Firstly it offers ‘Virus Alerts’ which blocks sites (or even individual sections of sites) known to be infected with malware before they can even reach a customer’s browser.

Next up is ‘Homework Time’, a feature which allows parents to grant kids access to the Internet for educational purposes, but stops them in their tracks should they attempt to become distracted by social networking sites such as Facebook.

The third category, known as KidsSafe, offers parents a set of controls to stop their kids (or indeed anyone else using a TalkTalk Internet connection) from accessing violent, pornographic or gambling content.

HomeSafe goes about its business transparently by scanning the websites accessed by TalkTalk customers, assessing the security risk and applying filtering according to customer preferences. The company is assuring its subscribers that it stores no personal information such as IP addresses.

However, TorrentFreak has learned that it also has another trick up its sleeve – the option to block BitTorrent and other file-sharing related sites. We spoke with TalkTalk’s (always helpful) PR company in order to try and obtain a list of sites currently under blockade but we were told that one isn’t available. Of course one does exist, we just aren’t being given access to it.

What we have discovered is that HomeSafe only filters web browsing. This means that while, for example, The Pirate Bay might be blocked, if users can access the torrents from elsewhere (from a non-blocked site or via email or IM using a friend as a proxy) then the actual BitTorrent transfers will complete just fine.

Nevertheless, getting this far could be tricky for new followers of the file-sharing craze since sites where users can download file-sharing software are also being blocked when HomeSafe is asked to do so.

TalkTalk are stressing that HomeSafe is completely optional and is disabled by default and of course that is the right approach. However, while there is a clear need not to further publicize the URLs of certain sexually abusive sites which have no other purpose than to exploit, the same cannot be said about file-sharing sites and services.

TalkTalk admits that HomeSafe isn’t an all-in-one silver bullet and as we have seen, its BitTorrent blocks can be circumvented with relative ease. But as it stands we don’t know which sites are blocked, or why, or who made that decision. If parents are being trusted to know what to censor for the benefit of their children, they need to make an informed decision and in order to do that there needs to be a level of transparency from TalkTalk.

From our enquiries, that does not appear to be forthcoming, at least for now. So, if you’re a TalkTalk customer, head over to your control panel, turn the file-sharing ban controls up to 11 and start testing the big BitTorrent sites, uTorrent.com, Vuze.com, and others like RapidShare and MegaUpload. We’d love to hear about the results of your tests, backed up with screenshots if at all possible.

Update: Well, well. It seems that our call for transparency fell a little closer to home than we expected. According to a kind TorrentFreak reader who just sent us in some screenshots, not only is isohunt.com, thepiratebay.org and newzbin.com blocked by HomeSafe but also……

…..TorrentFreak.com.

We’ll speak to TalkTalk about this and post an update.

Source: TalkTalk HomeSafe Blocks BitTorrent Sites

Both ISPs accused the former government of pushing through the legislation without due process and questioned whether the Act is enforceable under current EU legislation. They also challenged the statutory order, currently in draft, designed to apportion the costs of meeting the requirements of the DEA.

Under the law, service providers are required to take action against subscribers flagged as illicit file-sharers and could be required to block domains associated with infringement.

Just under an hour ago, that decision arrived.

“The High Court today ruled in favour of the Government in a judicial review of measures to tackle online copyright infringement in the Digital Economy Act,” said the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in an announcement.

“Mr Justice Kenneth Parker upheld the principle of taking measures to tackle the unlawful downloading of music, films, books and other copyright material. BT and TalkTalk had brought the judicial review, claiming that the measures in the Act were not compliant with EU law and were not proportionate. The judge rejected the challenge.”

On the statutory order dealing with the costs of implementing the DEA, the government indicated that the ISPs could avoid some, but not all costs.

“The judicial review also considered the statutory instrument that splits the cost of the Act’s mass notification system between rights holders and internet service providers.

“The judge ruled ISPs could be made to pay a share of the cost of operating the system and the appeals process but not Ofcom’s costs from setting up, monitoring and enforcing it. The Government will now consider changes to the statutory instrument.”

In a statement responding to the judgement, a DCMS spokesperson said the government is pleased that the court has decided in favor of the DEA.

“We are pleased that the Court has recognised these measures as both lawful and proportionate. The Government remains committed to tackling online piracy and so will set out the next steps for implementation of the Digital Economy Act shortly.”

Both BT and TalkTalk say they are “disappointed” with the outcome and are considering their options. They could include going to the Court of Appeal and the European Court of Justice.

Regulatory body OFCOM is currently considering if site blocking under the DEA is a workable practice. They will report to government shortly.

Source: ISPs Challenge to Digital Economy Act Rejected

Both ISPs accused the former government of pushing through the legislation without due process and questioned whether the Act is enforceable under current EU legislation. They also challenged the statutory order, currently in draft, designed to apportion the costs of meeting the requirements of the DEA.

Under the law, service providers are required to take action against subscribers flagged as illicit file-sharers and could be required to block domains associated with infringement.

Just under an hour ago, that decision arrived.

“The High Court today ruled in favour of the Government in a judicial review of measures to tackle online copyright infringement in the Digital Economy Act,” said the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in an announcement.

“Mr Justice Kenneth Parker upheld the principle of taking measures to tackle the unlawful downloading of music, films, books and other copyright material. BT and TalkTalk had brought the judicial review, claiming that the measures in the Act were not compliant with EU law and were not proportionate. The judge rejected the challenge.”

On the statutory order dealing with the costs of implementing the DEA, the government indicated that the ISPs could avoid some, but not all costs.

“The judicial review also considered the statutory instrument that splits the cost of the Act’s mass notification system between rights holders and internet service providers.

“The judge ruled ISPs could be made to pay a share of the cost of operating the system and the appeals process but not Ofcom’s costs from setting up, monitoring and enforcing it. The Government will now consider changes to the statutory instrument.”

In a statement responding to the judgement, a DCMS spokesperson said the government is pleased that the court has decided in favor of the DEA.

“We are pleased that the Court has recognised these measures as both lawful and proportionate. The Government remains committed to tackling online piracy and so will set out the next steps for implementation of the Digital Economy Act shortly.”

Both BT and TalkTalk say they are “disappointed” with the outcome and are considering their options. They could include going to the Court of Appeal and the European Court of Justice.

Regulatory body OFCOM is currently considering if site blocking under the DEA is a workable practice. They will report to government shortly.

Source: ISPs Challenge to Digital Economy Act Rejected

“It’s our belief that this haste meant the Digital Economy Bill, as it then was, became law without being properly scrutinised and without its impact being properly assessed,” writes TalkTalk boss Charles Dunstone today.

TalkTalk, which has been speaking out against both the Bill and Act from the beginning, intends to carry on its opposition by hopefully taking its argument to the High Court with the support of a rival ISP.

“Today, in conjunction with BT, we’ve filed papers with the High Court asking for a judicial review of the Digital Economy Act,” says Dunstone. “We’ve asked the High Court to look at whether the Act was passed into law without going through the correct parliamentary procedures.”

TalkTalk also believes that there could be incompatibilities between provisions in the Act and the E-Commerce Directive which restricts the obligations of ISPs. Other areas concerning subscriber privacy could also be problematic, with Dunstone noting that the measures in the Act designed to prevent file-sharing could undermine “the basic rights and freedoms of citizens.”

“As a result, we’re seeking clarity from the Court before we and other industry players are asked to implement the Act,” says Dunstone. “We want to avoid a situation where we invest tens of millions of pounds in new systems and processes only to find that the Act is unenforceable and the money wasted.”

In recent times, TalkTalk has sought to protect its subscribers from outside interference and is the only mainstream ISP in the UK to stand up to ACS:Law and its campaign against alleged file-sharers. In advance of ACS:Law going to court to obtain the real identities of individuals behind IP addresses it has harvested, the law firm approaches ISPs and asks them if they will contest the court action.

TalkTalk always refuses to comply and is therefore never included in court documents. This means that TalkTalk subscribers are protected from all the wrongful accusations documented dozens of times in recent months. The same, however, can not be said about BT. When approached by ACS:Law, BT indicates in advance that it will cooperate, which means its customers become heavily targeted.

Support TalkTalk on this too, BT, and then your subscribers will really take you seriously.

Article from: TorrentFreak.

Although there has been some mainstream news coverage in the past, this week the press have really stepped up, helped along by the UK Lords who labeled the ACS:Law scheme “legal blackmail” – not exactly a shining endorsement.

Nevertheless, ACS:Law owner Andrew Crossley has stood his ground, telling the media that his campaign will continue. Following criticism that so far he has taken a grand total of zero cases to court, Crossley told the BBC that cases are pending.

“It has been said that we have no intention of going to court but we have no fear of it,” he said.

While Crossley may not be scared of taking a couple of cut and dried cases of infringement against minnows to court to prove his point, it’s not entirely true that in all cases he has no fear of a court battle. In the words of the Lords, Crossley is engaged in a bullying scheme and, like all bullies, when the big boys step up to fight, the bullies shrink away.

On November 19th at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Crossley made NPO (Norwich Pharmacal Order) applications to force ISPs to hand over the names and addresses of subscribers the company claims had infringed their client’s rights. The NPO’s related to approximately 25,000 IP addresses harvested from UK ISP BT’s customer base and a further 5,000 from various other ISPs, covering approximately 291 movie titles. The order was granted and ACS:Law are now chasing these individuals for cash payments of around £500 each.

Someone present at the hearing provided TorrentFreak with information which suggested that several ISPs including Be, O2, BT, Plusnet, Enternet and Kingston were not opposed to the court order forcing them to hand over their customers’ private details to ACS:Law.

However, UK ISP Tiscali, whose customers had also been caught up in the ACS:Law dragnet, were strangely dropped from the court order. “Not seeking against Tiscali (previously respondent #8 in the application),” said the comment.

Tiscali were bought by TalkTalk for £236m last year. TalkTalk, as everyone must know by now, are absolutely against elements of the Digital Economy Bill and are refusing to sell their customers down the river on mere allegations of file-sharing. Could they be standing up to ACS:Law too?

We contacted TalkTalk and their response proved very interesting indeed.

“TalkTalk is the only major ISP which has refused to divulge customers’ information to lawyers pursuing alleged copyright infringers. We have held this position since the issue came into view and we continue to stick by this policy,” Andrew Heaney, TalkTalk’s executive director of strategy and regulation told TorrentFreak.

“If we are ever ‘instructed’ to disconnect or throttle a customer who has not been found guilty in a court of law, we will refuse to do so and challenge the instruction through the courts if necessary,” he added.

So, while the above-mentioned ISPs – and BT in particular – are collectively handing over thousands of their customers to be “legally blackmailed” by ACS:Law, TalkTalk will not and are prepared to fight for the rights of their customers.

TorrentFreak contacted BeingThreatened, a consumer group assisting those wrongfully accussed by ACS:Law.

“What the public want to see is a clear commitment from ISPs that they will protect their customers from the actions of these overly-litigious lawyers exploiting legal loopholes to demand money using groundless threats of court action. Given the tens of thousands of letters that have already been sent and the massive heartache caused as a result of this scheme, BeingTheatened would expect to see a concrete commitment from all ISPs,” spokesman James Bench told us.

“After all, TalkTalk’s stated position merely reflects the view of the wider industry (as stated by the ISPA) that the ‘evidence’ presented by these companies is unreliable,” he added.

“We are happy to see that one company has indicated an apparent willingness to display a degree of corporate integrity in looking after the data that its customers entrust to it and not to make this available to anyone that simply asks for it,” he concluded.

So, if you and your family are looking for an ISP run by people who are prepared stand up for your rights, look no further than TalkTalk. While Mr Crossley may not fear going to court against a lowly individual, it seems incredibly unlikely that he’ll take on TalkTalk’s lawyers.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.