Verizon Wireless, Meet 4Chan

said by Steve Jobs:

Good luck, Verizon.

said by ThrowDemsOut:

But rogue sites like 4Chan that initiate, and often encourage, DDos attacks and other hacking attempts should be blocked. In fact, they should be shut down and prosecuted. All legally, of course. This is just another case where the laws have been insufficient to police the internet and shut down bad actors.

said by EdmundGerber:

Judge, Jury, and Executioner you are. Typical...

said by The Inquisitr :

****Moot has posted twice on the 4chan status blog seemingly confirming that the lack of access was a conscious decision by someone at Verizon:

Over the past 72 hours, we’ve been receiving reports from
Verizon Wireless customers having difficulty accessing the
image boards.

After investigating, we found that Verizon is dropping traffic
to/from boards.4chan.org, only on port 80 (HTTP). No other
subdomain/IP/port is affected, which leads us to believe this
block is intentional.

A call was placed to their support staff last night, and we
were told that the ticket would not be looked at until
Monday at the earliest, and: “You’ll need the customer to
call to request it be unblocked…”

If you’ve been affected by this block, please contact Verizon
Wireless customer support. The numbers we were given are:
“Verizon Wireless NRB: (866) 298-5373″ and “Verizon
Wireless DSO: (800) 770-1179″.

Note: Users with mobile browsers that proxy (BlackBerry,
Opera) won’t necessarily have issues accessing the boards.

****And the follow up:

After an hour and a half on the phone, we’ve received
confirmation from Verizon’s Network Repair Bureau (NRB) that
we are “explicitly blocked.”

If you’ve been affected by the block, please call Verizon NRB
at (866) 298-5373 to file a complaint.

EDIT: If NRB can’t help you, try Verizon Wireless Support at
(800) 922-0204.

****The Washington Post reports that if the site was deliberately blocked due to off-color content, Verizon may be violating FCC rules:

If true, the move would violate guidelines by the Federal Communications Commission that prohibit Internet service providers such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast from shutting down Web sites for their subscribers. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is crafting controversial regulations that would make those principles stronger and allow the agency to punish companies that don’t treat all content equally on the Web.

****However, a series of tweets just posted on the account of a man who describes himself as the “Verizon Wireless PR Guy” rapidly back away from the suggestion that the 4chan block was intentional:

@jlist No 4Chan block, but protecting network for users always top priority.

Buby23 4Chan has green-light again. Never a block on 4Chan but some of its other sites were launching network attacks.

@mediagadfly Some 4Chan web sites potentially disruptive of Verizon network now have green-light. We are monitoring network for harm

If that’s the position they’re taking, I hope they’ll take the time to explain why a representative for Verizon seems to have indicated otherwise.

****Update: The PR rep above denies Verizon blocked 4chan for content:

Verizon doesn’t monitor wireless web connections for content, communication type or style. We will ward off attacks on our network.

said by ThrowDemsOut:

But rogue sites like 4Chan that initiate, and often encourage, DDos attacks and other hacking attempts should be blocked. In fact, they should be shut down and prosecuted. All legally, of course. This is just another case where the laws have been insufficient to police the internet and shut down bad actors.

said by PapaMidnight:

And here I thought I was the only one who was under the distinct impression that this wasn't necessarily a bad thing. Good to be disproved every once in a while.

Slight edit: I was in direct reference to 4chan's removal. I do honestly believe Verizon has done the internet a favor :P

said by funchords:

I'm sure your computer has a "hosts" file.

The best censorship is self-censorship.

said by PapaMidnight:

I don't disagree with you, I just have a highly ingrained personal disdain for 4chan and specifically what occurs on that board that is somewhat affecting my typical impartial nature with regards to what is placed on the net. With that in mind, you'll understand my bias in this situation.

said by ThrowDemsOut:

But rogue sites like 4Chan that initiate, and often encourage, DDos attacks and other hacking attempts should be blocked. In fact, they should be shut down and prosecuted. All legally, of course. This is just another case where the laws have been insufficient to police the internet and shut down bad actors.

said by funchords:

4Chan is no more rogue than any playground full of foul-mouthed 6th-graders. We don't shut down playgrounds just because some kids start giggling about anatomy or make up songs about teachers hitting with the ruler.

said by ThrowDemsOut:

But when they crossover from talking to ACTING then they must face the consequences of their actions. And when the venue hosting their ACTIONS does nothing to stop them, then the venue has to pay the price as well.

said by ThrowDemsOut:

But when they crossover from talking to ACTING then they must face the consequences of their actions. And when the venue hosting their ACTIONS does nothing to stop them, then the venue has to pay the price as well.

said by funchords:

So we shut down Google because someone can use it to search about how to burn down a house?

said by MxxCon:

4chan doesn't.
people that post there do.
now if you'll say 4chan admins should moderate their forums would be no different from saying Google should block 4chan.

said by NOCTech75:

There are plenty of message board communities that are moderated effectively so as to not allow this behavior. Huge difference between outright blocking and moderating.

said by MxxCon:

4chan doesn't.
people that post there do.
now if you'll say 4chan admins should moderate their forums would be no different from saying Google should block 4chan.

said by bolt:

"The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

said by insomniac84:

What do you mean the venue does nothing to stop them? It shuts down any thread with illegal stuff in it. But outside of child porn, everything is legal. Welcome to america.

said by ThrowDemsOut:

Planning and executing DDos attacks is not legal.

said by Chubbysumo:

freedom of speech(the first amendment to the US constitution)

said by chimera:

Correct, but most states have similar laws that apply both to them and local municipalities. In addition congress has the authority to regulate interstate and international commerce which the internet does fall under. Since most ISPs and every major ISP is a multi-state entity the regulation of these falls to congress and the federal government.

As such it is the federal governments place to say if an ISP has the right to block off content as ISPs are using public land and int he case of wireless networks, public airwaves all of which is regulated by federal, state and local governments. Denying them access would cause problems as major providers are already too big to fail, so for all practical purposes they are already part of the governing apparatus of this country.

said by ThrowDemsOut:

But rogue sites like 4Chan that initiate, and often encourage, DDos attacks and other hacking attempts should be blocked. In fact, they should be shut down and prosecuted. All legally, of course. This is just another case where the laws have been insufficient to police the internet and shut down bad actors.

said by Steve Jobs:

Good luck, Verizon.

said by IluvCharter :

So what exactly happened to ATT? I missed that.

Said by moot in article above

Now 4chan’s founder, Moot, has admitted that his network was sending spurious traffic, but he still faults AT&T for going too far with its response.

said by sivran:

It's only 4chan.

To paraphrase a tag from slashdot: and nothing of any importance was lost.

said by munky99999:

Bad Guy 1 started syn flooding and ip spoofing as if he was 4chan.org.
ATT and other isps then acking back
4chan started getting lots of acks which didnt match up with syns. Their anti-ddos stuff handled it incorrectly and sent back lots of syns; instead of dropping.
The ATT network guys never checked to see if 4chan was 4chan or whatever. They just tracked a few packets and discovered they really were(at least most of them) coming from 4chan's ip.They just saw a syn flood coming from that ip. So they blocked that ip. They never really intended to block 4chan because of it's content. The network engineers did nothing wrong. So really u cant blame att.

said by majortom1029:

You cant block one site and not block another site for the same reason.

said by HERP DERP :

how's the high road today?

said by John McClane:

(youtube clip)

said by techjoe:

If their security dept blocked access to/from some addresses for a security concern....that is their decision to make. If you don't agree with the management decisions made there are other carriers available..I'd rather a carrier try to be pro-active than suffer the negatives.

said by munky99999:

Hell we dont even need verizon to be involved