backtop


Print 47 comment(s) - last by BailoutBenny.. on Jul 28 at 3:03 PM

AT&T knows how to warm the hearts of internet users

AT&T is known for often taking stands unpopular with its customers.  Even Apple has indicated that it is growing impatient with AT&T for, among other things, not allowing MMS messaging on the iPhone.  However, AT&T may have bitten off more than it realized when it decided to block portions of popular internet meeting place 4chan.org.

The site which receives 150,000 to 200,000 messages a day certainly has plenty of offensive comments.  And it’s often used to launch everything from internet pranks to serious attacks.  The hacker group Anonymous is known to frequent the boards.

Apparently offended by the board, AT&T decided to block its internet users' access to it.  Starting at 10 a.m. PST on Sunday, the img.4chan.org subdomain was blocked.  According to CentralGadget.com, an internet spokesperson confirmed that the company was "currently blocking portions of the internet site 4chan.org."

AT&T's spokeperson reportedly said that the block was "following the practices of their policy department."  The spokesperson reportedly claimed to have contacted site owner Christopher "Moot" Poole and received a list of demands.  Mr. Poole says he was never contacted and is confused at AT&T's claims.

Now the company has finally restored access to the site, but that hasn't stopped anti-AT&T groups such as "Project AT&T" and "4chan4ever" from popping up.  Among their first efforts was to start a Digg campaign falsely proclaiming that AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson had passed away.  More efforts are expected to launch today.

Many are speculating that there must be more to this story -- some sort of attack originating from 4chan.org that hasn't been reported yet.  Otherwise, it's hard to believe that even AT&T would be brazen enough to kick such a noisy hornets’ nest.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By MatthiasF on 7/27/2009 10:41:29 AM , Rating: -1
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with content censorship, nor would it help this situation.

If you're going to throw around the Internet's buzzword version of Climate Change, keep it in context.

And before conspiracy theorists start making up possible motives, why don't you let the journalists get a statement out of AT&T on why they did it. There might have been a good reason behind it, albeit unlikely.

A key fact that should be kept in mind, the 4chan website went down completely (for everyone) after AT&T removed their blocking. No word on why that happened either.

quote:
AT&T allegedly lifted the block around 12 hours after it began, with users confirming full access to 4chan's /b/ board--before the entirety of 4chan was brought down for an unknown reason--around 11 p.m. PST.


Wish Jason would stop filtering out FACTS to support the hysteria he sells.


By heffeque on 7/27/2009 10:59:10 AM , Rating: 4
"Net Neutrality has nothing to do with content censorship"

What have you been drinking lately?


By Iaiken on 7/27/2009 1:12:40 PM , Rating: 3
Fail much? I am neither for, nor against, Network Neutrality, but at least I know what it is...

The current envisioning of Network Neutrality MANDATES that ISP and carriers cannot take any form of prejudicial action against content that traverses their networks a.k.a. the "absolute non-discrimination" clause.

The problem I personally have against Network Neutrality is the fact that the above core tenet prevents ISPs from taking action against abuses of their network such as spam and file servers being run on compromised machines. The problem with not adopting the above is obvious as it would appear the that the days of the ISPs operating “in good faith” are over.


By tastyratz on 7/27/2009 2:44:00 PM , Rating: 4
No,
Network neutrality does not prohibit an isp from enacting a terms of service. If you download kiddie porn or spam people they are not obliged to serve you that traffic or not inform the authorities (Wasn't spam deemed illegal in california?)

Most legitimate law abiding traffic can and should flow equally. The premise of net neutrality is not creating a spam haven. I am sure any net neutrality laws would have provisions for such, and I Highly doubt anyone would really object (besides the spammers)


By MatthiasF on 7/27/2009 4:17:43 PM , Rating: 1
Net Neutrality is about transmission guidelines set for traffic priorities, or more specifically not allowing companies to enter agreements allowing certain sets of traffic to have priority over others.

That is not censorship. No ISP in the United States can prohibit your access to a website because of the site's content (unless the site itself holds illegal content). This is a guarantee under the First Amendment.


By BailoutBenny on 7/28/2009 3:03:27 PM , Rating: 3
Perhaps you should re-read the first amendment. It only states that Congress cannot pass any laws abridging free speech, religion, press or assembly. This means that states are free to do so and, in this case, companies offering a service to which you subscribe may do so since you are willfully renouncing your right to free expression when you consent to the contract.


By MatthiasF on 7/27/2009 4:38:41 PM , Rating: 2
Latest news, AT&T and several other ISPs were hit by an ACK DDOS from 4chan's IPs.

http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2009/07/att-4c...

As I said, seems like they had a good reason.


By Jalek on 7/28/2009 1:24:03 AM , Rating: 2
You know.. most switches don't acknowledge anything without first getting traffic. Maybe it was AT&T's users who were hosting the DDoS and the acks were legitimate.

Everyone seems to be assuming the AT&T's addresses were spoofed. What if they weren't and 4chan was more the victim than the perpetrator?

Several other ISP's as well? Ever hear of a botnet?


By MatthiasF on 7/28/2009 2:19:10 AM , Rating: 2
You know.. I'm so glad you bothered to read the article and the DSLReports.com thread before commenting. If you hadn't, you might look foolish.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,22769846

NOW READ, FOOL!


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki