AT&T Blocks Part of 4chan 342
holdenkarau writes "Several news sources (Mashable, The Inquistr, etc.) are reporting that AT&T is blocking img.4chan.org in the southern United States. That server is used for the infamous /b/ board (the home of anonymous). TechCrunch calls the decision to block 4chan 'stupid,' noting that they may have 'opened perhaps the most vindictive, messy can of worms.' The Inquisitr suggests that 'The global internet censorship debate landed in the home of the free.' moot (who runs 4chan) asks users to call AT&T, while some others suggest more drastic action (like cutting AT&T fiber)." Update: 07/27 09:23 GMT by T : Readers' comments below suggest that a) the purpose of the block was to curtail the effects of a serious DDoS attack and b) that the block has now been lifted, at least for some regions.
Re:Before we act too hastily.. (Score:5, Interesting)
So to stop a DDoS attack on a server, they remove any and all access to that server?
Am I the only one seeing the irony here?
What is the real problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
The question is whether 4chan is the real problem or the reaction to 4chan is. /b/ is what it is and has been for quite a while. And the American Southern culture also has roots that go back at least 300 years. So in a battle for legitimacy, which one should take precedence over the other?
We can talk about freedom of speech and such, but /b/ is home to content that is occasionally over the line illegal. On the other hand, only those who would actually seek it out would even know about it, so it doesn't make sense to "protect" the fair citizens of Hillbilly Valley by blocking the site.
Raymond Bradbury wrote about this in his seminal work Farenheit 451. Once we start allowing the minority to exert power over the majority in the name of fairness and protection, we lose a critical pillar of our society. Censorship is the first step, but later it will be outright censure.
Let's let that which is illegal stay illegal, and give everyone the benefit of full access, even if they don't want it. But I'm not from the South, so my cultural background doesn't lead me to the conclusion that censorship is better than freedom.
this is what's going to happen (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Net Neutrality (Score:3, Interesting)
I beg to differ, there is a difference between net neutrality and this, the larger issue of censorship.
Re:What is the real problem? (Score:1, Interesting)
/b/ is like a convenience store, and some kids come in to start dealing drugs in the corner. Sure, as the owner, you have a good idea what's going on, and if you installed surveillance you could catch them, but you can't be assed. You kick 'em out of the store when you actually see them doing it, but otherwise you're not too concerned unless you get a complaint. Most content deemed questionable in my country (Australia) is removed within a few hours of being posted.
Anyway, tits or gtfo.
Re:Looks like the block was lifted (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh my gosh.. Not 4chan... What shall we do?
Myself, I'm going on with my regular life, since I never went there anyways. :)
But, since I was curious, I tried to go to their site from a Verizon FiOS line. Dead.
This almost reminds me of the wonders of folks playing in IRC back in the day. One kid pisses off another kid, and suddenly folks are getting flooded off the network, and other various DoS attacks. SSDD.
Not buying the DOS story (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Before we act too hastily.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Am I the only one seeing the irony here?
There are plenty of ways such a decision would make sense. For instance, population A ("the south") is DDoSing 4chan. In so doing, they are disrupting access for everyone everywhere, including population B ("the north"), population C ("europe"), and population D ("alpha proxima"). By cutting off access from population A, they have made things only marginally worse for population A (since they couldn't get to it anyway), but have 'fixed' the problem for populations B, C, and D.
Was that the case here? Who knows.
Re:4chan Down (Score:2, Interesting)
LOL
Knuckleheads DDoS 4chan. /b/ and /r9k/.
AT&T reacts with blocking
AT&T removes block.
Some other knuckleheads launch a new bigger attack across all of 4chan.
Blame goes to AT&T.
Knuckleheads sit back and watch.
Priceless.
Re:Looks like the block was lifted (Score:3, Interesting)
Its not about 4chan, its about censorship. By ignoring this kind of thing we would only let ATT know that they can get away with it. I never visit 4chan but if it turns out that ATT really was trying to censor them then this story deserves all the publicity it can get.
Of course if it really was just ATT's way of responding to a DDoS attack then perhaps everyone overreacted.
How does this leave AT&T wrt common carrier st (Score:2, Interesting)
If, as appears to be the case, AT&T are actively censoring a site won't this in effect remove their common carrier status so leaving them open to being liable to be prosecuted for any questionable material of any nature which is carried on their network (either to an end user on their network, from a server on their network or traffic routed over their network to/from non-AT&T network end points)...
Re:Freedom and privacy (Score:1, Interesting)
Surely if you believe that you have freedom, you don't need to be anonymous when you speak your mind?
You're confusing a RIGHT to free speech with a lack of CONSEQUENCES for speaking your mind.
I can't help feeling that the people who keep propangandising for the right to anonymity in everything they do, have reasons to be ashamed of themselves.
Well, some probably do; others, probably not. Would you consent to having the police search your house now if they came to your door and asked nicely? Probably not; if they didn't have a warrant, you'd tell them to go away. And the fact that you would doesn't have you have "reasons to be ashamed of yourself", or that you have something to hide.
Of course it's not quite the same, but it does illustrate an important point: just like the fact you didn't allow them to search your home on request is not ipso facto evidence you've got something to hide, the fact people don't necessarily want their names on everything they say is not ipso facto evidence they've got reasons to be ashamed of themselves", either.
Looked at objectively, anonymity helps criminals enormously, but it doesn't really make a lot of difference to ordinary people.
That, at the very least, is a claim you'd have to back up with some serious evidence, but I'll go ahead and say it's actually outright wrong.
But beyond that, who are you to tell others that they do or don't need privacy, anyway? Speak for yourself; if you don't need or want any, that's fine, but what right do you have to deny it to others?
So, what about img.4chan.org - is it right or wrong to block them? I don't know - and I don't care, to be honest; there are so many web-sites and forums in the world and I only access a few any way.
Well, that's one way to look at it, but I'm pretty sure that history - and I mean all of history - has shown us that looking the other way when someone's mistreated is bad, even when it doesn't affect you. I really don't want to drag out the whole "first, they came for the jews" thing by Niemöller again, but the gist of that message there seems to apply here.
Finally, if you'll allow me to ask - what is your name? Surely you will have no problem with giving it up, based on what you said above. (And similarly, I hope you'll understand that based on what *I* said above, I am unable to return the favor.)
Re:ACK Attack (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Before we act too hastily.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think there needs to be a middle ground here, and frankly, I'd say your ISP goes over the line with all of those demands.
If I was using your ISP and was told I had to "bring in a receipt as proof that my PC was cleaned by a professional", I'd laugh and ask for my account to be canceled, right after that.
Among other things, I own my own business doing on-site service, much of which involves cleaning viruses and spyware off customer PCs - so I would obviously do this kind of work myself. (Or would you accept a receipt where I billed myself for my time?)
This stuff can happen to anyone, especially when 90% or more use the inherently insecure Windows operating system. In fact, severa of my very computer-savvy friends have managed to infect their PCs with nasty trojan horse viruses, not because they're "clueless" -- but because they took some risks downloading pirated software from Usenet, and someone decided to infect the self-extracting .EXE file that extracted the multi-sgement .RAR files they downloaded.
(Before you "throw the first stone" - consider that most computer professionals have a real need to evaluate fully-functional commercial software packages, without limitations or hassles of arbitrary "30 day trial periods" and so on. Many of us say "Screw the letter of the law!" in such instances. The reality is, it's YOUR butt on the line if you recommend some expensive software package be purchased at your workplace, only to find out months later that it has shortcomings that make it far less useful or reliable than you promised everyone it would be. Better to get your hands on a pirated copy to put through its paces for a while, so you know what you're getting into.)
And considering most people I know who use their computer enough to order broadband Internet in the first place own SEVERAL computers, typically networked together at home - it's not at all inconceivable they'd clean ONE machine, only to find out a second one was causing some/all of the spamming or flooding issues.
Security Officer (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you imagine being in charge of AT&T's security? I bet they are now having to monitor every post on /b/ for threats against AT&T.
Job description: "Reading posts about testicles and lolcats. Looking at pictures of naked women."