Advice on accessing BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/articles/2022/advice-on-accessing-bbc-news

by ngcc_hk • 4 years ago

150 108 4 years ago

Ironically, this advice is illegal in the U.K. under the computer misuse act - circumventing measures intended to restrict access to information is a criminal offence, as is providing information on how do do so.

nix235• 4 years ago

Can you please show me the law? Because that would mean that the U.K needs to close GCHQ and any other secret-service maybe even some police-work.

usr11064• 4 years ago

Many things the agencies do is either illegal or would be illegal for ordinary citizens.

madaxe_again3• 4 years ago

Believe it or not, law enforcement and intelligence agencies are permitted to do things ordinary citizens aren’t, in the course of their work.

As to the relevant bit - section one, paragraph one, subsection a:

> 1)A person is guilty of an offence if— > (a)he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer [or to enable any such access to be secured] ;

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/section/1

jstanley3• 4 years ago

My sense is that this is incorrect.

I think the law would prohibit breaking into people's computers, not circumventing internet censorship.

By circumventing internet censorship you're accessing information that its owner wants you to be able to access. You're not breaking into their computer.

madaxe_again3• 4 years ago

Unfortunately, no. Consider prosecutions of users in the U.K. for accessing TPB via a VPN - TPB didn’t prohibit access, the govt did - but using any computer to access any information on any other computer which you are not authorised to access for any reason is an offence.

raverbashing• 4 years ago

"restrict access to information" means passwords, etc

TruthWillHurt2• 4 years ago

True, but I'd say blocking network access os also a valid restriction by the owner.

And that's the key difference here - restricted by owner.

fulvioterzapi• 4 years ago

Interestingly, they also work for accessing RT and Sputnik from the EU that are banning them.

nix235• 4 years ago

It's funny that the EU needs censoring to "protect" the public from censored media...that smells really bad to me TBH.

usr11064• 4 years ago

Broadcasting them in EU is banned.

But accessing them on the internet is not. Or in which EU country it has been blocked?

(I'm in EU but have not tried. Not interested in their content even for curiosity. I can read in our media what they say: There is no war. Ukraine is no nation, but Russians suppressed by nazis that ask to be liberated. In Russian media other standpoints are not mentioned at all.)

Edit: I have no good feeling about banning them. But I understand the Baltic countries: They have a substantial Russian-speaking community that consumes only Russian state media.

jstanley3• 4 years ago

Not interested in their content even for curiosity. I can read in our media what they say

If you're not interested in looking even for curiosity, how would you know whether your media is representing them accurately?

Do you think it would be reasonable for people in Russia to say they're not interested in looking at the BBC, even for curiosity, because they can read all about what the BBC are saying in Russian media?

waffleiron2• 4 years ago

In Russian media other standpoints are not mentioned at all.

How would you know?

rjzzleep• 4 years ago

Well Cogent changed their statement and said that the reason they terminated their relationship with Russia is because of EU Regulation 2022/350 which is obviously b/s since they already started the termination before that [1].

This is a whole new level to banning Iranian and Lybian TV broadcasts by Ofcom by the UK. Very irresponsible and completely ignorant of all the slippery slopes and blowback that can happen. At least ICANN and the EFF is run by cooler heads.

But maybe you should check indian news which reported that Russia promised them buses to extract indian students[2].

[1] https://www.newspostalk.com/internet-service-provider-cogent...

[2] https://theprint.in/world/130-russian-buses-ready-to-evacuat...

LAC-Tech3• 4 years ago

Your attitude is a little bit perplexing to me. You have so much faith in your media that you trust them to accurately summarise what other media says?

Though thinking further I kind of get where you are coming from - there's English language media from a certain country that's so bad at propaganda I cringe just reading the headline. Guess I'm not as open minded as I thought I was.

harry8• 4 years ago

I can read in our media what they say.

Actually, no matter who it is, you can't and hope to get a proper sense of it. Try it sometime. Luck anyone controversial, especially if your really dislike them. Read an account of s sketch they gave in "your media" whatever that is for you. Then read the original transcript.

I tried this with Assange more than a decade ago. I had the idea he was a bedrock lunatic crazy reading the accounts. Then i read transcripts it watched video if him and decided well be may be wrong about everything but that impression about what he was was just very wrong. Cherry picked, edited, context missing to make him seem as repulsive as they possibly could in every dimension.

Always form your own view and don't let it be handed to you fully formed. Go for the source documents whenever you can /especially/ when everyone is angry and upset. You're unlikely to change 180 at all. You are likely to have a deeper understanding of nuance and who is taking advantage of the situation for their own ends and why.

This advice is the same for American media if you don't live in the US, or middle eastern, or African it Asian.

At the minimum it should take you no more than 10 minutes to confirm RT is exactly what you think it is and that is worthwhile in itself.

fsh• 4 years ago

Neither of these websites are banned in the EU. The servers are not very responsive at the moment though. Probably someone is DDOS'ing them.

swinglock• 4 years ago

No, that's false. I can access rt.com from Europe normally after a "checking your browser" screen. Using the Tor browser however, rt.com blocks access after said screen.

demindiro2• 4 years ago

In Belgium it is very much unreachable unless you change your DNS server. It shows the big STOP page that is otherwise used for e.g. The Pirate Bay.

roland_nilsson• 4 years ago

From my location in Sweden, sputniknews.com is currently available but www.rt.com is not (error 403). Probably sputnik will go away as well, as the EU ban on these outlets is "expected to cover all means of distribution or transmission, including internet video sharing platforms and applications" https://techcrunch.com/2022/02/28/eu-rt-ban-extends-online/

This seems like a boneheaded move. What credibility will the EU have in criticizing media censorship in Russia when they engage in censorship themselves?

roywashere• 4 years ago

Yeah I really do not understand that! Very strange move

waffleiron2• 4 years ago

It’s to the point where RT is able to publish the equivalent of this BBC article.

https://www.rt.com/russia/551256-how-access-rt-censorship-by...

SahAssar2• 4 years ago

How are they able to return a http response without having the keys to the site? Has EU gotten a CA (digicert in this case) to issue keys for the domain, redirected DNS and setup some server to specifically return a 403? I'm guessing RT is smart enough to not use a western hosting provider and CDN.

nix235• 4 years ago

I think russia itself probably blocked www.rt.com and russian.rt.com for non russian IP's so you can publicize two different versions, because de.rt.com works just fine ;)

demindiro2• 4 years ago

As far as I can tell the 403 error is caused by their DDoS protection thinking you are a bot. Refreshing the page at a later time and not opening too many tabs at once seems to help.

ttybird2• 4 years ago

In that case they are illegal. https://yanmaani.github.io/does-council-regulation-eu-2022/3...

agucova2• 4 years ago

Those sites aren't banned in the EU, this is pure misinformation.

amriksohata• 4 years ago

Both sides calling a lack of freedom of press, guess it's only freedom when one sided narrative fits. With the internet it's possible to get around most walls

LAC-Tech3• 4 years ago

I'm always a bit perplexed when people hold up the BBC as an example of a respectable, unbiased news source - a lot of their stuff is ham-fisted, and some of it is flat-out propaganda.

I wouldn't say they are noticeably worse than other media staples - everything is biased - but they don't deserve to be on the pedestal they are put on.

bhobs• 4 years ago

They go out of their way to try and represent both sides of a coin, to a fault. If it’s clearly raining, and they have a guest on to talk about the rain, they will also have a guest on who will try and argue “oh these precipitation levels don’t constitute rain” etc. A bit contrived but you get the idea.

mytailorisrich4• 4 years ago

That's not the case at all. They may do that for some topics but not for all. At the moment coverage of Ukraine really is "war reporting" in the classic sense, i.e, there is control and a line to follow to make sure one side is pure white and the other side pure black.

smackay• 4 years ago

Except for viewers in Scotland.

Kaze4042• 4 years ago

Except for trans women in articles calling them rapists, which is interesting considering they had no problems interviewing a known cis porn actress who has raped multiple people on set.

neuroma2• 4 years ago

Seriously? Nobody beyojd a few OAPs actually thinks the BBC is a font of perfect vision. It's simply a but less crassly propaganda ridden then most other sources, and more centrist (if you believe in the 1d political tribalism meme).

The anti BBC narrative is largely political posturing to discredit one if the few remaining sources that aren't bought by private individuals to further their personal objectives. It's an obvious business move to increase their traction and value proposition.

mytailorisrich4• 4 years ago

Within the UK the "anti-BBC narrative" as you call it is indeed political, but I don't think it's posturing or a business plot, at least at grassroots level. I think it's based on the perception that the BBC itself tends to have a political and geographical bias.

SahAssar2• 4 years ago

OAP = Old Age Pensioner?

I never heard of that acronym before.

pydry• 4 years ago

The BBC actually used to be independent and held the government to account. That all changed with David Kelly.

It isnt bought by private individuals but if the rest of the media that is is bleating the same tune it will follow. The end result is the same.

Every time they step out of line the government threatens to cancel the TV license.

Theyre also lacking in sheer journalistic manpower these days. It almost doesnt matter how impartial they are if they mainly crib from twitter, reprint press releases and report on government edicts.

dataflow2• 4 years ago

I wouldn't say they are noticeably worse than other media staples

My brain simplifies the double-negative to "I would say they are among the best media staples", which significantly changes the tone of your comment while (as far as I can tell) retaining the meaning. If you disagree with that simplification, though, I would suggest citing noticeably better sources of news that people can turn to.

spacehunt• 4 years ago

You can't simplify a double negative like that, when there's more than 1 bit of information. "They are [not] noticeably worse than others" can mean any one of the following:

- They are worse, but not noticeable

- They are on par with others

- They are slightly better than others

- They are much better than others

- They are the best among others

WanderPanda• 4 years ago

More neutral than e.g. German state media but still less neutral than AlJazeera (when it comes to non ME matters) IMO

TruthWillHurt2• 4 years ago

"less neutral than AlJazeera (when it comes to non ME matters)"

Good thing you made that exception...

rvieira5• 4 years ago

There are two BBCs. BBC News and BBC TV programmes.

BBC TV programmes (from fiction to documentaries) are among the best of in the world in terms of productions.

BBC News is incredibly biased pro-government. IMO, this all stems to the changes David Cameron did to its structure and funding, making it effectively averse to "upset" the government. They also have this view of "balance" that is best exemplified by inviting a flat-earther to a debate on Earth's geology to offer a alternate POV.

EDIT: Also, if anyone is not in the UK or following it, catch up on Nadine Dorries, the "culture" secretary of state. Her agenda is to discredit the BBC, bring "culture wars" to the public service debate (e.g. "Woke BBC") and threats of defunding.

xen0• 4 years ago

It's so pro-government that the government feels the need to discredit it?

Interesting...

joefife• 4 years ago

Even within BBC News, there is notably different content between the World Service and home stations.

Angostura3• 4 years ago

BBC News is incredibly biased pro-government.

If anything it's pro status-quo or pro establishment it has a bias towards liberal democratic values and the norms. As politics swings about, the BBC has a dampening effect which is valuable.

So if you look at the extreme of Johnson's incompetance, you will see the BBC scrutinising it quite heavily - but similarly with Corbyn in the past.

The fact that government culture secretary Nadine Doris is attacking the BBC puts into context your assertion that it is 'incredibly pro government'.

The BBC News department recognised the problems with 'false balance' several years ago and I think that it's got a lot better on that front. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/07/bbc-we-g...

the_other• 4 years ago

It’s really not “incredibly pro-government”. It’s anti-rapid change; pro-middle class; pro-a-comfortable-quality-of-life; anti “changing the system” whilst still “improving on the details”.

Some of its reporting feels pro-government because it’s telling the story of what the government is saying it’s doing. Watch any of the “just off the peak time” broadcasting and it’s very keen to hold politicians to account, to point out unfairness and hypocrisy, regardless of which party holds more power. It’s had gentle leans towards, and against various governments over the past 20 years, and not in sync with the party in power.

All of this is fairly centrist.

jbjbjbjb• 4 years ago

Both left and right claim it is biased against them.

lazyeye• 4 years ago

Even if the BBC is biased, it's still in the interest of both sides to claim it is biased against them.

One side may be accurately describing the problem, the other side protecting their territory.

cpach• 4 years ago

Interesting! It’s the same here in Sweden with the public service TV channels.

switch007• 4 years ago

The arguments are more complicated than that. That response serves to shut down any criticism of the BBC, as in “oh no matter what they do, they’ll be criticised”

kebman3• 4 years ago

They're probably still high on their status during WWII. With that said, I think there's nothing wrong in offering alternative viewpoints and news sources to peoples who are being blatantly censored. I think more providers should offer this service.

joefarish• 4 years ago

I can think of a few occasions where they have reported on some less than truthful statements from government ministers without adding any commentary. This has certainly led to allegations of bias but do you have some examples of where their news output is “flat-out propaganda”?

afavour• 4 years ago

I find their domestic coverage to sometimes be problematic but their world service is in a league of its own.

But to each their own, I suppose.

AniseAbyss2• 4 years ago

There is a lot of history with the BBC for Europeans. Their foreign language service in WW2 is the stuff of legends.

yabatopia• 4 years ago

I'm getting sick and tired of baseless comments like this being the top comment.

I want to read about the real topic, additional information, different insights, ... a real discussion about the original article, link, project.

Too many discussions are getting hijacked and turned into irrelevant clickbait and a waste of time.

ck2• 4 years ago

HN could maybe offer a workaround to this by allow the reddit-like three option sort, "top new controversial" (then also allow per account default sort setting?)

I vaguely remember HN pages are built statically though, so three versions would have to be built? That might have been many years ago and has changed.

If voting weight cannot be trusted anymore in the world we live in, then change the sort.

striking• 4 years ago

Email hn@ycombinator.com, then, and let them know what you think. They're the ones with the power to change it.

LAC-Tech3• 4 years ago

What was there to discuss about the original article? It was a series of very short instructions on how to access the BBC in English, Russian, and Ukrainian.

Maybe you can be the change you want to see in the world and start one yourself.

zagrebian• 4 years ago

If you find it difficult to get the two applications above from AppStore or Google Play Store, please send a blank email to get@psiphon3.com or gettor@torproject.org, respectively. You will then be sent an email with a direct and safe download link.

How safe is this? I don’t know much about email security. Can the ISP intercept and edit the email message?

adam-p2• 4 years ago

For the Psiphon mail responder, we configure Postfix with `smtp_tls_security_level=verify` and `smtpd_tls_security_level=encrypt` (with three "may" domain exceptions, unfortunately). So, the email should be encrypted through the ISP.

Of course, if your ISP is also your email provider (get a new email provider), then your ISP will be able to see and modify your email.

We also sign our apps and provide detailed instructions for verifying the authenticity of them: https://psiphon.ca/en/faq.html#verify-psiphon-authentic (You can't get to that if you can't get to the internet, but it's hard to do much better. We can't email the instructions, since then the instructions could also be modified. But it's entirely possible for some users to be able to load a webpage but not download a 6MB binary.)

agucova2• 4 years ago

Non-encrypted email in transit is a concern, but AFAIK most users should already be protected nowadays. (Google estimates [1] put it at around 9/10, tho probably not representative of Russia)

A bigger concern might be Russian-monitored email servers, especially given that around 70% of the market share is occupied by Russian providers [2], and email isn't considered personal data in Russia [3].

[1] https://transparencyreport.google.com/safer-email?hl=en

[2] https://help.returnpath.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001108411-C...

[3] https://www.plesner.com/insights/articles/2016/01/data-local...

Update: as for transit, see adam-p's comment.

prvc• 4 years ago

Does this work for accessing radio shows which are restricted to U.K. IPs?

dennisy• 4 years ago

Do people feel we should try and get these blocked sites back up, in a simpler way to access than using TOR?

nomilk• 4 years ago

What's with the random characters in the Tor URL? Are Tor URLs always like that?

www.bbcnewsd73hkzno2ini43t4gblxvycyac5aw4gnv7t2rccijh7745uqd.onion/

phaer• 4 years ago

Yes, it's an encoded public key, identifying the service. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.onion#Format

even "bbcnews" is part of that key, probably brute-forced until that prefix was found.

jffry2• 4 years ago

It must've been brute-forced. According to this one old brute forcer I found [1] but have not thoroughly vetted, it would've been one CPU-day of effort on 2012-era hardware

[1] https://github.com/katmagic/Shallot

adam-p2• 4 years ago

Psiphon usage from Russia is up almost 6x since the war started: https://psix.ca/d/nyi8gE6Zk/regional-overview?orgId=2&var-re...

Advice on accessing BBC News

Related Stories