longevity of the stickiness but it doesn’t really matter.

Using our fake Host header trick the connection completes but still comes from the 82.132.245.0/24 range (although in other captures I’ve seen 82.132.244.0/24). So it would appear that these proxies will evaluate all plain text traffic regardless of whether the IP is known to host blocked content.

The TCP dump indicates that whilst the initial TCP handshake happens the upper layer (HTTP) doesn’t until the proxy has evaluated the host header which means the second assumption about a possible race condition was incorrect.

StreamShield

As an interesting aside by evaluating how the server responds to certain requests it’s fairly likely that these filtering boxes are running some form of Linux, that conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that BAE is hiring Linux C++ engineers for their StreamShield product which we know from Court documents is what O2 use.

o2-streamshieldThe BAE StreamShield system is quite nasty, enabling real time deep packet inspection of various protocols (which is how it picks out the host header from HTTP streams) but can also do real time filtering based on the content of the returned data.

It also gathers and stores all that information about you so that O2 can hand over details about what you’ve been doing to anyone who asks thanks to the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act.

Returning to 185.29.44.9

This IP block belongs to a company called IMIMOBILE EUROPE LTD who appear to be in the business of monetizing mobile customers through a variety of means.

185.29.44.9 is mobilebroadbandaccess.o2.co.uk and is part of a joint venture between the two to create self service portals.

Interestingly you can put any O2 phone number in, from any Internet connection (including Tor) and it will divulge a limited amount of information about the account.

o2-selfservice

Little though the information may be, with scams such as the “Microsoft Event View Tech Support” or “Compromised Bank Card key in your Pin” call it is dangerous to tell the wrong people when another persons PAYG SIM expires and how much data is left, vulnerable people can be convinced with less. But then again, we’re talking about the company that censored the NSPCC and ChildLine websites so looking after vulnerable people isn’t top of their priorities.

So, I’m down another £40 but it’s been very interesting to play with O2′s censorship technology which, it turns out, is easy to circumnavigate because the ‘Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

To prohibit the reading of certain books is to declare the inhabitants to be either fools or slavesClaude Adrien Helvétius

blogimg-opendns

Defeating DNS Based Filtering (Sky, BT etc) with DNSCrypt

Several of the “Big Five” ISPs utilise a form of filtering that intercepts DNS requests and spoof replies for sites that are on the block list, in certain cases if you are able to resolve the IP address out-of-band (e.g. a hosts file) then you can browse uninterrupted.

We already know that most ISP implementations of filtering cannot intercept and block SSL protected HTTP traffic and in the same way DNSCrypt turns regular DNS traffic into encrypted DNS traffic that is secure from eavesdropping and man-in-the-middle attacks.

It doesn’t require any changes to domain names or how they work, it simply provides a method for securely encrypting communication between people and our OpenDNS’ servers.

The DNSCrypt code base is open source and it’s available on GitHub.

Download for Mac
Download for Windows
Linux can be installed via your favourite package manager

Once installed just set your DNS server to be 127.0.0.2 and you should be set to go.

If you have any issues or need more help with installation check out; http://dnscrypt.org/

654521f3-df0b-e064-e947-eb04a76ef030

More Laws Proposed To Enforce Censorship – Now At A Device Level

Earlier in the year we saw Internet censorship try and creep in through the Children and Families Bill and now our MPs are at it again.

Geraint Davies MP has proposed a bill that whilst sounding noble on the surface (the prevention of revenge porn in essence) also includes a requirement that manufacturers add a magic “no porn” feature to any new Internet capable device.

The bill isn’t currently available to read but is likely to be published closer to the 2nd reading date which is set for the 7th of November, in the mean time you can check its progress here.

The record of the first reading has been published on Hansard.

Mr Davies was supported by Jessica Morden, Mrs Siân C. James, Chris Evans, Mr Mark Williams and Nia Griffith but no other information appears to be available at the moment.

The Bills website encourages you to contact Geraint Davies directly to discuss the bill, I would encourage everyone to contact both him and your local MP.

Make no mistake, we let CleanFeed take control of the Internet for noble reasons and now it strangles access to anything the Government or lawyers deem unfit for you.

Your hardware should be as free (as in speech) as your software;

    • The freedom to run the program (use the hardware) as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    • The freedom to study how the program (hardware) works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code (schematics) is a precondition for this.
    • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
    • The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

    Be wary of the fact that this is included in a bill designed to protect people and children so making any arguments against individual clauses may be perceived as an attack on the bill itself.

    During a discussion about a different bill Geraint Davies said this;

    I welcome the measure, but the question is whether it goes far enough. The average age at which children now have access to pornography is 11 years old, because smartphones, which parents normally buy, are not sold with a default position of non-porn. What does the Minister think about the proposition of making that the default? I will be introducing it as a Bill next Monday. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has found that one in two boys and one in three girls believe that there are circumstances in which forced sex is acceptable. Again, that is the result of the epidemic of violent and explicit sex, which children are viewing in classrooms on phones. Does the measure go far enough?

    Even in video gaming, the most successful video game of all time—“Grand Theft Auto”, which was made in Scotland—has, apart from the violence one would expect, point-scoring for a player murdering prostitutes having had sex with them. Evidence increasingly suggests that such things incite violence, particularly towards women. Given that we have legislation against inciting racial hatred, should we consider having legislation against inciting hatred and violence against women in particular? Although the regulations take one step forward, the challenges facing us are racing ahead at a much faster pace. We are plodding behind, and we need to take some tough action if we are going to turn the corner. The regulations are not tough enough.
    Geraint Davies (Swansea West)

    He went on propsoing that current safeguards are not adequate and that the Government should entertain fining manufacturers;

    It is very generous of the Minister to give way again. He is asserting that selling devices with a default position of no access to pornography is already happening. My understanding is that it is not. If he thinks it is happening, will he consider possible legislation whereby if mobile phones, computers and other devices that have access to the internet are not sold in a default position without that access—that is, if the user has to switch it on or contact the supplier—we could fine the manufacturers?
    Geraint Davies (Swansea West)

    I will leave you with a quote;

    There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore.
    Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’
    Philip K. Dick

    Legislation_gov_uk_logo

    The Laws PIPCU used to intimidate Immunicity

    Following the announcement of the City of London Police’s arrest of the operator of Immunicity.co.uk I issued a Freedom of Information request to ascertain which laws were used.

    Yesterday I received a reply;

    Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

    Dear Mr Llewellyn,

    REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REF:  COL/14/672

    I write in connection with your request for information dated 21 August 2014 in which you seek access to the following information:

    I’d like to know what specific laws were broken by the person who was running immunicity.org and what powers the City of London Police used to arrest the person in question.

    Running an “umbrella” website, running a Tor relay or just generally maintaining a Cisco router that routes packets is not a crime so I’m at a loss as to what grounds the City of London Police had.

     

    The male was arrested on suspicion of committing the following offences;

    Intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence contrary to section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007

    Possession of Articles for Use in Fraud contrary to section 6 of the Fraud Act 2006

    Making or Supplying Articles for use in Frauds contrary to section 7 of the Fraud Act 2006

    Money Laundering contrary to section 327 & 329 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

     

    Should you have any further questions regarding your request, please contact me via e-mail, letter or telephone, quoting the reference number above.

    Yours sincerely

    Katy Grunblat

    Senior Information Access Officer
    Intelligence and Information Directorate
    City of London Police | 182 Bishopsgate | London EC2M 4NP
    T: +44 20 7601 2287| F: +44 20 7601 2088
    Email: Kathryn.Grunblat@city-of-london.pnn.police.uk

    Katy Grunblat – Senior Information Access Officer

    The laws in question can be found on legislation.gov.uk but are copied below for convenience;

    Serious Crime Act 2007

    44 Intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence

    (1) A person commits an offence if—

    (a) he does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence; and

    (b) he intends to encourage or assist its commission.

    (2) But he is not to be taken to have intended to encourage or assist the commission of an offence merely because such encouragement or assistance was a foreseeable consequence of his act.

    Fraud Act 2006

    7 Making or supplying articles for use in frauds

    (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article—

    (a) knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or

    (b) intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud.

    (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

    (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);

    (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).

    (3) Subsection (2)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.

    6 Possession etc. of articles for use in frauds

    (1) A person is guilty of an offence if he has in his possession or under his control any article for use in the course of or in connection with any fraud.

    (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

    (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);

    (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to a fine (or to both).

    (3) Subsection (2)(a) applies in relation to Northern Ireland as if the reference to 12 months were a reference to 6 months.

    Proceeds of Crime Act

    327 Concealing etc

    (1) A person commits an offence if he—

    (a) conceals criminal property;

    (b) disguises criminal property;

    (c) converts criminal property;

    (d) transfers criminal property;

    (e) removes criminal property from England and Wales or from Scotland or from Northern Ireland.

    (2) But a person does not commit such an offence if—

    (a) he makes an authorised disclosure under section 338 and (if the disclosure is made before he does the act mentioned in subsection (1)) he has the appropriate consent;

    (b) he intended to make such a disclosure but had a reasonable excuse for not doing so;

    (c) the act he does is done in carrying out a function he has relating to the enforcement of any provision of this Act or of any other enactment relating to criminal conduct or benefit from criminal conduct.

    (3) Concealing or disguising criminal property includes concealing or disguising its nature, source, location, disposition, movement or ownership or any rights with respect to it.

    329 Acquisition, use and possession

    (1) A person commits an offence if he—

    (a) acquires criminal property;

    (b) uses criminal property;

    (c) has possession of criminal property.

    (2) But a person does not commit such an offence if—

    (a) he makes an authorised disclosure under section 338 and (if the disclosure is made before he does the act mentioned in subsection (1)) he has the appropriate consent;

    (b) he intended to make such a disclosure but had a reasonable excuse for not doing so;

    (c) he acquired or used or had possession of the property for adequate consideration;

    (d) the act he does is done in carrying out a function he has relating to the enforcement of any provision of this Act or of any other enactment relating to criminal conduct or benefit from criminal conduct.

    (3) For the purposes of this section—

    (a) a person acquires property for inadequate consideration if the value of the consideration is significantly less than the value of the property;

    (b) a person uses or has possession of property for inadequate consideration if the value of the consideration is significantly less than the value of the use or possession;

    (c) the provision by a person of goods or services which he knows or suspects may help another to carry out criminal conduct is not consideration.

     

    I’m not a lawyer but let’s try and break these down.

    Intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence

    Whilst the PAC file explicitly listed websites that have been found to facilitate the infringement of copyright looking through the Archive.org backup of immunicity.org doesn’t explicitly encourage people to pirate material.

    The PAC does however assist in the infringement but simply providing access to a website doesn’t mean that a person will then go on to commit a crime so paragraph 2 may come into play.

    Possession of Articles for Use in Fraud and Making or Supplying Articles for use in Frauds

    Unless routing packets is in and of itself considered a connection to or commission of fraud I can’t see how the City of London Police have applied this to running a Proxy.

    I would expect however that this could be related to the request for Bitcoin donations or something that the operator was doing unrelated to immunicity.org itself.

    Money Laundering

    This is most likely related to Bitcoin or something that the operator was doing unrelated to immunicity.org itself.

    So, assuming that only the inchoate offence of encouraging or assisting an offence was related to the actual operation of a proxy we need to consult section 50 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 for the defences;

    50 Defence of acting reasonably

    (1) A person is not guilty of an offence under this Part if he proves—

    (a) that he knew certain circumstances existed; and

    (b) that it was reasonable for him to act as he did in those circumstances.

    (2) A person is not guilty of an offence under this Part if he proves—

    (a) that he believed certain circumstances to exist;

    (b) that his belief was reasonable; and

    (c) that it was reasonable for him to act as he did in the circumstances as he believed them to be.

    (3) Factors to be considered in determining whether it was reasonable for a person to act as he did include—

    (a) the seriousness of the anticipated offence (or, in the case of an offence under section 46, the offences specified in the indictment);

    (b) any purpose for which he claims to have been acting;

    (c) any authority by which he claims to have been acting.

    In light of the defence of acting reasonably in the knowledge of the circumstances that the current state of Internet filtering being that there are competing ISPs who do not filter coupled with the fact that the honourable Justice Arnold only ordered Sky, BT, TalkTalk et al to block or at least impede access to certain sites but has not made accessing (or providing access) to those sites a crime I have rewritten RoutingPacketsIsNotACrime.uk to be a general purpose selective routing PAC platform for UK users on filtered Internet connections.