Is it possible to permanently block a website so it won't be possible to gain access to it? I have stumbled upon a solution where you can edit host files through terminal but that only means it's possible to change it back again if you want. What I am looking for is an option where there is no way back once you've blocked it. As if you simply made your mac incapable of ever getting access to that site again. Is that a thing?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Permanently block a website
- Thread starter Hagen10
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thanks for your response. I am not that technical but does that mean that the blockade only applies for that network? If you connect to another wireless network you can still access the site? The thing is that where I live I have to pay a decent amount annually if I have a device that can gain access to a certain site. I only have one device with internet access but if I can prove that my device is incapable of accessing that site and that I am not able to ever fix it then I won't have to pay anything. So the permanent blockade should only be directed towards my mac regardless of the network it is connected to.
How would that work?
Whatever you did would be undoable. You could always reinstall the OS and then you would have access again.
Even if you smashed your Mac with a sledge hammer you could go out any buy another.
Your death is the only really permanent way to prevent you accessing a certain site, sort of throwing the baby out with the bathwater though.
Whatever you did would be undoable. You could always reinstall the OS and then you would have access again.
Even if you smashed your Mac with a sledge hammer you could go out any buy another.
Your death is the only really permanent way to prevent you accessing a certain site, sort of throwing the baby out with the bathwater though.
Yeah I can see that it would never be completely impossible to gain access. Hmmm then I guess I just have to pay the fee after all...
How does anyone know that you have such a device?
Is this something like the UK's TV tax?
You can use the hosts file.
You can follow this to add the site you want to block http://osxdaily.com/2012/08/07/edit-hosts-file-mac-os-x/
or
Download text wrangler from the website, not the app store and edit it by going to the directory private/etc/hosts .
http://www.barebones.com/products/textwrangler/
You have to install the product from the website as it lets you edit hosts file while the app store version does not allow it.
They don't necessarily know that you have such a device. But if you are not paying the fee then they will occasionally send out an inspector to your house as well as sending letters and mails to you.
It is like the tv tax. It used to only apply to households with televisions which is understandable. Since I don't have a tv I don't watch the channels that demand that fee. But now the channels have uploaded some of their videos to their website and that means that since you have a device with internet connection then you are also able to watch their content and therefore is forced to pay the fee. That is why I was thinking that if my device with internet connection is incapable of accessing that content then they can't charge me.
Some routers give you the option of blocking specified domains. Sadly, not Airport routers. I imagine Apple did not provide this feature because it would be one more thing that detracts from simplicity, and its use could cause grief for their support staff trying to fix problems. But it's an annoying omission IMO. I'd like every device in my house to be free of doubleclick adverts, for example, but Airport doesn't give you that.
Just because you have a device capable of accessing a website doesn't mean you will. If it did we'd all be done for kiddie porn.
Another example is a car is capable of breaking the speed limits but doesn't mean you will.
If argue they have to prove you accessed their website. They can't just say you may have. That's like fining you for speeding just cause you have a car or God forbid throwing you in jail for surfing kiddie porn with no proof other than you have a device capable of such things.
**** we all have kitchen knives yet we aren't thrown in jail just for owning an implement capable of murder.
Tell them to go **** themselves and don't ever confirm nor deny you have a computer and never let them into your home. It's only a tv station after all. They need to get a grip and stop falsely accusing you of committing a crime.
Another example is a car is capable of breaking the speed limits but doesn't mean you will.
If argue they have to prove you accessed their website. They can't just say you may have. That's like fining you for speeding just cause you have a car or God forbid throwing you in jail for surfing kiddie porn with no proof other than you have a device capable of such things.
**** we all have kitchen knives yet we aren't thrown in jail just for owning an implement capable of murder.
Tell them to go **** themselves and don't ever confirm nor deny you have a computer and never let them into your home. It's only a tv station after all. They need to get a grip and stop falsely accusing you of committing a crime.
You are obviously unfamiliar with the legislation commonly used in "free-to-air" broadcasting where typically the licence fee is payable if you have the capability to receive the broadcasts - whether you watch it at all is irrelevant, they enact specific legislation to make the fee payable.
That is a very silly system.
Why don't they protect the content and charge people for access rather than charge anyone who may have access.
I am in the UK but I would have access. Are they going to come round here too?
They need to catch up with technology.
Why don't they protect the content and charge people for access rather than charge anyone who may have access.
I am in the UK but I would have access. Are they going to come round here too?
They need to catch up with technology.
It was a system born in the pre-internet era. They are typically very heavy-handed in the UK by sending threatening letters to addresses without TV licences, they view the capability test against internet devices as a means of catching additional homes and now businesses (who may not have had a tv set at all), that do not meet the original "have a tv set" criteria.
From their point of view it means the onus is on the property or business owner to demonstrate they cannot access the material, and they know full well that is very difficult in the internet age and rely on fear to make people avoid the risk of a fine.
They do it because it protects their revenue stream vs a pay-to-view model.
Unfortunately is silliness is balanced only by its effectiveness.
Soo...
So, effectively because your computer is capable of accessing DR they want to charge you for accessing it because you can access it not because you have accessed it? How much is this charge? Curious. It must
be pretty obnoxiously large.
Or do they have records of a computer on your IP address accessing it? You don't have a wide open wifi access point do you?
So, effectively because your computer is capable of accessing DR they want to charge you for accessing it because you can access it not because you have accessed it? How much is this charge? Curious. It must
be pretty obnoxiously large.
Or do they have records of a computer on your IP address accessing it? You don't have a wide open wifi access point do you?
Obviously you ass unmed to much. Haven't hsd a licence for years. No aerial in this home. I'm well aware hence my post
----------
Simple reason. They would see their revenue disapear over night.
In the uk yes they will come round to you if you stop buying a TV license. You don't have to talk to them. You know you need a fishing license a marriage license but no one bangs on your door demanding to come in to check.
De tune your TV. Remove the aerial. Job done. Don't let anyone have access to your computer. I haven't watched live broadcast TV in years. When ever I catch some at other people's homes i feel assaulted by the crap.
----------
Don't allow them access to your computer. Job done. If they know the password and have a warrant to search it fine. Bet they don't
Just because you own a computer is not reason to say you watch live broadcasts. If it were you could all be done for viewing kiddie porn. Computers are capable of both. The TV ****s are trying to frighten people with an illogic cal attack. What's on their computer? Hmm
If you don't watch live TV they have no business with you. If you do, pay up. If you don't like the payment change the law. If you break the law do the time pay the fine.
Remember they need proof. Either they catch you watching live to air broadcasts or you admit to it. The second can be avoided by not talking to them by not answering the door and by closing it if you opened it.
The first is avoided by detuning your TV and removing the aerial. TV sets shoul be renamed. They are allowed to be used to view pre recorded DVDs and to play games on. You don't need a TV license you need a TV live as it happens program license.
Computers are used for way more than viewing shows. Most if it is catch up anyway Or hiring. This is why years ago the bbc wanted an Internet tax. So they could ensure revenue from those who legally do not require a TV license because they never watch live to air broadcasts.
They assume everyone watches live TV.
They realise many don't. Many don't realise through fear and indoctrination and incorrect teaching from their parents that they are required to buy a TV license.
You are not required by law to buy a TV license if you do not watch live TV.
Their letters are carefully worded to frighten. Look for the small print that says if you don't watch live broadcasts you dint need a license. Don't need to pay.
They will tell you thy need to check. You have no obligation to do so. You don't have to prove anything. The onus is on them to prove you are committing a crime. You don't have to prove anything. And like in all cases you don't say a thing or do a thing that may incriminate you. Shut up and don't let them in. Dont schedule a visit for them to check as its none of their business.
Highly unlikely unless they have been watching you watch live TV (or they lied to a judge saying its live TV when it was catch up or a dvd or Netflix or iTunes) and then gone to a magistrate to get a warrant but If they turn up with the police with a warrant the police are only there to keep the peace and ensure the TV officers do their job according to only the em search warrant.
You do not have to let them in. They do not have power to force entry. If you are not in you will not return to a broken down door ransacked home. The warrant does not give them that power. It is not a police warrant. It is a private one. Big difference.
If you do let them in make sure they only check what the warrant states. Don't answer questions. They should know how to get a picture on a TV. If they can't tough.
You should be filming the intrusion because if they say how do I switch this on how do I get a picture how do I change channel. You reply "are you saying your not qualified to do your job" or words to that effect. See what I'm saying. They should know how to investigate. If they don't they should be sacked or trained. Their Incompetence is your friend.
Don't give them your computer password unless you feel comfytable. They can of course go to bbc site and say there live broadcast. But **** they could just as easily surf to a kiddie porn site and say see there. So why let them on your personal computer. I wouldn't.
The police are only there like I say to keep the peace. They are not there to snoop around so don't let them.
Needs repeating, film the event. If you were silly enough to let the enforcement officers in film them. They hate it. Then post it to YouTube. They hate that even more.
Of course if you don't watch live TV you have zero to worry about. Nothing to do except ignore them safe in the knowledge you are well within the law and any investigation is futile.
Oh of course they could use the magic detector van haha if they did they'd know I don't ever watch live broadcast TV and would have stopped sending me letters years ago. They still send letters because the van doesn't exist ok it exists but it doesn't work.
It's all a scam.
The first is avoided by detuning your TV and removing the aerial. TV sets shoul be renamed. They are allowed to be used to view pre recorded DVDs and to play games on. You don't need a TV license you need a TV live as it happens program license.
Computers are used for way more than viewing shows. Most if it is catch up anyway Or hiring. This is why years ago the bbc wanted an Internet tax. So they could ensure revenue from those who legally do not require a TV license because they never watch live to air broadcasts.
They assume everyone watches live TV.
They realise many don't. Many don't realise through fear and indoctrination and incorrect teaching from their parents that they are required to buy a TV license.
You are not required by law to buy a TV license if you do not watch live TV.
Their letters are carefully worded to frighten. Look for the small print that says if you don't watch live broadcasts you dint need a license. Don't need to pay.
They will tell you thy need to check. You have no obligation to do so. You don't have to prove anything. The onus is on them to prove you are committing a crime. You don't have to prove anything. And like in all cases you don't say a thing or do a thing that may incriminate you. Shut up and don't let them in. Dont schedule a visit for them to check as its none of their business.
Highly unlikely unless they have been watching you watch live TV (or they lied to a judge saying its live TV when it was catch up or a dvd or Netflix or iTunes) and then gone to a magistrate to get a warrant but If they turn up with the police with a warrant the police are only there to keep the peace and ensure the TV officers do their job according to only the em search warrant.
You do not have to let them in. They do not have power to force entry. If you are not in you will not return to a broken down door ransacked home. The warrant does not give them that power. It is not a police warrant. It is a private one. Big difference.
If you do let them in make sure they only check what the warrant states. Don't answer questions. They should know how to get a picture on a TV. If they can't tough.
You should be filming the intrusion because if they say how do I switch this on how do I get a picture how do I change channel. You reply "are you saying your not qualified to do your job" or words to that effect. See what I'm saying. They should know how to investigate. If they don't they should be sacked or trained. Their Incompetence is your friend.
Don't give them your computer password unless you feel comfytable. They can of course go to bbc site and say there live broadcast. But **** they could just as easily surf to a kiddie porn site and say see there. So why let them on your personal computer. I wouldn't.
The police are only there like I say to keep the peace. They are not there to snoop around so don't let them.
Needs repeating, film the event. If you were silly enough to let the enforcement officers in film them. They hate it. Then post it to YouTube. They hate that even more.
Of course if you don't watch live TV you have zero to worry about. Nothing to do except ignore them safe in the knowledge you are well within the law and any investigation is futile.
Oh of course they could use the magic detector van haha if they did they'd know I don't ever watch live broadcast TV and would have stopped sending me letters years ago. They still send letters because the van doesn't exist ok it exists but it doesn't work.
It's all a scam.
Last edited: