Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

London Police Placing Anti-Piracy Warning Ads On Illegal Sites

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the since-you're-here-anyhow dept.

Piracy 160

mrspoonsi (2955715) writes "The City of London police has started placing banner advertisements on websites believed to be offering pirated content illegally. The messages, which will appear instead of paid-for ads, will ask users to close their web browsers. The move comes as part of a continuing effort to stop piracy sites from earning money through advertising. Police said the ads would make it harder for piracy site owners to make their pages look authentic. "When adverts from well known brands appear on illegal websites, they lend them a look of legitimacy and inadvertently fool consumers into thinking the site is authentic," said Detective Chief Inspector Andy Fyfe from the City of London Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (Pipcu). "This new initiative is another step forward for the unit in tackling IP crime and disrupting criminal profits. "Copyright infringing websites are making huge sums of money though advert placement, therefore disrupting advertising on these sites is crucial and this is why it is an integral part of Operation Creative.""

cancel ×

160 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

uno (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556375)

I think piratebay is very authentic, irrelevantly of what is thought of its legality.

Re: uno (2)

AvitarX (172628) | about 3 months ago | (#47556917)

Of course it's ads almost certainly aren't.

What real brands are they claiming are advertised on pirate sites?

Re: uno (4, Insightful)

bickerdyke (670000) | about 3 months ago | (#47557199)

youporn, pornhub and redtube?

Real and respected brands in their field of business.

In related news: Who is surfing to such sites without AdBlocker and NoScript shields up?

Hilarious (5, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#47556377)

Piracy sites have found a way to get the Police to pay them money. Whatever war on copyright infringement there might have been, I think it's safe to say that it is over.

Re:Hilarious (4, Insightful)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | about 3 months ago | (#47556447)

...and the users using AdBlock will see what exactly ...?

Re:Hilarious (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | about 3 months ago | (#47556767)

Ha! That is a great question. I don't frequent that site, but now I kind of want to (but not at work...I like having a job)

Re:Hilarious (5, Informative)

feldhaus (813019) | about 3 months ago | (#47556487)

From TFA:

"The initiative will make use of technology provided by Project Sunblock - a firm used by major brands to stop adverts appearing alongside questionable content such as pirated material or pornography."

"Neither the police or Project Sunblock [are paying the website in question to display the police message." --

Re:Hilarious (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#47556497)

I should've realised that we don't live in the best of all possible universes. Or read the article. One of those.

Re:Hilarious (5, Interesting)

Arker (91948) | about 3 months ago | (#47556551)

Which makes it sound like some sort of attack on the ad network.

Without more details it's hard to say, but it sounds like the ad network should file a complaint with the UK and get these overenthusiastic corporate cops charged.

There's a battle to love - ad networks versus the 'city of london.' May they fight forever and leave the rest of us in peace.

Re:Hilarious (2)

shitzu (931108) | about 3 months ago | (#47557115)

Exactly what i though reading "has started placing banner advertisements on websites" ... "which will appear instead of paid-for ads". Does that mean the City of London police - whatever that is - has taken upon themselves above the law and are essentially cybercriminals? So they con the sites as well as someone who has actually paid for the ad space?

Re:Hilarious (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 3 months ago | (#47557577)

No, they are doing it with the cooperation of the ad-providers.

It's more the 'put these ads up for us or we'll charge you for aiding criminal activity' type of cooperation.

Re:Hilarious (1, Redundant)

Wootery (1087023) | about 3 months ago | (#47557723)

Wow. So distinctive and impressive. And you use it every damn one of your comments [slashdot.org] .

Really, it's not necessary.

Re:Hilarious (2)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 3 months ago | (#47556695)

So it's a MITM attack essentially ... similar to this one [ex-parrot.com] ... and works on all pirates visiting websites when users are not using SSL?

Re:Hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556727)

What is more interesting is what isn't said. And that seems to be that advertisers are paying the websites, they just change their advertisement to something else.
Which in turn might result in them being thrown off the ad network and fined.

Re:Hilarious (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47557427)

They dont have any tech, just an invoice from IBM

"Project Sunblock has partnered with IBM to provide 68 separate content classifications for the most accurate page categorisation. Some things are best left to those who know them best." - from the http://www.projectsunblock.com... [projectsunblock.com] site

so really these are just middlemen reselling IBM, who would of guessed

Re:Hilarious (3, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 3 months ago | (#47557631)

Property Rights? Trespass to Chattels? No abuse of state powers for private gain? How easily the mask slips when a few cold pounds are involved.

But the people I feel really sorry for are the victims of crime in London, whose cases go unsolved due to precious police resources being wasted on internet nonsense like this.

Re:Hilarious (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47557589)

The problem with this approach is that:
a) people who decide to pirate, see no qualms in depriving piracy sites of money, be it adblock or simply blacklisting the top level ad servers being used by piracy sites. I know personally I do this for sites I visit that I know "are dirty", because I don't wish to support sites that are offering pirated content, no matter how good or evil the intent is. This includes "scanlation", "fansub" and other "but i thought it was free" bullshit sites like mangafox.
b) people already assume the ads are malware, and will blindly ignore them. For example occasionally you get a popup that purports to be from the FBI, but it will be ignored because it's presumed to be fake.

To begin with, any site that induces "onclick" auto-popups, are already deserving the ire of the people using the site, so any warning that shows up in a popup/popout/popunder is going to be considered fake and immediately closed. When I browse these sites looking for the content of my clients (yes I'm THAT person who finds the links for DMCA notices) It become muscle memory to close any new window no matter what.

Captcha: Tedious
Yeah I know...

pirated content illegally? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556379)

This site has pirated content illegally. Shut down your computer and get a life, or find a site that offers pirated content legally.

Adblock Plus/FlashBlock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556383)

Haven't they heard of Adblock plus or Flashblock? How would I know (or care) if I was not on an official site if I turn off ad systems by defaults? But then again, if you are visiting these sites, you are most likely not looking for authentic software in the first place.

Re:Adblock Plus/FlashBlock (2)

Ignacio (1465) | about 3 months ago | (#47556639)

They're not trying to convince the 10% that do it knowingly, they're trying to convince the 80% that don't know better.

Re:Adblock Plus/FlashBlock (2)

biodata (1981610) | about 3 months ago | (#47556777)

Citation needed. Is it true that 80% don't know better, 10% do it knowingly? What happened to the other 10%?

Re:Adblock Plus/FlashBlock (0)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 3 months ago | (#47556791)

Saag is better than Korma.

Re:Adblock Plus/FlashBlock (1)

Ignacio (1465) | about 3 months ago | (#47556999)

That's the generally accepted estimate: 10% will never steal, 10% will always steal, 80% might do it given the opportunity.

Re:Adblock Plus/FlashBlock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47557205)

That's the generally accepted estimate: 10% will never steal, 10% will always steal, 80% might do it given the opportunity.

Okaaayy... Now can you cite the "generally accepted estimate" for people who pirate, since we are discussing that issue, not stealing?

Re:Adblock Plus/FlashBlock (1)

JackieBrown (987087) | about 3 months ago | (#47556795)

I'm scared to ask what they are planning on doing with the other 10 %

pre-crime (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556385)

Apparently the rule "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply to "websites", as evidenced by the city of london police.

This police bunch, it is worth noting, is the police force of the "square mile", which is pretty much run by private corporations, making this essentially a private police force in government-backed livery. It is not strange that it would be acting "proactive" and "innovative" and whatnot in furtherance of private corporate goals.

Re:pre-crime (4, Informative)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 3 months ago | (#47556525)

This police bunch, it is worth noting, is the police force of the "square mile"

Indeed. To clarify, this is specifically the police force of the small area confusingly titled the "City of London" [wikipedia.org] (AKA the "square mile"), i.e. the historic, tiny core of London, long-dominated by financial businesses, and not the police force of London as a whole.

In fact, the rest of London is served by the Metropolitan Police Service [slashdot.org] . Why would The City need its own special police force? Hmm...

which is pretty much run by private corporations, making this essentially a private police force in government-backed livery. It is not strange that it would be acting "proactive" and "innovative" and whatnot in furtherance of private corporate goals.

This article [theguardian.com] may also be of interest.

Re:pre-crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556649)

GB is a odd nation to say the least...

Re:pre-crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556771)

London is not really part of GB anymore. It's nearly impossible for any normal GB person to move there; and it sucks the life (jobs, investment, infrastructure) out of the rest of the country, which is only partly compensated for by the large tax revenue it provides, - and there is now much talk of it keeping its own tax revenue at which point it would be purely parasitic.

Re:pre-crime (2)

xaxa (988988) | about 3 months ago | (#47556877)

London ... it sucks the life (jobs, investment, infrastructure) out of the rest of the country, which is only partly compensated for by the large tax revenue it provides

Not really. Tax revenue from London subsidises the rest of the country. But, it's a load of bankers stealing money -- it would be more accurate to say they suck money out of the whole world. Perhaps the City of London should investigate the numerous tax-avoiding companies headquartered there...

Re:pre-crime (1)

metrix007 (200091) | about 3 months ago | (#47556913)

This nonsense again. No conspiracy theory here, and the police force is not run by corporations.

Re:pre-crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556977)

Ah, so its like campus police forces in the US - little mini-depts in the middle of cities that cater to a different clientele...

Re:pre-crime (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 3 months ago | (#47556571)

This police bunch, it is worth noting, is the police force of the "square mile"

Indeed. This is specifically the police force of the City of London [wikipedia.org] "square mile", i.e. the historic, tiny core of London, long-dominated by financial businesses, and not the police force of London as a whole.

In fact, the rest of London is served by the Metropolitan Police Service [slashdot.org] . Why would the City need its own special police force? Hmm...

which is pretty much run by private corporations, making this essentially a private police force in government-backed livery. It is not strange that it would be acting "proactive" and "innovative" and whatnot in furtherance of private corporate goals.

This article [theguardian.com] may also be of interest.

Re:pre-crime (2)

DickBreath (207180) | about 3 months ago | (#47556591)

Copyright enforcement and due process seem to be mutually exclusive.

You could even say copyright enforcement is mutually exclusive with justice and proportionality.

Police sponsoring piracy now? (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 3 months ago | (#47556389)

Unless they have some special powers, I suppose the police will have to pay for those ads, just like the regular advertisers do. This would result in the police actively sponsoring these allegedly illegal sites. Can have interesting political repercussions.

Re:Police sponsoring piracy now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556469)

or they're intercepting traffic and modifying the code based on some kind of list similar to the 'blocked with court order' list.

although that would probably just be inviting a lawsuit against for illegally modifying the content of the site...

Re:Police sponsoring piracy now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556523)

...illegally modifying the content of the site...

Like phishers?

Re:Police sponsoring piracy now? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556541)

Don't think that will be the case as they would just go down the route of getting it blocked. I think from reading a couple of articles about this is that they are trying to get as many add networks on-board to blacklist these sites and only pass on their logos etc - without paying for them. They are putting the pressure on the ad networks rather than the sites...

I still see a problem with it though - sites will just move to other ad networks who aren't being blackmailed by the city of London Police.

Re:Police sponsoring piracy now? (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 3 months ago | (#47556925)

I get the impression that this is a voluntary agreement with the advertisers. They don't want to sponsor anything that might arnish their valuable brands. It's not all that clear though. Seems there are 5 parties here including the police (the advertisers, the website, the banner ad wholesaler and "sunblock") but I don't know exactly who's in the group making this agreement and who gets paid.

Re:Police sponsoring piracy now? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 3 months ago | (#47557601)

Close. It's a voluntary agreement with the ad wholesaler, with a veiled threat of finding a way to hold them liable if they don't cooperate.

Re:Police sponsoring piracy now? (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 3 months ago | (#47557469)

Unless they have some special powers, I suppose the police will have to pay for those ads, just like the regular advertisers do. This would result in the police actively sponsoring these allegedly illegal sites. Can have interesting political repercussions.

You used the word "unless" correctly. So the police isn't going to pay. And who would be suing them?

Block block blockity block (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556391)

Yet another reason to use AdBlock Plus.

IP Crime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556393)

What the fuck is "IP crime"?

Re:IP Crime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556427)

Intellectual property crime. Because you know, all the real crimes have been solved, now we just have to make up more of them.

Re:IP Crime? (2)

Minwee (522556) | about 3 months ago | (#47556539)

It's what you have to do after you drink a whole lot of crime.

Re:IP Crime? (4, Funny)

DickBreath (207180) | about 3 months ago | (#47556561)

Look, crimes actually CAN be committed using computers.

Don't believe me? Just ask anyone who has been hit over the head with a computer.

Re:IP Crime? (2)

gutnor (872759) | about 3 months ago | (#47556841)

That was an accident ! Can we move on I was young, times were different back then.

Re:IP Crime? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556615)

It's the crime of intercepting data involving the Internet Protocol and modifying or blocking data. Because we as a civilized world finally came to realize one of the greatest crimes against humanity was manipulating or censoring what others say or think and the Internet is clearly a global medium that represents humanity's great communication, inter-connectivity breakthrough.

Sorry, I'm just kidding. This is all about money. And fictitious, government-created property. "Intellectual" property: because it's only marginally important to protect the intellectuals work in academia--plagiarism is the higher crime there--and we care so very much about the barely intellectual multi-billion dollar entertainment industry. Oh and advancing the arts and the sciences. Because fuck knows the study of material sciences, development of new technology, etc aren't inherently spurred by the competition inherent in capitalism. Or that there's such a low barrier to entry that merely knowing this stuff is enough to fundamentally undermine the big players that are responsible for such advances.

Get back to me when we all have nano printers and as a society actually respect academia or art at more than the most superficial level.

In other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556397)

The police department is now financially facilitating the spread of pirated material by paying to support the sites?

Well known brands? (2)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 3 months ago | (#47556399)

I think the take home message here is that in London internet users somehow ended up receiving relevant ads from well known brands.

I seem to have nothing but crap. Right now I'm staring at an advert for a phone from a brand which is virtually unheard of (though quite prevailent, Huawei), and some company called Brocade who have something to do with bridges from what I can tell?

Where do I get these mythical well known brands?

what a tremendous use of police resources (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556409)

Giving how much tax money all these corporations are paying, with absolutely no dodging of any taxes, it's really great to see the police devote so much time and resources to protecting these companies' revenue streams. Almost all the murderers, rapists, and thieves have been locked up. There's very little to no fraud going on in any industries, especially the financial sector who has a primary hub in London. We should definitely cheer on the police in this latest endeavour of serving and protecting corporate interests.

City of London police? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556483)

This is a really strange idea. I don't get it. I wonder if maybe the sites are run by criminal gangs the police were already trying to break up.

Re:what a tremendous use of police resources (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556587)

"...it's really great to see the police devote so much time and resources to protecting these companies' revenue streams."

Well, its not as if the City of London Police [wikipedia.org] do a lot of crime fighting anyway considering the tiny area [wikipedia.org] of their jurisdiction. Remember, the CoLP is not to be confused with the Metropolitan Police Service [wikipedia.org] . The CoLP serves the financial services corporations in that district and that's about it.

Re:what a tremendous use of police resources (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47557035)

And even many of the financial institutions have moved to Docklands, which is not in the City of London, so outside the jurisdiction of the CoLP.
 

Re:what a tremendous use of police resources (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556715)

Mod this up

+10 insightful

Re:what a tremendous use of police resources (2)

biodata (1981610) | about 3 months ago | (#47556873)

This is the City of London Police. The City of London is a square-mile independent state within a city. It is outside the control of parliament, owned by the banks, who have most of the voting rights within the organisation of the state, and the City of London Police is its private police force, not to be confused with the Metropolitan Police whose remit is to catch the criminals in the rest of London.

Instantly, adwords filters are updated.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556419)

....to include the word 'police' and their domain.

Well that took long.

Legitimate Brands? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556437)

Head over to the pirate bay to see ads for all your favorite brands...Russian women interested in American men...brought to you by Pepsi?

With the current state of web advertising... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556439)

No site looks legitimate. I've gotten too many promises for things that aren't real, too many threats about viruses, even downloads are confusing on some sites now, with their being shady "Download This" links to make people click on them to get something that promises to be a download manager or whatever, but is really just crapware.

And no, no, PirateBay is not an exception.

London Police want to do something? I'd give them worldwide jurisdiction to hunt down and kill those criminals.

Long live freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556451)

That is for the courts to decide, not the police, who somehow decided they can do whatever they like. Ahh look a totalitarian government, tyranny. And the people have no possible way to revolt against it because they gave up all their guns.

They better hop they don't get rounded up on trains like Hitler did, otherwise they are just a bunch of Nazi stooges, stupid for following along with it and allowing history to repeat, especially after what Germany did to them.

Re: Long live freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47557461)

'MURICA is that you?

Smart move (1)

NotInHere (3654617) | about 3 months ago | (#47556465)

When adverts from well known brands appear on illegal websites, they lend them a look of legitimacy and inadvertently fool consumers into thinking the site is authentic

A smart move to place the police logo onto the site -- Users will think that when police vouches for it, it must have spying features, and leave the page.

But seriously: When they have control over the ad networks, they can simply take down the entire website: the ad networks have full access to the DOM. Why don't they try that?

Re:Smart move (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 3 months ago | (#47556813)

Using some magic Ajax, you could pull the ad and see what's on it. If it's a Police ad, replace it with something different.

Might fine police work there, Lou! (2, Interesting)

pla (258480) | about 3 months ago | (#47556475)

Police said the ads would make it harder for piracy site owners to make their pages look authentic

No one confuses Rapidshare for BMG's official site. People go there specifically to download pirated content, full stop. Seeing police ads might scare a few people with the paranoia of thinking "the man" has caught them, but the other 99% of visitors will just thank the police for subsidizing their favorite warez sites.

Truly pathetic, Boys in Blue (Hmm, do Bobbies wear blue?)


The move comes as part of a continuing effort to stop piracy sites from earning money through advertising.

By... Um... Buying banner ads on piracy sites? BRILLIANT!

Re:Might fine police work there, Lou! (1, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47556511)

No one confuses Rapidshare for BMG's official site. People go there specifically to download pirated content, full stop. Seeing police ads might scare a few people with the paranoia of thinking "the man" has caught them, but the other 99% of visitors will just thank the police for subsidizing their favorite warez sites.

I know that this is slashdot, and that you therefore feel justified in being an ignorant idiot and spouting off without RTFAing, and you're in quite a bit of company: lots of other idiots are saying the same stupid shit you're saying. But the article makes it clear that "Neither the police or Project Sunblock are paying the website in question to display the police message". They're just suppressing the banner display, and displaying a police message instead.

Truly pathetic, Boys in Blue (Hmm, do Bobbies wear blue?)

Pathetic is deciding you know how the system works without R'ing TFA, and as a result, being a F'n I.

BRILLIANT!

Said no one about you ever.

Re:Might fine police work there, Lou! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556585)

Neither the police or Project Sunblock are paying

Bloody pirates!

Re:Might fine police work there, Lou! (1)

pla (258480) | about 3 months ago | (#47556857)

But the article makes it clear that "Neither the police or Project Sunblock are paying the website in question to display the police message". They're just suppressing the banner display, and displaying a police message instead.

Yep, I made a mistake. I presumed that the police would know better than to enter into a conspiracy to commit outright theft of service and libel in their efforts to appease the recording industry. One crime doesn't justify another. Mea culpa.

Except, in your zeal to find something in my post to go all "princess of vitriol" over, you seem to have failed to notice my key point - No one visiting piracy sites mistakes them for legit. Would you care to respond to that, or would you prefer to latch on to a typo somewhere in this post?


Pathetic is deciding you know how the system works without R'ing TFA

"The system" has rules we can know a priori. The police can't just choose to ignore them out of expediency. "Pathetic is" accepting criminal behavior just because it carries a thin veneer of official approval.

Re:Might fine police work there, Lou! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 3 months ago | (#47557007)

Would you care to respond to that, or would you prefer to latch on to a typo somewhere in this post?

Well, you're right, I was in full dick mode. I'm even sorry about it, albeit admittedly only slightly. I apologize for how, but not what I said. Yeah well, that's the best you're getting out of me this morning.

Nobody expects the piracy sites to be legit. But a lot of people think that there are so many of them that their activity can go unnoticed. Those people are about to get an awakening, if they even take the banners seriously.

Re:Might fine police work there, Lou! (1)

pla (258480) | about 3 months ago | (#47557127)

I gladly accept correction, so I have no problem with your intent, if not your tone.

We all go "full dick" sometimes, though, so, no worries. :)

Re:Might fine police work there, Lou! (3, Informative)

Zocalo (252965) | about 3 months ago | (#47556633)

No one confuses Rapidshare for BMG's official site.

No one should confuse The City of London police [wikipedia.org] for an actual police force as most people imagine them, either. They are a territorial force responsible for a tiny area of Greater London as a whole that measuring a little over square mile and consists of mostly financial institutions and only a few thousand actual residents. Still, owing to their location in The City, they have developed quite a reputation for fraud investigations and also incorporate a division dealing with Intellectual Property [wikipedia.org] , so other than the jurisdictional issues of interfering with websites (or at least the ads displayed on them) that are most likely hosted outside The City they actually do have the means and backing to look into this kind of thing.

Re:Might fine police work there, Lou! (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 3 months ago | (#47557679)

So close on the color! Blue is the color worn by police in London... except for the CoLP, the ones responsible for this action. That's because the City (Not London, but a tiny district within it) is, for historical reasons, actually a semi-independant mini-state and as such get to have their own police force that is seperate from the rest of the UK police. Their color scheme is red, not blue.

As the City is the financial district, the CoLP have a strong focus on the type of crime that happens in a financial district. Fraud, insider trading, things like that. They also devote a lot of effort to copyright and trademark enforcement, which had lead to some accusing them of being too closely tied to the corporations that effectively own the City.

location, jurisdiction (2)

rossdee (243626) | about 3 months ago | (#47556477)

Are there a lot of pirate websites located in the city of London?

Re:location, jurisdiction (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47557263)

There are a lot of pirates. Sounds reasonable.

Re:location, jurisdiction (1)

Xest (935314) | about 3 months ago | (#47557383)

Yeah and they've been guilty of plundering billions, websites like Barclays, CitiBank, HSBC and so on.

City of London Police =/= British Police (5, Interesting)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about 3 months ago | (#47556515)

One thing I'd like to point out is that the City of London Police are not the same thing as the British Metropolitan Police. This was something that came up in an article a few months ago where the City of London Police were fighting against piracy. They're basically an area within London that has existed for hundreds of years under corporate rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]

The City of London police are basically a corporate police force with an authority that does not go beyond the corporate-controlled City of London area.

Re:City of London Police =/= British Police (1)

metrix007 (200091) | about 3 months ago | (#47556961)

They are a police force specific to a small area, that doesn't mean they are governed by corporations.

Re:City of London Police =/= British Police (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47557295)

They are though.

Re:City of London Police =/= British Police (3, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | about 3 months ago | (#47557397)

They are a police force specific to a small area, that doesn't mean they are governed by corporations.

Apparently you failed to read the section on elections in the City of London:

The City has a unique electoral system. Most of its voters are representatives of businesses and other bodies that occupy premises in the City.

So, yes, they are governed by corporations.

Re:City of London Police =/= British Police (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 3 months ago | (#47557445)

You're right. But the fact that it is literally governed by a corporation [wikipedia.org] does.

Re:City of London Police =/= British Police (2)

Xest (935314) | about 3 months ago | (#47557431)

That's not true in practice, their authority seems definitely national, possibly even global in practice.

They've been engaged in raids well outside of the City of London including in my jurisdiction up here in Yorkshire. In fact, I took advantage of the fact we now have police crime commissioners to ask why my local tax payment via council tax to the police was being used to fund the interests of the City of London when the whole point of having police crime commissioners was to give local residents more of a say. I asked that if police forces now all have nationwide jurisdiction and that there's no localism at all on that front if they wouldn't mind returning the favour by sending our police down to the City of London to arrest some corrupt bankers and executives.

Of course, I never heard back.

City of London Police Metropolitan Police (0)

wizzdude (755000) | about 3 months ago | (#47556527)

It is worth stressing that: The City of London A city called London, capital of the UK and City of London Police Metropolitan Police (the police force for London). The City of London is a square mile of land governed by a plutocracy. The actions of their police force does not surprise me.

Re:City of London Police not eq Met Police (2)

wizzdude (755000) | about 3 months ago | (#47556535)

Argh! Forgot to check for unicode stripping. Corrected.

It is worth stressing that: The City of London is not equal to A city called London, capital of the UK. The City of London Police is not equal to Metropolitan Police, the police force for London.

The City of London is a square mile of land governed by a plutocracy. The actions of their police force does not surprise me.

Surely Adblock and Noscript will... (3, Informative)

EzInKy (115248) | about 3 months ago | (#47556529)

...take care of this nuisance. Who in their right mind allows third party sites to run in their browser anyway?

There's no such thing as "Illegal" sites (4, Interesting)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about 3 months ago | (#47556573)

Websites by themselves aren't "illegal". Using those terms gives undue legitimacy to copyright maximalists. What is meant here by "illegal" is that they host content which may be infringing on copyright.

Re:There's no such thing as "Illegal" sites (1)

Ignacio (1465) | about 3 months ago | (#47556673)

I *want* to agree with you, but... [wikipedia.org]

Re: There's no such thing as "Illegal" sites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556711)

If enough people with enough money say something is illegal, then it is illegal. Sorry, that's how the real world works.

Misleading title (3, Informative)

JigJag (2046772) | about 3 months ago | (#47556583)

Hey editors, the City of London Police is NOT the same as the London Police. To get a good understanding of the difference, please view The (secret) City of London, Part 1: History [youtube.com] (less than 5 min) and then The (secret) City of London, Part 2: Government [youtube.com] (less than 6 min).

JigJag

Re:Misleading title (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47557017)

The naming doesn't help. It's a bit like if I started a new company called "The Internet Giant Google", and expected editors around the World to no longer use that phrase to refer to plain "Google".

More biased than bulgaria (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556599)

The City of London "Police" is more biased than any other Police force in the EU. The City of London has created a world-spanning tax haven network. Why don't they investigate that? Instead they are over-eager in stopping the small man's crime.

Re:More biased than bulgaria (1)

biodata (1981610) | about 3 months ago | (#47556935)

The City of London Corporation is outside the control of parliament, and the representatives of 21 of its 25 wards are entirely voted for by corporations, not individual voters who live there. The Corporation has a representative called the Rememberancer who sits behind the Speaker of the House of Commons, presumably with the job of 'remembrancing' the commoners about who's really in charge.

Based on syndication network (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556601)

It seems to be based on an agreement between the syndication network and police. I'm sure the criminals behind pirate sites will quickly just switch to different syndication partners.

Do they mean www.projectsunblock.com (1)

ramriot (1354111) | about 3 months ago | (#47556617)

Do they mean http://www.projectsunblock.com... [projectsunblock.com] ?

Seems likely, and if so the ad serving network would have to cooperate in allowing sunblocks JS to be served to client browsers. I can only home the Met's and Cities finest have a 100% accurate blocklist, because it only takes one high profile false-positive and a suit for loss of earnings due to illegal seizure of assets to drain sunblock dry.

Authentic? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47556753)

"Police said the ads would make it harder for piracy site owners to make their pages look authentic. "

If there's a big anti-piracy warning at the top of a site, then I will know I'm in the right place!

Ad block (1)

Aryden (1872756) | about 3 months ago | (#47557069)

and it doesn't matter.

As long as theres no such thing as public domain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47557171)

there shall be no such thing as piracy.

Waste of time (2)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 3 months ago | (#47557193)

I'm pretty sure this will work as well as the unskippable FBI warning on DVD movies.

Re:Waste of time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47557363)

That's as irrelevant as everyone else who keeps going on about adblock/etc on here.

The point is that the people running these sites are running them (at least partly) because they make money off advertising. Regardless of whether people actually take notice of these police banners, this system is blocking the ad revenue stream for the owner.

Changing The Controversy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47557265)

Am I the only one who has noticed that the dialogue has been shifted to "Pirates are making money" ?
This is an attempt to introduce a new meme so that it can be later built up:
"Those fat-cat pirates in their fancy cars and big homes are profiting on the backs of poor starving IP holders"...

Pretty neat ... (1)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about 3 months ago | (#47557507)

While there's an opportunity to debate the good and bad of it, tapping into the advertising thread of web sites is novel to me. The legality question is similar to what WOT [mywot.com] does, right? The plugin warns me about a site's reputation but I do have the option to proceed.

I wonder if any sites have filed suit against WOT?

"replacing" ads? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47557653)

can the site owners sue because their site has been hijacked?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?