Search forums

Forums

Export thread

AT&T Blocks 4chan

Jul 26, 2009#1

JONJONAUG

So I come home from vacation and this pops up in my face.

And nothing of value was lost

Seems to be just the img server (/b/ and /r9k/).

4chan has since replied to this extremely stupid move by posting personal information of company execs and harassing the CEO of AT&T.

Jul 26, 2009#2

Pojodan

Oh noes?

Jul 26, 2009#3

The Lovely Boehner

Hah! I just tried to go to /b/ for the first time and I couldn't see anything. I have never been happier to be an AT&T customer.

Jul 26, 2009#4

bhamv3

I don't use AT&T and I don't go to /b, but this makes me uncomfortable nonetheless.

Jul 26, 2009#5

Steven Soderburgin

Yes, lol 4chan and all that shit, but this kind of thing makes me very nervous.

Jul 26, 2009#6

crono1224

Sounds like this could get ugly really fast, and that AT&T has no idea what they are up against, granted probably 90% of what 4channers will do will be illegal.

Lets see, if AT&T did this on purpose its a dick move and could have probably been slightly eased into if they warned.

4channers will more than likely make the arguements harder by giving AT&T a 'reason' to have this stuff blocked.

Jul 26, 2009#7

JONJONAUG said:
4chan has since replied to this extremely stupid move by posting personal information of company execs and harassing the CEO of AT&T.

:eyeroll: Yes, because that's a perfectly rational, legal and mature response. Typical for 4chan, of course.

Honestly, it's tactics like that that colours me unsurprised by AT&T's move. Good on them.

Jul 26, 2009#8

Nile

Yes, censor the internet! God forbid the children see something harmful! Protect the children!

I don't like 4chan, but this is wrong.

Jul 26, 2009#9

Denbrought

Heh, read about this earlier today.

If AT&T wanted to start testing the net neutrality waters, I don't think they could've chosen many worse targets. I sense an ensuing shitstorm -_-

Jul 26, 2009#10

doomdragon6

"Hi, AT&T? I went to this website the other day. 4chan? I... don't really wanna go there again. Can you help me?"

"Sure, ma'am, we'll just block the website completely."

"Oh, thank you! Oh! Wait! What about all the other despicable sites on the internet? I mean, 4chan really is just a bunch of 14 year olds trying to look cool."

"Eh."

Jul 26, 2009#11

Hylian

I don't go to 4chan but I don't like the sounds of this. I can see this going very bad very quickly.

Jul 27, 2009#12

North_Ranger

bhamv3 said:
I don't use AT&T and I don't go to /b, but this makes me uncomfortable nonetheless.

Admittedly, I'm feeling like this as well. I think it's a slippery slope when a service provider gets to nanny your Internet habits. Today it's 4chan, tomorrow the porn sites, the day after tomorrow... I dunno, people who think Dick Cheney's first name is oddly prophetic?

Jul 27, 2009#13

Chibibar

AT&T is testing the waters now and setting precedents. I mean it is 4chan so probably not going to be "too hard" to defend itself on that motion, but then that open the doors for all kinds of stuff AT&T CAN do later.....

Censorship across the board per AT&T rules.

Jul 27, 2009#14

Shegokigo

I give it a week.

Jul 27, 2009#15

Tress

I hate 4chan as much as anyone. I think their retaliation plans are retarded, and serving to prove AT&T's point.

...

Having said that, this is completely unacceptable on AT&T's part. I don't like 4chan, SO I CHOOSE NOT TO GO THERE. It's that simple. Blocking access to a place because you don't like it is inexcusable. I hope 4chan doesn't go too far, but AT&T really needs to be stopped on this one. Legally, of course. I don't condone illegal behavior on the part of 4chan users.

Jul 27, 2009#16

HoboNinja

http://encyclopediadramatica.com/AT%26T_Blocks_4chan

They are telling people not to DDoS and do other stupid shit, they are trying to do it all legal. The CEO's contact info was posted so people can complain directly to him.

Jul 27, 2009#17

Shegokigo

Want it done legally? It won't change anything.

Illegally? It'll be be reverted in minimal time.

Jul 27, 2009#18

Nile

It's a short step from blocking generally offensive material to blocking politically offensive material. AT&T needs to undo this, or they're setting a monstrous precedent.

And good on the leaders telling them to keep it legal... They're at least trying to keep things clean.

Jul 27, 2009#19

Twitch

I heard the CEO of AT&T just died.

Jul 27, 2009#20

Shegokigo

I wrote their names in my book. :ninja:

Jul 27, 2009#21

@Li3n

HoboNinja said:
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/AT%26T_Blocks_4chan

They are telling people not to DDoS and do other stupid shit, they are trying to do it all legal. The CEO's contact info was posted so people can complain directly to him.

“
AT&T has declared war on the internet
„

—Walter Cronkite after God asked what the latest news was.

:rofl:

Jul 27, 2009#22

Nile said:
Yes, censor the internet! God forbid the children see something harmful! Protect the children!

I don't like 4chan, but this is wrong.

Agree. The furthest any ISP should be going along these lines is providing information or the tools themselves for parents to set up blocking at home, on an individual basis.

Jul 27, 2009#23

JONJONAUG

ZenMonkey said:
Nile said:

Yes, censor the internet! God forbid the children see something harmful! Protect the children!

I don't like 4chan, but this is wrong.

Click to expand...

Agree. The furthest any ISP should be going along these lines is providing information or the tools themselves for parents to set up blocking at home, on an individual basis.

According to AT&T, they're blocking 4chan because the site gets DDoSed all the god damn time to the point where it's creating a major drag on everything else.

Jul 27, 2009#24

Espy

Write your congressman.

Jul 27, 2009#25

@Li3n

Espy said:
Write your congressman.

and add links to /b/ in the e-mail... that will so help.

Jul 27, 2009#26

Mr_Chaz

ZenMonkey said:
Nile said:

Yes, censor the internet! God forbid the children see something harmful! Protect the children!

I don't like 4chan, but this is wrong.

Click to expand...

Agree. The furthest any ISP should be going along these lines is providing information or the tools themselves for parents to set up blocking at home, on an individual basis.

I'm very conflicted about this one. I agree that ISPs have a duty to be neutral, and I stand by that. However they also have a duty to remove sources of illegal material such as paedophilia. So if the source is a mixed forum, where some of the content is illegal they start to have a problem, and they will have to look into new ways of combating it. I still think they've done the wrong thing, blocking the server is not the same as arranging for the material to be removed, especially on a mixed use site. But I also think that just saying "Censorship is wrong" is a bit too simplistic. I agree, but there are special cases. They just need to be very carefully regulates special cases, with specific protocols to follow to deal with them.

Jul 27, 2009#27

JCM

crono1224 said:
Sounds like this could get ugly really fast, and that AT&T has no idea what they are up against, granted probably 90% of what 4channers will do will be illegal.

Lets see, if AT&T did this on purpose its a dick move and could have probably been slightly eased into if they warned.

4channers will more than likely make the arguements harder by giving AT&T a 'reason' to have this stuff blocked.

Cant say it wont be entertaining to see what anonymous does this time.

As long as they dont change the ringtone of AT&AT telephones to "Never let you down", that is.

Jul 27, 2009#28

@Li3n

JCM said:
As long as they dont change the ringtone of AT&AT telephones to "Never let you down", that is.

Sure, give them ideas...

Jul 27, 2009#29

Denbrought

Mr_Chaz said:
I'm very conflicted about this one. I agree that ISPs have a duty to be neutral, and I stand by that. However they also have a duty to remove sources of illegal material such as paedophilia. So if the source is a mixed forum, where some of the content is illegal they start to have a problem, and they will have to look into new ways of combating it. I still think they've done the wrong thing, blocking the server is not the same as arranging for the material to be removed, especially on a mixed use site. But I also think that just saying "Censorship is wrong" is a bit too simplistic. I agree, but there are special cases. They just need to be very carefully regulates special cases, with specific protocols to follow to deal with them.

When CP gets posted on 4chan it gets deleted, along with a ban for everyone that wrote in the thread, normally. If suddenly a handful of trolls with proxies started posting child pornography here, and the mods were moving against it, would it justify blocking halforum off the internet? If not, the whole "mixed forum" argument rings hollow. Besides, the police should be handling this, not the isp.

Jul 27, 2009#30

Mr_Chaz

Denbrought said:
Mr_Chaz said:

I'm very conflicted about this one. I agree that ISPs have a duty to be neutral, and I stand by that. However they also have a duty to remove sources of illegal material such as paedophilia. So if the source is a mixed forum, where some of the content is illegal they start to have a problem, and they will have to look into new ways of combating it. I still think they've done the wrong thing, blocking the server is not the same as arranging for the material to be removed, especially on a mixed use site. But I also think that just saying "Censorship is wrong" is a bit too simplistic. I agree, but there are special cases. They just need to be very carefully regulates special cases, with specific protocols to follow to deal with them.

Click to expand...

When CP gets posted on 4chan it gets deleted, along with a ban for everyone that wrote in the thread, normally. If suddenly a handful of trolls with proxies started posting child pornography here, and the mods were moving against it, would it justify blocking halforum off the internet? If not, the whole "mixed forum" argument rings hollow. Besides, the police should be handling this, not the isp.

Well yes I agree, as I said, they did the wrong thing, and there are third parties responsible for the protocols to follow. (And the deleting and banning is news to me, thanks!). I'm just questioning the general "censorship is wrong" statement, even though I agree with it. A slight devil's advocate I guess.

Jul 27, 2009#31

Denbrought

Mr_Chaz said:
Well yes I agree, as I said, they did the wrong thing, and there are third parties responsible for the protocols to follow. (And the deleting and banning is news to me, thanks!). I'm just questioning the general "censorship is wrong" statement, even though I agree with it. A slight devil's advocate I guess.

Eh, for me it's more of a logical way of dealing with it. By aiming to a very hard to accomplish ideal, we may get the shots closer to a nicer place than if we were apathetic about it. And with ISPs... Grant 'em a yard and they'll pave a mile.

Jul 27, 2009#32

Covar

doomdragon6 said:
"Hi, AT&T? I went to this website the other day. 4chan? I... don't really wanna go there again. Can you help me?"

"Sure, ma'am, we'll just block the website completely."

"Oh, thank you! Oh! Wait! What about all the other despicable sites on the internet? I mean, 4chan really is just a bunch of 14 year olds trying to look cool."

"Eh."

thats absurd.

AT&T doesn't have customer service that helpful.

Jul 27, 2009#33

MindDetective

I've no intention of defending AT&T here, but the question remains as to whether they are allowed to filter their service or not. In my opinion if there were decent alternatives to AT&T, then I'd say it doesn't matter and they can all duke it out for customer business by blocking or not blocking sites as they see fit. If AT&T is basically the only game in town for high speed internet, then it seems a bit unreasonable for them to decide what their customers want.

Jul 27, 2009#34

PatrThom

No. Just...no. Words can't describe just how dangerous of a precedent this could set. It's like saying, "Because Chavez is such a pain, all telephone service to Venezuela will be cut off," or "Since Cuba is a big hotbed of nasty Communism, all mail/FedEx/UPS/commerce will be stopped." It's not just censorship, it's a full-on Internet embargo. I don't care if they feature pics of a mighty sequoia pleasuring itself with a busload of pre-schoolers...if I don't want to see 'em, I just won't visit. It's not like you can 'accidentally' stumble over 4chan. Geez.

Let's see what the market thinks of this over the next week, hmm?

--Patrick

Jul 27, 2009#35

The Lovely Boehner

Regarding my previous thing, this is a dangerous precedent but 4Chan is fucking retarded and I couldn't resist taking a shot at them.

Jul 27, 2009#36

Rob King

I have to say, despite the CP, and general douchbaggery that /b/ gets on with, sometimes what comes out of there can be very funny shit.

"First they came for the pedophiles, and I did not speak out, because I was not a pedophile.

Then, they came for the pirates, and I did not speak out because I was not a pirate.

Then they came for anonymous, and I did not speak out because I was not anonymous.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me."

and

Jul 27, 2009#37

Seraphyn

Nothing really surprising. Though still disappointing to see that people still prescribe to the 'If I can't see it, it's not there' type of 'protection'. Censorship never achieved much good, if it in fact ever did.

Jul 27, 2009#38

Chibibar

Seraphyn said:
Nothing really surprising. Though still disappointing to see that people still prescribe to the 'If I can't see it, it's not there' type of 'protection'. Censorship never achieved much good, if it in fact ever did.

Yup look at China and Iran. Both are currently doing some heavy censorship of their situation down there and look how the world react. I know why AT&T target 4chan. It is easier and not many people will be "against" the idea to "oh no. protect the children" but that is like letting "big brother" have the key to your house. While people might currently go "oh it is only 4chan" but what if tomorrow AT&T decides to block porn sites (the legit one) or even better. AT&T starts block competitor's site or even being paid to block X company site cause Y company don't want competition. What if small e-store is being block due to large e-store didn't like them stealing their customer and request that?

Censorship is censorship regardless of the material. People should be responsible for their action. (i.e. being a good parent like Ed who monitor his children internet usage)

Jul 27, 2009#39

Joe Johnson

I know why AT&T target 4chan. It is easier and not many people will be "against" the idea to "oh no. protect the children"

I'd say it's deeper than that. It's more of "we can do this, since most people have no idea what the hell 4chan is".
I know very few people, even semi-computer saavy people, who know what 4chan is.

Jul 27, 2009#40

MindDetective

AT&T is not under a moral obligation to protect people but neither are they obligated to allow free access.

Jul 27, 2009#41

strawman

MindDetective said:
AT&T is not ... obligated to allow free access.

It depends. If they are a 'common carrier' then they are obligated to provide unfettered access to all of the internet, except in those cases where they can show that such access degrades performance for other customers, or places an undue burden on the network. This is currently what they are claiming, if I understand correctly, that the server in question was the source of botnet attacks that degrade their customer's experience.

If they, however, start filtering or providing access limitation based on the service, content, or some other aspect of the internet, then they place themselves in jeopardy of losing their "common carrier" status. This means that AT&T customers can sue AT&T for things that are on the internet wholly unrelated to AT&T. Don't like that warez site? Sue AT&T because they are allowing you to access it, and they've shown they are capable and interested in filtering websites based on content.

Only if AT&T maintains that they are simply a communications provider can they claim they are not liable for the information that goes over their wires, including child porn, terrorist communications, etc - which are clearly illegal.

So they will have to reverse this, or they will be in much worse trouble down the line.

-Adam

Jul 27, 2009#42

Shakey

Looks like they removed the block. It was put in to stop a DOS attack on a customer.

Linky

This information has now been confirmed by AT&T itself, and, as of Monday morning, AT&T's block has been lifted. \"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,\" AT&T spokesperson Brad Mays told Ars.

\"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.\"

Jul 27, 2009#43

MindDetective

stienman said:
MindDetective said:

AT&T is not ... obligated to allow free access.

Click to expand...

It depends. If they are a 'common carrier' then they are obligated to provide unfettered access to all of the internet, except in those cases where they can show that such access degrades performance for other customers, or places an undue burden on the network. This is currently what they are claiming, if I understand correctly, that the server in question was the source of botnet attacks that degrade their customer's experience.

If they, however, start filtering or providing access limitation based on the service, content, or some other aspect of the internet, then they place themselves in jeopardy of losing their "common carrier" status. This means that AT&T customers can sue AT&T for things that are on the internet wholly unrelated to AT&T. Don't like that warez site? Sue AT&T because they are allowing you to access it, and they've shown they are capable and interested in filtering websites based on content.

Only if AT&T maintains that they are simply a communications provider can they claim they are not liable for the information that goes over their wires, including child porn, terrorist communications, etc - which are clearly illegal.

So they will have to reverse this, or they will be in much worse trouble down the line.

-Adam

Obviously there are consequences if they choose to filter access. I am just pointing out (perhaps a bit devilishly) that AT&T is not beholden to some ideal like "freedom of access" about which a lot of people's ire is up.

Jul 27, 2009#44

Espy

I think we could really worry if the government was asking ISP's to block websites.

Jul 27, 2009#45

I didn't see anything about "temporarily" originally but I admit I didn't read in copyeditor depth.

Still, this seems like a "oh fuck what do we do" screwup along the lines of Amazon and the Kindle. AT&T is too huge and needs to figure out better ways to deal with this.

Jul 27, 2009#46

crono1224

They clearly shit their pants, they had two problems.

First the legal way that people went about it probably caused enough calls/emails to flow in that it crapped out their centers, including protest and other things.

Secondly the illegal ways would more than likely just be a huge headache, I am sure that they would have no problem getting justice but still more work than needed.

Jul 27, 2009#47

Chibibar

crono1224 said:
They clearly shit their pants, they had two problems.

First the legal way that people went about it probably caused enough calls/emails to flow in that it crapped out their centers, including protest and other things.

Secondly the illegal ways would more than likely just be a huge headache, I am sure that they would have no problem getting justice but still more work than needed.

Their Lawyers probably got a gander and this and went "You did what??" Sir/Madam, we have to reverse this ASAP!"

Jul 27, 2009#48

Shakey

crono1224 said:
They clearly shit their pants, they had two problems.

First the legal way that people went about it probably caused enough calls/emails to flow in that it crapped out their centers, including protest and other things.

Secondly the illegal ways would more than likely just be a huge headache, I am sure that they would have no problem getting justice but still more work than needed.

It was just a temporary fix to stop a DOS attack and it was never supposed to be permanent. They just had some horrible PR that didn't get the word out right away.

In fact, AT&T wasn't the only ISP affected—it just had the unfortunate luck of being the largest and highest profile. Others, including unWired, also had to temporarily block 4chan because of what unWired described to Broadband Reports as "relentless ACK scan reports."

Jul 27, 2009#49

Espy

Assuming the attack stuff is true, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, then it sounds like they did things right, just didn't do much PR on it.

Jul 27, 2009#50

Shakey

Here's some more on it.

http://status.4chan.org/index.html#2174049422947602936

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.

We're glad to see this short-lived debacle has prompted renewed interest and debate over net neutrality and internet censorship—two very important issues that don't get nearly enough attention—so perhaps this was all just a blessing in disguise.

Aside from that, I'll also add that there is some big news due later this week. Keep an eye on the News page, Twitter, and global message for updates.

It was just a whole lot of people overreacting to shitty PR.

Jul 27, 2009#51

Shegokigo

Less than a week. Damn my prediction skills are good. :slywink:

"Shitty PR" riiiiiight.

Jul 27, 2009#52

Shakey

:eyeroll:

Jul 27, 2009#53

Shegokigo

Shakey said:
:eyeroll:

Shakey, the world around you is exactly what they tell you it is. :eyeroll:

Jul 27, 2009#54

Mr. Lawface

Shegokigo said:
Shakey said:

:eyeroll:

Click to expand...

Shakey, the world around you is exactly what they tell you it is. :eyeroll:

The world around you is one where nothing is true and everything is a conspiracy.

Jul 27, 2009#55

Shegokigo

Mr. Lawface said:
Shegokigo said:

Shakey said:

:eyeroll:

Click to expand...

Shakey, the world around you is exactly what they tell you it is. :eyeroll:

Click to expand...

The world around you is one where nothing is true and everything is a conspiracy.

Here Here! :uhhuh:

Jul 27, 2009#56

MindDetective

Mr. Lawface said:
Shegokigo said:

Shakey said:

:eyeroll:

Click to expand...

Shakey, the world around you is exactly what they tell you it is. :eyeroll:

Click to expand...

The world around you is one where nothing is true and everything is a conspiracy.

But if that's true then what you said is not true because someone just wants us to believe there is a conspiracy and *head explodes*

Jul 27, 2009#57

PatrThom

According to the public statement, AT&T filtered that particular group of IP addresses because the DoS attack they are talking about '...appeared to come from their IP address(es).' I don't know how Internet-savvy y'all are, but if you have the means to launch a DDoS attack, it is trivially easy to additionally spoof the origin IP address to make it look like it came from whatever IP address you want...4chan, CNN, whitehouse.gov, whatever. Now, I'm just a hack, but I know about this...so you can't expect me to believe that the folks at AT&T don't know this, also.

The term 'convenient excuse' just sounds tooooooo good.

--Patrick

Jul 27, 2009#58

Shakey

Shegokigo said:
Shakey said:

:eyeroll:

Click to expand...

Shakey, the world around you is exactly what they tell you it is. :eyeroll:

Did you even read what Moot said about it? He admitted that what they did to try and stop the DDOS attack against them unintentionally sent traffic to AT&T and other ISP's. This made it look like 4chan was itself causing a DOS attack on their customers. Instead of trying to contact 4Chan and get it straightened out on a Saturday night they just blocked all traffic from those servers. Everything was restored Monday morning when they figured out what was happening and 4Chan fixed their mistake.

In case you missed my last post, here it is in Moot's own words. http://status.4chan.org/index.html#2174049422947602936

-- Mon Jul 27, 2009 7:49 pm --

PatrThom said:
According to the public statement, AT&T filtered that particular group of IP addresses because the DoS attack they are talking about '...appeared to come from their IP address(es).' I don't know how Internet-savvy y'all are, but if you have the means to launch a DDoS attack, it is trivially easy to additionally spoof the origin IP address to make it look like it came from whatever IP address you want...4chan, CNN, whitehouse.gov, whatever. Now, I'm just a hack, but I know about this...so you can't expect me to believe that the folks at AT&T don't know this, also.

The term 'convenient excuse' just sounds tooooooo good.

--Patrick

Except 4chan admitted they were sending the traffic due to a mistake they made.

Jul 27, 2009#59

Rob King

Shegokigo said:
Shakey said:

:eyeroll:

Click to expand...

Shakey, the world around you is exactly what they tell you it is. :eyeroll:

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a thinly veiled attempt to end net neutrality?

Jul 27, 2009#60

Allen, who is Quiet

Mr. Lawface said:
Shegokigo said:

Shakey said:

:eyeroll:

Click to expand...

Shakey, the world around you is exactly what they tell you it is. :eyeroll:

Click to expand...

The world around you is one where nothing is true and everything is a conspiracy.

THIS SENTENCE IS A LIE! :aaahhh:

Jul 27, 2009#61

Mr. Lawface

Allen said:
[quote="Mr. Lawface":1ryonifl]

Shegokigo said:

Shakey said:

:eyeroll:

Click to expand...

Shakey, the world around you is exactly what they tell you it is. :eyeroll:

Click to expand...

The world around you is one where nothing is true and everything is a conspiracy.

THIS SENTENCE IS A LIE! :aaahhh:[/quote:1ryonifl]

Jul 27, 2009#62

Krisken

Jul 28, 2009#63

@Li3n

So wait, it's over without any casualties... colour me disappointed.

Forums