Firefox and Chrome tools block Murdoch-owned websites

July 23, 2011 By Mike Flacy

Hacking attacks aren't the only headaches for the digital side of Rupert Murdoch's empire. New Firefox and Chrome additions allow people to avoid Murdoch properties on the Web.

It’s safe to say Rupert Murdoch is having a bad month. A couple developers have created free tools to help consumers stay away from websites owned by the Murdoch media empire. A Firefox add-on called MurdochAlert creates a warning when users are loading one of 100+ sites. For instance, if a user lands on Fox News, an alert bar appears to warn the user of the “potential computer security risks of accessing Murdoch-controlled sites”. The add-on comes with a Greasemonkey script for any user that wants to alter the design.

A Chrome extension takes a more stringent approach and completely halts the user from loading a Murdoch property. Called Murdoch Block, the extension displays a warning before allowing the user to choose to load the site. Popular blocked properties include Hulu (31 percent owned by Fox), Fox News, MySpace, Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. However, News Corp-owned IGN and American Idol sites didn’t get the same treatment from the developer.

Collectively, the add-on and extension have nearly 5,000 users since being added to the corresponding databases earlier this week. These tools have been developed in response to the current phone hacking scandal that caused Murdoch-owned News of the World to shut down last week. The developer of the Firefox add-on is concerned that hacking and abuse of user data may also extend into the sites controlled by Murdoch, either from internal employees or groups like LulzSec. Earlier this week, LulzSec hacked the UK’s The Sun to by adding a page that claimed Rupert Murdoch had been found dead

Rupert Murdoch and son James Murdoch have been under fire by British politicians this week regarding questioning about the phone hacking scandal as well as the questionable relationships between News Corp. newspapers and the police department. They also face the possibility that a hacker affiliated with Anonymous has access to 4GB of potentially incriminating email communication as claimed on his Twitter account.

Showing 8 comments

Rob A. at 12:08pm 24th July 2011 stupid...letting other people pick and choose what you should or shouldnt view....
1. navadin at 2:52pm 24th July 2011 Personally, I block ads whenever possible, I'll block the gov. if I feel like it. I've grown very tired of internet filled with bs and people, corporations and governments trying to stick their noses up my a**, wanting to see where I go and what I do. PS. You sound like you work for Madison Avenue...
Matt Elmstedt at 10:16am 24th July 2011 (Part 2/2) Finally, enterprises are designed to have smaller corporations run independently so as to function efficiently, perhaps James Murdoch could have been more involved but he was in charge of two continents worth of media. Rupert has no culpability unless he ordered/encouraged it. By the sounds of it (and I'm not trying to justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior) it simply sounds as though all of Fleet St (the U.K. tabloids) does this type of thing.
Matt Elmstedt at 10:14am 24th July 2011 (Part 1/2) "Let those without sin cast the first stone." Trust me, I think hacking folks VM's is appalling, especially what NOTW did in the Dowling situation, however, one bad apple does not spoil the whole bunch. That being said, come talk to me again if their U.S organizations pulled a similar stunt here.Currently News Corp competitors in the U.K. are tossing around accusations of improprieties and the Holder Justice Department is gathering subpoenas with no evidence to support such a which hunt. I thought one had to have some evidence before further slandering people who, while perhaps should have been more involved, haven't appeared to be at all involved with any actual crime.(con't)
Antony Norman at 8:24am 24th July 2011 If you already hate news corp then why would you be looking at any of their websites?
Sas Quatch at 3:31am 24th July 2011 fuck murdoch
Daniel J. Hunter at 2:58am 24th July 2011 douchebag move, but not illegal or unethical in any way.
Alexandru Marinică at 2:47am 24th July 2011 That's censorship. He shut down the newspaper, what else did you want him to do? Maybe he gets upset and buys Google and Firefox