×

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!

Open Rights Group International Says Virgin, Sky Blocking Innocent Sites

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the no-brush-is-quite-broad-enough dept.

The Internet 83

New submitter stewartrob70 writes with an explanation of the inadvertent (or at least unwarranted) blocking of innocuous sites that UK ISPs Virgin and Sky are engaged in, as reported by PC Pro. The ISPs' filtering systems "appear to be blocking innocent third-party sites with apparently little or no human oversight." stewartrob70 excerpts from a blog posting with an explanation of why: "In order to understand why this specific issue happened, you need to be familiar with a quirk in how DNS is commonly used in third-party load-balanced site deployments. Many third-party load balanced systems, for example those using Amazon's AWS infrastructure, are enabled by pointing CNAME records at names controlled by those third-party systems. For example www.example.com may be pointed at loadbalancer.example.net. However, 'example.com' usually cannot be directly given a CNAME record (CNAME records cannot be mixed with the other record types needed such as those pointing to nameservers and mailservers). A common approach is to point "example.com" to a server that merely redirects all requests to 'www.example.com.' From forum posts we can see that it's this redirection system, in this specific case an A record used for 'http-redirection-a.dnsmadeeasy.com,' that has been blocked by the ISPs — probably a court-order-blocked site is also using the service — making numerous sites unavailable for any request made without the ''www' prefix."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

83 comments

And this is why (5, Insightful)

gigaherz (2653757) | about 5 months ago | (#45186501)

This is why ISPs have been complaining for years that filtering bad content is not as easy as the copyright people make the politicians think it is.

Re:And this is why (3, Interesting)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about 5 months ago | (#45186571)

You assume that "copyright people", "politicians" and rich elites in general care about "Innocent Sites": censorship for limiting, framing and generally controlling the political discourse is the goal. They have solved the majority of the ISP problem by compensating them with our tax dollars so their complaint's disappear. Soon if not already it is profitable for said ISP's to censor content against secret behind closed door lists, so only those with some sense of moral compass outside of pure profit motive will complain and that will be fine as they can be ignored by mass media. Virgin and Sky were too big to ignore when they were complaining - now they are silent on the issue.

Re:And this is why (1)

gigaherz (2653757) | about 5 months ago | (#45186627)

Of course they don't care. We are talking about corporations and politicians. What they were complaining about was that it's not EASY, so it requires more EFFORT. And in corporate terms, effort means money. Of course they stop complaining when you compensate them for the cost of running the filters, but the point stands: they DID complain.

Re:And this is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45187161)

and his point still stands: ISPs are NOT complaining anymore. Monetary compensation is doing its job to subvert the major issue that most ISPs had with filtering - the cost.

Re:And this is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45186673)

But they do care about "innocent sites". Filtering "bad stuff" would be so much easier if there was a government agency that checked sites to create a list of sites that are "good" and fit for consumption by the general populace - for a very modest monthly fee, of course.

Re:And this is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45187693)

They have solved the majority of the ISP problem by compensating them with our tax dollars so their complaint's disappear.

Still haven't graduated high school, eh?

Re:And this is why (5, Informative)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 5 months ago | (#45186639)

"This is why ISPs..."

Oh, what bullshit. ISPs have bent over backwards so they don't lose out on delicious government contracts, which in the UK require satisfactory filtering methods in place.

There are maybe one or two ISPs which have had a backbone in all this - such as Andrews&Arnold. You can tell the difference because their Internet service is 100% unfiltered. They even ask you if you want filtering and refuse to provide you with service if you say "yes".

Re:And this is why (2)

gigaherz (2653757) | about 5 months ago | (#45186649)

My point was that some ISPs have complained about the cost of running good filters, not that it affects innocent websites. Good filters happen to be the ones that do NOT block innocent websites, but of course they cost more. Avoiding that cost is a very important topic for the ISPs, while blocking innocent websites is just a small PR issue. In the case of Virgin and Sky, cheap blocking seems to have been the chocie.

Re:And this is why (3, Interesting)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 5 months ago | (#45186697)

I haven't heard many complaints about the cost, to be honest.

Run no filter:
- lose gov contracts;

Run cheap filter:
- gain gov contracts;
- increase prices slightly for everyone;
- minority of people notice they're missing legitimate web sites;

Run expensive filter:
- minority still complain because they tend to object to filtering in principle;
- lose custom from extra costs which will be passed on to consumer.

So "run cheap filter" is always the profitable option in the UK, which is why everyone feeds the IWF list plus the easiest interpretation of court orders into something in the style of the original Cleanfeed, augmented more recently by DPI by some ISPs.

Re:And this is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45188297)

Run no filter: - lose gov contracts;

Run cheap filter: - gain gov contracts;...

What contracts (emphasis on the plural) would those be? If you think your local Jobcentre will be paying £20 a month to TalkTalk or whoever you're very much mistaken. I would expect that a government has enough clout to do business with BT wholesale and cut out the middle man.

Re:And this is why (3, Informative)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 5 months ago | (#45188407)

See e.g. the long thread on the Be Internet user forum. It was noted that the government refuses to purchase services from ISPs which aren't already enforcing IWF-strength filtering. This was done to encourage ISPs to follow government pro-censorship policy, instead of directly legislating to require censorship. Then the ISP's filters would look like a business decision and the civil libertarians who are "pro-freedom-of-business" wouldn't be able to get their panties in a twist. Fairly clever, if you ask me, and it's just another reminder of the danger of public-private partnerships.

Re:And this is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45188691)

Interesting, although I can't imagine when they would be purchasing services from smaller ISPs anyway; it's not as though they've dumped Vodafone after those tax shenanigans.

Re:And this is why (3, Informative)

isorox (205688) | about 5 months ago | (#45186741)

"This is why ISPs..."

Oh, what bullshit. ISPs have bent over backwards so they don't lose out on delicious government contracts, which in the UK require satisfactory filtering methods in place.

There are maybe one or two ISPs which have had a backbone in all this - such as Andrews&Arnold. You can tell the difference because their Internet service is 100% unfiltered. They even ask you if you want filtering and refuse to provide you with service if you say "yes".

Not all ISPs

Not only is Andrews & Arnold [aaisp.net.uk] XKCD 806 [xkcd.com] compliant, but they meet all of mumsnet^W David Cameron's censorship requirements.

The government wants us to offer filtering as an option, so we offer an active choice when you sign up, you choose one of two options:-

Unfiltered Internet access - no filtering of any content within the A&A network - you are responsible for any filtering in your own network, or
Censored Internet access - restricted access to unpublished government mandated filter list (plus Daily Mail web site) - but still cannot guarantee kids don't access porn.
If you choose censored you are advised: Sorry, for a censored internet you will have to pick a different ISP or move to North Korea. Our services are all unfiltered.

Is that a good enough active choice for you Mr Cameron?

Re:And this is why (2)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 5 months ago | (#45186883)

I did mention AAISP in the final paragraph, but I suppose their approach is so correct that it's worth mentioning twice (or thrice, right here!).

Government and big business play an on-going game of pretending to wrestle each other, but they're usually happy enough to work together while giving the plebs some "state vs private sector interests" theatre to get worked up about.

Re:And this is why (1)

isorox (205688) | about 6 months ago | (#45199271)

I did mention AAISP in the final paragraph, but I suppose their approach is so correct that it's worth mentioning twice (or thrice, right here!).

Yeah, sorry, stupid me! Since slashdot started going downhil (1999, hoho), I've taken to reading it on my phone using google web toolkit, but you only get the start of the posts.

Re:And this is why (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 5 months ago | (#45187105)

I really don't see the point of what A&A are trying to do because ultimately they still use BT's network and you are still subject to full spying. They even help GCHQ out by not using carrier grade NAT. You still need a VPN out of the country to even begin to be safe and have some privacy, and they could easily offer that service as a standard part of their package. I'm sure a lot of people would love to simply tick a box and have all their traffic re-directed to say Sweden over a fully encrypted link.

Okay, they don't block a few sites, at least until someone bothers to sue them. Those sites are unblocked for me anyway because I use a VPN.

Re:And this is why (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 5 months ago | (#45187219)

The only way A&A could protect you from GCHQ is by running their own copper/fibre all over the country, which would be ridiculously expensive for a small ISP. Even then, as soon as the data leaves their copper/fibre, they can offer no protection whatsoever.

SWEDEN!? (3, Informative)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about 5 months ago | (#45187265)

VPN via Sweden, are you freakin kidding me - you might as well cc all your data to GCHQ directly!? Sweden's NSA Spy Links “Deeply Troubling” [yale.edu], or check out the professors blog for ongoing abuses on all fronts [professorsblogg.com] by the Swedish authorities. Whatever cred Sweden may have established during the cold war years, they have more than used up and are still digging down. The country (well its political leaders) can't be trusted - not a good place to do business anymore.

If any country near the UK has some semblance of credibility, perhaps try Iceland as the first hop for your VPN. They are even trying to promote themselves as a naturally cooled server hub [datacenterknowledge.com], which is nice...

Re:SWEDEN!? (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 5 months ago | (#45188623)

Of course Sweden is just as compromised as the UK, but that isn't the point. The VPN helps hide your identity, but there are still two dangers. There might be legal pressure put on the VPN provider, but Sweden actually has some quite strong protections. At least, scum like music industry parasites can't use civil courts to make them hand over data. The other danger is a spy agency monitoring both ends of the connection to try and identify you, but Sweden probably doesn't have the resources to do it.

Iceland is probably the best, you are correct.

Re:SWEDEN!? (1)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | about 5 months ago | (#45189285)

Sweden - NSA Codename "Sardine" [falkvinge.net] - more than likely receives secret funding from the NSA to establish the infrastructure, just like the UK does [theguardian.com]. They may even recieve more funding than the UK given their gateway status to Russian internet traffic.

Also check out the professor blog website I linked previously - you cannot trust Swedens perception of "strong protections" anymore - there are good reasons [professorsblogg.com] why Sweden is now rated below Botswana, Romania and Senegal in the WJP Rule of Law Index. Sad how bad it has got there, really.

Re:SWEDEN!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45191949)

Ahh, security through delusion.

Not all is inadvertent (-1, Flamebait)

g4sy (694060) | about 5 months ago | (#45186503)

Try accessing ar15.com or many other popular gun websites from sky, vodafone and other corporate shill companies.

Tell me, what economic motivation would a communications provider have for blocking gun sites? Answer: none. The economic motivation is provided by you, the tax-paying, defenceless UK slave. The image of the future is indeed a boot stamping on a human face forever. And many very stupid British have already learned to love it.

Re:Not all is inadvertent (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45186539)

I can access that site from a Sky connection with no problems.

Re:Not all is inadvertent (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45186559)

On Sky: Check
Can access ar15.com: Check

Blocked on Sky? No

Your point?

Re:Not all is inadvertent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45186621)

Accessed from Virgin Media - not a problem.

Re:Not all is inadvertent (3, Funny)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 5 months ago | (#45186645)

I assume this is a parody of the gun nuts who weaken every decent discussion with paranoid, extremist ramblings.

Re:Not all is inadvertent (2)

cyber-vandal (148830) | about 5 months ago | (#45186681)

Guns are not illegal in the UK, they are just much harder to get.

Re:Not all is inadvertent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45186707)

And thats a good thing. No massacres like we have in the US every other week.

Re:Not all is inadvertent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45186723)

Safety should not be anyone's prime concern.

Re:Not all is inadvertent (1)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 5 months ago | (#45187075)

OK, you can be "free" and dead. I'll be enjoying my slightly less "free" life.

Re:Not all is inadvertent (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45187321)

OK, you can be "free" and dead. I'll be enjoying my slightly less "free" life.

Of course you're OK with being less free. You're white eurotrash that can't wait for hordes of invaders to slit your throat because of your white guilt.

Re:Not all is inadvertent (2)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 5 months ago | (#45187621)

Last successful invasion: 1066.

Get back to me in a millennium, yank.

Re:Not all is inadvertent (0)

PRMan (959735) | about 5 months ago | (#45188851)

So having London bombed to toothpicks in WWII doesn't count?

Re:Not all is inadvertent (3, Informative)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | about 5 months ago | (#45189347)

As a successful invasion? No. Not unless 9/11 counts as a successful invasion of the US.

Although WW2 was over 5 years after the Battle of Britain, while the US has indentured itself for decades, so maybe 9/11 was a more effective attack. Thanks for making me think about this.

Re:Not all is inadvertent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45191427)

Not sure how you define toothpicks, but no we weren't bombed that badly. I live in a house that was bombed in the 2nd world war, we believe a V1 exploded at the end (we live in Greenwich), and whilst London took a lot of damage in some areas, it was nothing compared to Hamburg, Dresden or Berlin. In comparison London looked like a rather heavy Facebook party had passed through the night before.

Re:Not all is inadvertent (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45191327)

Learn your history. The last successful invasion was in 1688. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Not all is inadvertent (3, Funny)

oobayly (1056050) | about 5 months ago | (#45186727)

No, it's a bad thing - have you any idea how these people not being killed in gun massacres are over-burdening the NHS? Come on people, you have to think about the greater good.

Re:Not all is inadvertent (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45186877)

The greater good.

Re:Not all is inadvertent (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45186971)

Looks like someone doesn't realise that everyone and his mum is packing down here.

Re:Not all is inadvertent (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 5 months ago | (#45188509)

If they happened every other week they might be worth talking about. You are talking about something that happens less often than that, over a sample size of 300 million people in 3.97 million square miles. Anything that happens at least once a day over such a sample size is pretty fucking rare....and these massacres happen, maybe once or twice a year at most.

Re:Not all is inadvertent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45187553)

Bollox! Guns need to be licensed and unless you're in law enforcement or a registered hunter (or part of the gentry/farmer), you will not get one.

Re:Not all is inadvertent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45188173)

The police will grant a shotgun license unless there is good reason not to. Sometimes, unfortunately, they will grant one anyway.

Re:Not all is inadvertent (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 5 months ago | (#45190685)

I don't shoot anymore (it's fun for a while, but it gets boring after a bit), but I never had problems getting access to shotguns or target rifles (including some fully and semi automatic) as a teenager in the UK. Handguns became illegal around this time, although there were some exemptions, such as for black-powder revolvers that kept most hobbyists happy (they take ages to reload, but you get half a dozen shots before you need to, which lets you put some holes in a target) and many of the rest moved to air pistols or carbines.

Everything's fine. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45186543)

Blocking innocent materials is exactly how DNS censoring systems have always worked anywhere they have been implemented.
Move along people, i see nothing surprising there, this was all foretold.

BGP instead of DNS filtering makes more sense? (2)

Quick Reply (688867) | about 5 months ago | (#45186555)

Technically speaking that is, not politically.

I remember reading about this on one of my ISPs' blog a while ago.

http://steve.blogs.exetel.com.au/index.php?/archives/186-Content-Filtering.html [exetel.com.au]

Re:BGP instead of DNS filtering makes more sense? (5, Insightful)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 5 months ago | (#45186655)

No, any IP based filtering is bad if you want to only block websites. As just explained in TFA, the http protocol is used to put more than one website on a single IP address. You will block other websites if you are blocking entire IP addresses.

The big catch here is that to do this "properly" ISPs will have to put up transparent HTTP proxies and MitM https as well, just to be able to block these websites. This will effectively make the entire internet insecure for any serious stuff like banking or purchasing goods, since anyone will be able to spoof https. Not only that, but ISPs will suddenly have complete records of your complete web browsing history. There is no way to deny it, those logs will end up in the hands of the government sooner or later. Having ISPs block web sites is like having road workers make sytems that block foreign people that commit traffic violations, it's just not a feasible concept.

Re:BGP instead of DNS filtering makes more sense? (1)

Quick Reply (688867) | about 5 months ago | (#45186811)

MitM is a Politically bad idea, not technical. If the proxy servers in the middle have enough bandwidth and resources, the performance could theoretically even be an improvement. I most certainly agree (from a Political perspective) it is a dangerously slippery slope.

From a technical perspective, it doesn't make the internet (banking, shopping, etc or other https activity) any different because a government/ISP MitM filter is no different to a Malicious Hacker MitM attack, which is already feasible. Also, I maybe wrong about HTTPS, but I believe that the Private SSL key would need to be installed on the MitM server, otherwise the MitM server would need to use a different certificate - a red flag - than the real server.

I wouldn't be surprised if government spying agencies are doing their own MitM attacks already on a BGP level, and in the case of HTTPS websites, compromise any private SSL keys they need to do it without detection.

Re:BGP instead of DNS filtering makes more sense? (3, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#45186859)

Actually, they *do*. That's how the 'cleanfeed' system works. As was discovered when they blocked wikipedia a few years ago - ISPs redirected all traffic for that IP on port 80 to a transparent proxy that then blocked the offending files specifically, playing hell with wikipedia's anti-vandalism measures.

Re:BGP instead of DNS filtering makes more sense? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45186677)

What's being blocked is a service that is (apparently) used by one site that is meant to be blocked and others that (supposedly) aren't meant to be blocked. It doesn't matter whether you block them by DNS or BGP: If that service is blocked, all the sites that use it are blocked.

What does make more sense is not to censor the web but to go after the companies and people that do illegal things. If you think there's a better way to implement censorship, you're part of the problem.

Re:BGP instead of DNS filtering makes more sense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45186763)

You know what would make more sense? IPv6!

Re:BGP instead of DNS filtering makes more sense? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45188827)

You know what would make more sense? IPv6!

Great idea. Let tell the idiots politicians that they need IPv6 to implement censorship so they will push IPv6 implementation for us. Then we can just route around censorship like we always routed around damage.

Stupid politicans (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45186557)

...messing with tech without having a clue (some have, mind you -- and then they're welcome!). It's as if they said: "for this model of car you gotta use M5 screws exclusively". Or: "for this chemical reaction, only HNO3". Get a fucking clue first.

They should go back doing their jobs properly.

why?! (2, Funny)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 5 months ago | (#45186563)

who is this Sky character and why is he blocking innocent sites?

oh, virgin... maybe he just needs to get laid.

Re:why?! (1)

gigaherz (2653757) | about 5 months ago | (#45186641)

Says Virgin and Sky Blocking are two people who are part of the Open Rights Group International, who happen to run innocent sites, despite the accusations.

Re:why?! (1)

Skowronek (795408) | about 5 months ago | (#45187021)

The fact that the organization's name can be, quite naturally, abbreviated to ORGI, makes their averred innocence all the more doubtful.

Re:why?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45186747)

Dear Slashdot, English Capitalization Is Bad for Visual Legibility & Comprehension. Take a point and adapt a more readable European style. Thanks.

Re:why?! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45187003)

Lieber Slashdot Englisch Kapitalisierung ist schlecht für visuelle Lesbarkeit und Verständnis. Werfen Sie einen Punkt und nimmt eine besser lesbare europäischen Stil. Vielen Dank.

Like that?

I say keep it up. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45186579)

Block everything, block anything, see how long it is before things get changed and you can be free of having to blo- oh wait they are terrible media companies run by media types like the RIAA anyway so never mind about that.

Sky and Virgin are awful. If you support either you are helping fund media terrorism, essentially.

Re:I say keep it up. (1)

Tx (96709) | about 5 months ago | (#45186617)

What do you mean by "support"? Use? Because if you want pay TV in the UK, for example for decent sports coverage, then you basically you have to be a customer of one or the other. And that being the case, buying your broadband from them in a package deal is very cost-effective, and while they may be "awful", so are some of the biggest competitors (BT, TalkTalk, EE).

Re:I say keep it up. (1, Interesting)

CadentOrange (2429626) | about 5 months ago | (#45186667)

I was with Be for years. Excellent ISP, no blocking, real unlimited bandwidth and helpful technical support to boot. I jumped ship to Virgin when they were bought out by Sky as I really hate Sky. Who else was I going to go with? BT?

There are no more good ISPs left in the UK. This is a real shame.

p.s. As this is Slashdot, I would love to be corrected on the last point ^_^

Re:I say keep it up. (1)

the real darkskye (723822) | about 5 months ago | (#45186687)

There can be only one ...
Andrews & Arnold [aa.net.uk] is probably the best in terms of respecting the End User, but that quality does come at a price.

Re:I say keep it up. (1)

oobayly (1056050) | about 5 months ago | (#45186743)

Yup, they're great, but you're right about the cost. They need to charge me £100 for installing FTTC (Infinity), whereas BT will do it free of charge, and charge less per month. It's tempting to go to BT, get them to install it, and then go back to Andrews and Arnold after the contract is up.

Old News from August? (4, Informative)

stiggle (649614) | about 5 months ago | (#45186599)

I know Slashdot is usually behind the curve on news, but the linked articles date back to August....
(I know - shocking someone read both linked articles :-) )

Hardly surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45186663)

Everybody knew this would happen. Didn't stop anyone. Nobody cares about a working network anymore. There's censorship by the government, tracking and datamining by advertisers, the appification of the general purpose computer by the big computer companies, rate and volume limiting by the network operators, ubiquitous surveillance by the NSA and other ungovernable spy organisations, and the reaction of most users is a shrug at the most. It was nice while it lasted, but it's time to move on.

butts bumping in the night (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45186721)

iâ(TM)ve flown a plane once, but iâ(TM)m not a pilot.

iâ(TM)ve skiied once, but iâ(TM)m not a skiier.

but suck one cockâ¦.

just a little collateral damage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45186725)

small sacrifice in the fight to keep big media profits

Open Rights Group (0)

lundqvist (1070102) | about 5 months ago | (#45186827)

They seem to be idiots, currently campaigning because the filtering seems to be blocking 'esoteric' sites. As far as anyone with any sense can make out, its either a typo, and should read 'erotic', or a deliberate substitution by the Open Rights Group in order to drum up support within the pagan/alternative communities.

www is nothing special. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45187005)

i think "www" is not a prefix.
"www" it is just the name of a machine on the "example.com" domain.
methinks it's just historic that the computer running a webserver software is given the
name "www".

Thank you for that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45187065)

What we REALLY needed was an example of the idiot who thinks that the method of filtering web pages was a good idea.

And you've demonstrated for us exactly that idiot. Well done and thanks.

www means web pages. If you wan the same site's dhcp service, you change www to dhcp. Simples.

Excuses and Misdirection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45187215)

This is just an excuse for why this form of censorship is having the "wrong" effect. Censorship always has the wrong effect. Censorship is wrong. If the website is violating the law, go after the site using the law and go through the courts. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and blocking websites assumes guilt without making a legitimate effort to see that the law is enforced.

They can spout all the crap they want about "load balancing and routing made this worse than it is!", but really it's just a distraction from the truth: arbitrary censorship is wrong.

"Oh, I punched you in the face, I'm sorry. Here, I meant to punch that other guy in the face, he's the 'right' person. So if I had only punched him in the face then I wouldn't have done anything wrong...right?"

finally www has a purpose (1)

colfer (619105) | about 5 months ago | (#45187425)

Deplorable network competence there, but it does bring up an unrelated issue. Like most people I've been tending away the "www." in canonical site addresses, but it does have nice redundancy in meaning. Terseness is not always the bestness.

Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45187689)

Human oversight cost money. I think the lawyers for the MPAA/etc probably knew this and counted on it when implementing their copyright schemes.
Knowing full well that companies would automate it, it's the most cost effective way so therefore it is predictable corporate behaviour.

fag$orz (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45188061)

THEe SAME OPERATION

Dyndns service (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | about 5 months ago | (#45188513)

What they are doing is enforcing their TOS against servers on residential lines - dynamically assigned IP's, in order to get either more money or convince the wastrel to move to another provider.

Sorry folks but this has nothing to do with a government bloc in place. It's just another breakage of the internet into little fiefdoms.

We-are-samurai dept. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45189377)

"Well, then put the ships under manual control."

"There's no such thing anymore, Duke"

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...