On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Brian Conley <bri...@smallworldnews.tv> wrote: > As far as I can understand, of course ISPs block IP addresses they deem > malicious, I'm not sure why that's bad practice?
ISPs usually block their clients' IPs due to malware, although apparently it has become more common to block non-client IPs as well. Usually it is done in a user-friendly fashion — e.g., in June I have received a report that Shaw ISP in Canada blocked access to my site with a message similar to the following (but remote- instead of local-oriented): http://shaw.ca/virusprotection/. The problems with AT&T's block above are obvious: 1. It is done stealthily, similar to GFC, and there is no message to the user. 2. AT&T support is incompetent and blames DNS misconfiguration. 3. Blockage is too broad, big IP blocks are censored. 4. IPs are not unblocked even after the hoster fixes the issue. 5. There is no oversight (e.g., like with registry-based censorship in Russia), and ISPs can lie to / ignore their clients. 6. It is easy to use malware as an excuse for, e.g., authorities forcing some target site to move to a non-free provider, where the target can be traced via payments. How do you know it is not the case here? Of course, the country in question being the USA, everything is better explained by omnipresent incompetence, but this is still a possibility. Free hostings probably attract radical forums. -- Maxim Kammerer Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu.
