Internet Censorship - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Gozer · 07-27-2009, 04:08 PM

And so it begins....AT&T Blocks 4chan

Background:
4chan is an image based message-board, similar to Off Topic in the same sense FoI is similar to HF. /b/ is one sub-board, and is known for its moral depravity. Described as the "butthole of the internet" and my few trips there absolutely confirm this description. Not safe for anybody.

link: (1st website probably frowned on by corporate IT types)
EDIT - Site HIGHLY NSFW: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/AT%26T_Blocks_4chan
http://www.pcworld.com/article/16907...nets_nest.html

At&t statment:
"Beginning Friday, an AT&T customer was impacted by a denial-of-service attack stemming from IP addresses connected to img.4chan.org. To prevent this attack from disrupting service for the impacted AT&T customer, and to prevent the attack from spreading to impact our other customers, AT&T temporarily blocked access to the IP addresses in question for our customers. This action was in no way related to the content at img.4chan.org; our focus was on protecting our customers from malicious traffic.

Overnight Sunday, after we determined the denial-of-service threat no longer existed, AT&T removed the block on the IP addresses in question. We will continue to monitor for denial-of-service activity and any malicious traffic to protect our customers."

Edit to clarify: I suspect AT&T is lying, and saying this is related to protecting individual users (which may be true) as step one in...

Sounds like step one in censoring 4chan from "civilized" internet. While if there is a site that deserves censorship, 4chan is it, I am staunchly opposed to any censorship by an ISP.

Anyone else hear about this?

mykalberta · 07-27-2009, 04:16 PM

Censorship?

Blocking a site that was malicious in nature. Then they unblock it when it was fine. How is that Censorship?

Gozer · 07-27-2009, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Censorship?

Blocking a site that was malicious in nature. Then they unblock it when it was fine. How is that Censorship?

I just don't buy it.

Cities rumored to be experiencing full or partial blocking

* Los Angeles and Surrounding Areas, CA
* St. Louis, MO
* SF Bay Area, CA
* Detroit, MI
* Berkeley, CA
* San Francisco, CA
* Tyler, TX
* Houston, TX
* Dallas, TX
* Austin, TX
* San Antonio, TX
* Oklahoma City, OK
* Tulsa and Metro area, Oklahoma
* All former Ohio Bell areas (Cleveland, Dayton, Akron, Toledo)
* Chicago, IL
* Kendallville, IN
* Indianapolis, IN
* Several cities in CT
* Sacramento, CA
* Milwaukee, WI
* Sheboygan, WI

FanIn80 · 07-27-2009, 04:21 PM

I don't get it. Following this logic, would locking up a convicted murderer also be viewed as censoring his freedom of expression?

Azure · 07-27-2009, 04:58 PM

Their internet, they can block what they want.

But, customers have a right to go somewhere else for their internet then.

BlackArcher101 · 07-27-2009, 05:10 PM

So they say this is a result of a DoS attack. Here's what doesn't make sense.
1. They block the IP of only 2 boards on 4chan
2. The IP used to access the webserver is highly unlikely to be used as a DoS attack.

I'm guessing the people on 4chan organized a DoS attack, but the actual IP used wasn't 4chan, but someone that posted on there. They call it "denial-of-service attack stemming from IP addresses connected to img.4chan.org" and use it as an excuse to block.

edit: Who knows... there's some many version of this on the net I don't know what to believe.

@theCBE · 07-27-2009, 05:12 PM

Seems like the reason they blocked it is a little bit ambiguous.

If "malicious traffic" is means some sort of viral attack that could compromise their network and have an impact on some innocent customer then I can see it being a legit move.

If "malicious traffic" means they don't like what they are seeing on /b/, then its not so legit.

photon · 07-27-2009, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

So they say this is a result of a DoS attack. Here's what doesn't make sense.
1. They block the IP of only 2 boards on 4chan
2. The IP used to access the webserver is highly unlikely to be used as a DoS attack.

I'm guessing the people on 4chan organized a DoS attack, but the actual IP used wasn't 4chan, but someone that posted on there. They call it "denial-of-service attack stemming from IP addresses connected to img.4chan.org" and use it as an excuse to block.

edit: Who knows... there's some many version of this on the net I don't know what to believe.

This.

The story just doesn't add up, and sounds to me like a concocted story to justify an action after the fact. There's zero chance that any kind of attack came from a 4chan server.

photon · 07-27-2009, 05:50 PM

Here's the official word:

http://status.4chan.org/

Quote:

Here's what happened:

For the past three weeks, 4chan has been under a constant DDoS attack. We were able to filter this specific type of attack in a fashion that was more or less transparent to the end user.

Unfortunately, as an unintended consequence of the method used, some Internet users received errant traffic from one of our network switches. A handful happened to be AT&T customers.

In response, AT&T filtered all traffic to and from our img.4chan.org IPs (which serve /b/ & /r9k/) for their entire network, instead of only the affected customers. AT&T did not contact us prior to implementing the block. Here is their statement regarding the matter.

In the end, this wasn't a sinister act of censorship, but rather a bit of a mistake and a poorly executed, disproportionate response on AT&T's part. Whoever pulled the trigger on blackholing the site probably didn't anticipate [nor intend] the consequences of doing so.

CrusaderPi · 07-27-2009, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photon

This.

The story just doesn't add up, and sounds to me like a concocted story to justify an action after the fact. There's zero chance that any kind of attack came from a 4chan server.

But the attack (actually a counter attack) was absolutely organized on the 4chan board. And if something stupid started on 4chan you know for sure in started on the img.4chan.org server.

The real beauty of this is anontalk totally owning (pwning for you kids) 4chan in a DDoS war. Then getting a legitimate company to come down on them.

photon · 07-27-2009, 07:32 PM

Sure they can organize it on a 4chan server, but it won't originate there.. and blocking the 4chan server would do exactly zero to stop such an attack.

/b/tards can't be stopped.

CrusaderPi · 07-27-2009, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photon

Sure they can organize it on a 4chan server, but it won't originate there.. and blocking the 4chan server would do exactly zero to stop such an attack.

/b/tards can't be stopped.

Yeah... anonymous might go off the deep end on this one. Should be fun.

alltherage · 07-27-2009, 07:42 PM

You know what? That place is such a disgusting ****hole that I would be happy if Telus and Shaw cut it off too IMO.

photon · 07-27-2009, 07:42 PM

They won't, since it's all just a misunderstanding for the most part.

But it would have been fun to watch for sure.

HPLovecraft · 07-27-2009, 07:46 PM

I'm against any form of censorship most of the time, but I don't mind them blocking that s***-hole one iota. As a matter of fact, I'd probably take a bat to their servers myself if I found myself in the same room as them.

alltherage · 07-27-2009, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photon

They won't, since it's all just a misunderstanding for the most part.

But it would have been fun to watch for sure.

Yeah I posted before reading. 4chan is a place where i went there after hearing about it, some of the stuff was funny at first... and then I saw things I wish to God I'd never seen. Like seriously... brings that whole "can't unsee" thing to a serious head. It makes me physically ill.

HPLovecraft · 07-27-2009, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

But the attack (actually a counter attack) was absolutely organized on the 4chan board. And if something stupid started on 4chan you know for sure in started on the img.4chan.org server.

The real beauty of this is anontalk totally owning (pwning for you kids) 4chan in a DDoS war. Then getting a legitimate company to come down on them.

No need for that 'if,' no need at all...

Resolute 14 · 07-27-2009, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photon

They won't, since it's all just a misunderstanding for the most part.

But it would have been fun to watch for sure.

The comical part is how they chide someone at AT&T for not anticipating the consequences of blocking 4Chan, when 4Chan itself failed to properly anticipate the consequences of its response to the DDoS attack.

CrusaderPi · 07-27-2009, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The comical part is how they chide someone at AT&T for not anticipating the consequences of blocking 4Chan, when 4Chan itself failed to properly anticipate the consequences of its response to the DDoS attack.

Lulz will be had for sure.

And you can't censor something just because you don't like it.

DOK · 07-27-2009, 07:56 PM

I know I can just go see it for myself, but the comment about not being able to "un-see" something is disturbing to me. Can someone tell me what kind of stuff in on this site? I'm thinking dead people and horrible sex acts, but oddly, I thought you could get that stuff anywhere on the internet?