Begin forwarded message:
From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed@reed.com>
Date: July 27, 2009 8:32:30 AM EDT
To: dave@farber.net
Cc: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com>
Subject: Re: [IP] NOT the whole story: a comprehensive time line of 4chan and att
This is hardly the whole story, Dave. I'd be interested in how AT&T managed to block *only* certain parts of 4chan's web content. Since DNS routing does not depend on the characters after the "/" in a URL in *any* way, the site's mention that AT&T was blocking only certain sub-"directories" of 4chan's content suggests that the blocking involved *reading content of end-to-end communications".
If AT&T admits it was doing this, they should supply to the rest of the world a description of the technology that they were using to focus their blocking. Since AT&T has deployed content-scanning-and-recording boxes for the NSA in its US-based switching fabric, perhaps that is how they do it. However, even if you believe that is legitimate for the US Gov't to do, the applicability of similar technology to commercial traffic blocking is not clearly in the domain of acceptable Internet traffic management.
On 07/27/2009 06:41 AM, David Farber wrote:
If AT&T admits it was doing this, they should supply to the rest of the world a description of the technology that they were using to focus their blocking. Since AT&T has deployed content-scanning-and-recording boxes for the NSA in its US-based switching fabric, perhaps that is how they do it. However, even if you believe that is legitimate for the US Gov't to do, the applicability of similar technology to commercial traffic blocking is not clearly in the domain of acceptable Internet traffic management.
On 07/27/2009 06:41 AM, David Farber wrote:
The whole story djf
Begin forwarded message:
According to
http://www.centralgadget.com/att-blocking-access-to-portions-of-4chan-2336/
access has been restored