—Walter Cronkite after God asked what the latest news was.
On July 27 2009 14:04 Zzoram wrote: can someone edit the OP with the info about 4chan being DDoS'd hard, hence the block?
the following is my opinion:
It is claimed that AT&T blocked 4chan because DDOS attacks, coming from at&t users - targeted at 4chan, were causing too much traffic for at&t. this is ridiculous for many reasons.
It's like banning a kid from a public school because some bullies were picking on him, when the school could easily just ban the bullies.
especially we're talking the site and organization powerful enough to influence and turn over how the TIME MAGAZINE TOP 100 MOST INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE was all one sided thanks to these folks...
UPDATED 6: 4chan’s current gameplan evolving over at Encyclopedia Dramatica (Great stuff!). Also, from reports gathered on Reddit, it seems this block allegedly is because of massive DDoS-attacks against img.4chan.org. The reports doesn’t say anything about why AT&T would block 15.5% of all US internet users from using a specific website without any warning, though.
Over-reacting to a normal ISP response of taking down sites that are hit with massive DDoS-attacks until they are stopped? Sounds like 4chan to me.
I hope 4chan ends up the victor as I'm vehemently opposed to any form of censorship I just don't see it happening. They should bring it up through the legal means rather than wailing around and acting like Seniors on the last day of High School.
4chan has no chance against a Corporation as powerful as ATT, hence the suggestion to bring this up through legal means.
On July 27 2009 13:59 Aegraen wrote: 4chan has no chance against a Corporation as powerful as ATT, hence the suggestion to bring this up through legal means.
I dunno... to tell you the truth, I feel more worried for AT&T.
Just because they're probably more motivated and tech savvy than at&t is. I wouldn't put it past 4chan to just hack into at&t, and get themselves back "on the internet"
most of the time i find 4chan amusing with the stunts they pull but wow i sure hope at&t get it. I hope they just don't send 50,000 mag subscriptions to the ceo, but really send a message
with that fellow interneters i say go on 4chan make a difference
and please, 4chan will win by legal means or any other. never underestimate stupid people in large numbers. especially when the stupid people arent as dumb as they look.
On July 27 2009 13:59 Aegraen wrote: 4chan has no chance against a Corporation as powerful as ATT, hence the suggestion to bring this up through legal means.
I dunno... to tell you the truth, I feel more worried for AT&T.
Really? A Multi-Billion dollar Corporation that controls a quarter of America's communications infrastructure, vs. a million nerds with no structural organization planning to act out a bunch of hack schemes thinking they actually have some "skillz". Please, the only way for this to end and for it to be resolved correctly is to use the legal system because this is blatant censorship. The day America allows China-like censorship is a day I do not want to see.
UPDATED 6: 4chan’s current gameplan evolving over at Encyclopedia Dramatica (Great stuff!). Also, from reports gathered on Reddit, it seems this block allegedly is because of massive DDoS-attacks against img.4chan.org. The reports doesn’t say anything about why AT&T would block 15.5% of all US internet users from using a specific website without any warning, though.
Over-reacting to a normal ISP response of taking down sites that are hit with massive DDoS-attacks until they are stopped? Sounds like 4chan to me.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
TO EVERYONE SAYING THEY TOOK IT DOWN BECAUSE OF DDOS ATTACKS
could u pls explain the rational behind this?
how do the ddos attacks against 4chan effect at&t subscribers? how does it effect anyone other than the servers that host 4chan? your reasoning makes no sense.
On July 27 2009 14:03 Loser777 wrote: Scientology wasn't even directly threatening 4chan. Not only is this action provocative, it's completely against the ideology of 4chan.
How did that pan out anyways? I heard a few stunts against scientologists, then the FBI backing the scientologists. Did it end there?
UPDATED 6: 4chan’s current gameplan evolving over at Encyclopedia Dramatica (Great stuff!). Also, from reports gathered on Reddit, it seems this block allegedly is because of massive DDoS-attacks against img.4chan.org. The reports doesn’t say anything about why AT&T would block 15.5% of all US internet users from using a specific website without any warning, though.
Over-reacting to a normal ISP response of taking down sites that are hit with massive DDoS-attacks until they are stopped? Sounds like 4chan to me.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
TO EVERYONE SAYING THEY TOOK IT DOWN BECAUSE OF DDOS ATTACKS
could u pls explain the rational behind this?
how do the ddos attacks against 4chan effect at&t subscribers? how does it effect anyone other than the servers that host 4chan? your reasoning makes no sense.
DDoS = distributed denial of service
a lot of machines that are on AT&T bandwidth are attacking 4chan's servers
this is bad both for 4chan and for AT&T, because it uses up a lot of bandwidth on both ends
AT&T can only stop this by preventing access to the 4chan server
UPDATED 6: 4chan’s current gameplan evolving over at Encyclopedia Dramatica (Great stuff!). Also, from reports gathered on Reddit, it seems this block allegedly is because of massive DDoS-attacks against img.4chan.org. The reports doesn’t say anything about why AT&T would block 15.5% of all US internet users from using a specific website without any warning, though.
Over-reacting to a normal ISP response of taking down sites that are hit with massive DDoS-attacks until they are stopped? Sounds like 4chan to me.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
TO EVERYONE SAYING THEY TOOK IT DOWN BECAUSE OF DDOS ATTACKS
could u pls explain the rational behind this?
how do the ddos attacks against 4chan effect at&t subscribers? how does it effect anyone other than the servers that host 4chan? your reasoning makes no sense.
DDoS = distributed denial of service
a lot of machines that are on AT&T bandwidth are attacking 4chan's servers
this is bad both for 4chan and for AT&T, because it uses up a lot of bandwidth on both ends
AT&T can only stop this by preventing access to the 4chan server
So they can't like track the people doing the DDoS attacks?
On July 27 2009 14:03 Gene wrote: can someone explain why 4chan constantly being DDOS'd has any affect on AT&T?
DDOSes typically use tons of compromised personal computers, many of which would using AT&T as an ISP. So the combined bandwidth they're using is immense. If that's the case I dunno why they can't block only the ones that are throwing all their bandwidth 4chan's way though. Maybe this is just a temporary thing til they can set that up.
UPDATED 6: 4chan’s current gameplan evolving over at Encyclopedia Dramatica (Great stuff!). Also, from reports gathered on Reddit, it seems this block allegedly is because of massive DDoS-attacks against img.4chan.org. The reports doesn’t say anything about why AT&T would block 15.5% of all US internet users from using a specific website without any warning, though.
Over-reacting to a normal ISP response of taking down sites that are hit with massive DDoS-attacks until they are stopped? Sounds like 4chan to me.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
TO EVERYONE SAYING THEY TOOK IT DOWN BECAUSE OF DDOS ATTACKS
could u pls explain the rational behind this?
how do the ddos attacks against 4chan effect at&t subscribers? how does it effect anyone other than the servers that host 4chan? your reasoning makes no sense.
DDoS = distributed denial of service
a lot of machines that are on AT&T bandwidth are attacking 4chan's servers
this is bad both for 4chan and for AT&T, because it uses up a lot of bandwidth on both ends
AT&T can only stop this by preventing access to the 4chan server
you don't see the many flaws in this logic?
1.) if the attacks are coming from at&t users, it's at&t's responsibility to shut down those users... 2.) no one ever contacted 4chan about it 3.) the bulk of the attacks were happening quite a while ago 4.) blocking a domain to every user (millions of people), because some people were sending ddos attacks is unprecedented, ridiculous, and a blatant breach of freedoms. 4chan is hardly the only site to face ddos attacks.
but really... #1 is the only one that matters. to block the site because their own users are attacking the site is ridiculous. it's like banning a kid from a public school because some bullies were picking on him.
4chan isn't organized or serious enough to do anything of significance to a large corporate entity
they've barely done anything to actually harm scientology, and only made themselves look like thugs in the process, which they are, since they just bully kids or individuals that they randomly decide they don't like
fans of the TV show Jericho can get the show back on the air by sending 10,000 pounds of nuts to CBS headquarters, but 4chan can't do anything but stand outside a scientology office with signs with 4chan memes and make angry phone calls to bloggers
this should not be considered a "war" of sorts. a DDOS attack means that you have a bajillion people trying to connect to a site in an attempt to flood the server.
AT&T is blocking the site, because many of those bajillions of people connecting to the site are using AT&T. Thus, the easiest, most surefire way to end the DDOS is to block traffic to 4chan, temporarily, from their users.
I don't think this has anything to do with net neutrality.
I think the people that are supporting AT&T are not realizing the full extent of the problem. I mean, lots of us are anti-4chan people, but the problem here is CENSORSHIP. The real battle here is for net neutrality and a 'free' internet.
On July 27 2009 14:20 icemac wrote: I think the people that are supporting AT&T are not realizing the full extent of the problem. I mean, lots of us are anti-4chan people, but the problem here is CENSORSHIP. The real battle here is for net neutrality and a 'free' internet.
On July 27 2009 14:18 Eggplant wrote: this should not be considered a "war" of sorts. a DDOS attack means that you have a bajillion people trying to connect to a site in an attempt to flood the server.
AT&T is blocking the site, because many of those bajillions of people connecting to the site are using AT&T. Thus, the easiest, most surefire way to end the DDOS is to block traffic to 4chan, temporarily, from their users.
I don't think this has anything to do with net neutrality.
I think that anyone who looks at the history of the internet should disagree with this...
DDOS attacks are not something new. Blocking a domain to an entire nation because some users are making extra traffic is not how any responsible company handles it.
On July 27 2009 14:01 GHOSTCLAW wrote: 4chan will end up as the victor I bet...
Just because they're probably more motivated and tech savvy than at&t is. I wouldn't put it past 4chan to just hack into at&t, and get themselves back "on the internet"
you think 4chan is more tech savy than at&t? do you know what at&t does?
anyway, i hate 4chan. it is full of fucking idiots. that said, at&t is in the wrong here if this is what it seems to be.
I'm not a real fan of 4chan in general, but I will say I'm glad AT&T tried to hit them first. I think 4chan is one of the few online organizations that can actually put up a big enough stink to take on a corporation. This is going to be a landmark case for net neutrality.
I think they are simply trying to end the DDOS attacks against 4chan, the attacks were aimed against /b, therefore only /b is affected. The earlier claim which is true is that AT&T has in the past threatened to ban 4chan access if they didn't clean up their content, the extent of this ban would be the WHOLE 4chan website and not just one board. If they were truly banning 4chan they would ban the entire website and not just one board.
On July 27 2009 14:27 Integra wrote: I think they are simply trying to end the DDOS attacks against 4chan, the attacks were aimed against /b, therefore only /b is affected. The earlier claim which is true is that AT&T has in the past threatened to ban 4chan access if they didn't clean up their content, the extent of this ban would be the WHOLE 4chan website and not just one board. If they were truly banning 4chan they would ban the entire website and not just one board.
what does /b have that AT&T wants them to clean up? i visited it once or twice years ago to see what all the fuss was about but i couldn't stand the layout and the annoying posts, and nothing made any sense to me, so i never bothered to go back
all i saw were weird anime captions that i didn't recognize
On July 27 2009 14:27 Integra wrote: I think they are simply trying to end the DDOS attacks against 4chan, the attacks were aimed against /b, therefore only /b is affected. The earlier claim which is true is that AT&T has in the past threatened to ban 4chan access if they didn't clean up their content, the extent of this ban would be the WHOLE 4chan website and not just one board. If they were truly banning 4chan they would ban the entire website and not just one board.
I was under the impression they did ban the whole 4chan website
On July 27 2009 14:01 GHOSTCLAW wrote: 4chan will end up as the victor I bet...
Just because they're probably more motivated and tech savvy than at&t is. I wouldn't put it past 4chan to just hack into at&t, and get themselves back "on the internet"
you think 4chan is more tech savy than at&t? do you know what at&t does?
On July 27 2009 14:03 Gene wrote: can someone explain why 4chan constantly being DDOS'd has any affect on AT&T?
On July 27 2009 14:04 travis wrote:
On July 27 2009 13:56 Zzoram wrote:
UPDATED 6: 4chan’s current gameplan evolving over at Encyclopedia Dramatica (Great stuff!). Also, from reports gathered on Reddit, it seems this block allegedly is because of massive DDoS-attacks against img.4chan.org. The reports doesn’t say anything about why AT&T would block 15.5% of all US internet users from using a specific website without any warning, though.
Over-reacting to a normal ISP response of taking down sites that are hit with massive DDoS-attacks until they are stopped? Sounds like 4chan to me.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
TO EVERYONE SAYING THEY TOOK IT DOWN BECAUSE OF DDOS ATTACKS
could u pls explain the rational behind this?
how do the ddos attacks against 4chan effect at&t subscribers? how does it effect anyone other than the servers that host 4chan? your reasoning makes no sense.
DDoS = distributed denial of service
a lot of machines that are on AT&T bandwidth are attacking 4chan's servers
this is bad both for 4chan and for AT&T, because it uses up a lot of bandwidth on both ends
AT&T can only stop this by preventing access to the 4chan server
you don't see the many flaws in this logic?
1.) if the attacks are coming from at&t users, it's at&t's responsibility to shut down those users... 2.) no one ever contacted 4chan about it 3.) the bulk of the attacks were happening quite a while ago 4.) blocking a domain to every user (millions of people), because some people were sending ddos attacks is unprecedented, ridiculous, and a blatant breach of freedoms. 4chan is hardly the only site to face ddos attacks.
but really... #1 is the only one that matters. to block the site because their own users are attacking the site is ridiculous. it's like banning a kid from a public school because some bullies were picking on him.
do you have any idea what you're talking about from a technical perspective, or are you just mouthing off libertarian FIGHT THE POWER crap, eager to have discovered yet another figure of authority allegedly infringing on your civil liberties.
you think AT&T gives a shit whether or not a bunch of furryfags can jerk off to hentai? what they care about is that there's a lot of compromised machines dramatically taking up AT&T bandwidth, and until they can selectively block it they have to resort to drastic measures. what is "contacting" 4chan going to do? it's not like they're DDoSing themselves. and AT&T can't shut down "the DDoSers" just like that—how can they tell who's a legitimate computer and who's not? (you thought it was bad not being able to go to 4chan, imagine being one of the people whose internet got shut down entirely, mistakenly, thanks to AT&TRAVIS)
the ddos attacks through AT&T harm the internet experience for every single one of their customers by slowing legitimate internet traffic down to a crawl. temporarily blocking 4chan harms some greasy internet nerds from posting IT'S OVER 9000 for a week or so. which do you think matters more?
On July 27 2009 14:13 travis wrote: you don't see the many flaws in this logic?
1.) if the attacks are coming from at&t users, it's at&t's responsibility to shut down those users... 2.) no one ever contacted 4chan about it 3.) the bulk of the attacks were happening quite a while ago 4.) blocking a domain to every user (millions of people), because some people were sending ddos attacks is unprecedented, ridiculous, and a blatant breach of freedoms. 4chan is hardly the only site to face ddos attacks.
but really... #1 is the only one that matters. to block the site because their own users are attacking the site is ridiculous. it's like banning a kid from a public school because some bullies were picking on him.
That is exactly what AT&T did, they banned all of the potential bullies. In your analogy 4chan is the kid and AT&T didn't ban 4chan from the internet, they banned AT&T users, ie the bullies who are trying to DDoS 4chan, from getting to 4chan, which is the kid. Other users not from AT&T can still visit 4chan b and r9k board.
On July 27 2009 14:03 Gene wrote: can someone explain why 4chan constantly being DDOS'd has any affect on AT&T?
On July 27 2009 14:04 travis wrote:
On July 27 2009 13:56 Zzoram wrote:
UPDATED 6: 4chan’s current gameplan evolving over at Encyclopedia Dramatica (Great stuff!). Also, from reports gathered on Reddit, it seems this block allegedly is because of massive DDoS-attacks against img.4chan.org. The reports doesn’t say anything about why AT&T would block 15.5% of all US internet users from using a specific website without any warning, though.
Over-reacting to a normal ISP response of taking down sites that are hit with massive DDoS-attacks until they are stopped? Sounds like 4chan to me.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
TO EVERYONE SAYING THEY TOOK IT DOWN BECAUSE OF DDOS ATTACKS
could u pls explain the rational behind this?
how do the ddos attacks against 4chan effect at&t subscribers? how does it effect anyone other than the servers that host 4chan? your reasoning makes no sense.
DDoS = distributed denial of service
a lot of machines that are on AT&T bandwidth are attacking 4chan's servers
this is bad both for 4chan and for AT&T, because it uses up a lot of bandwidth on both ends
AT&T can only stop this by preventing access to the 4chan server
you don't see the many flaws in this logic?
1.) if the attacks are coming from at&t users, it's at&t's responsibility to shut down those users... 2.) no one ever contacted 4chan about it 3.) the bulk of the attacks were happening quite a while ago 4.) blocking a domain to every user (millions of people), because some people were sending ddos attacks is unprecedented, ridiculous, and a blatant breach of freedoms. 4chan is hardly the only site to face ddos attacks.
but really... #1 is the only one that matters. to block the site because their own users are attacking the site is ridiculous. it's like banning a kid from a public school because some bullies were picking on him.
do you have any idea what you're talking about from a technical perspective, or are you just mouthing off libertarian FIGHT THE POWER crap? you think AT&T gives a shit whether or not a bunch of furryfags can jerk off to hentai? what they care about is that there's a lot of compromised machines dramatically taking up AT&T bandwidth, and until they can selectively block it they have to resort to drastic measures
the ddos attacks through AT&T harm the internet experience for every single one of their customers by slowing legitimate internet traffic down to a crawl. temporarily blocking 4chan harms some greasy internet nerds from posting IT'S OVER 9000 for a week or so. which do you think matters more?
On July 27 2009 14:27 Integra wrote: I think they are simply trying to end the DDOS attacks against 4chan, the attacks were aimed against /b, therefore only /b is affected. The earlier claim which is true is that AT&T has in the past threatened to ban 4chan access if they didn't clean up their content, the extent of this ban would be the WHOLE 4chan website and not just one board. If they were truly banning 4chan they would ban the entire website and not just one board.
Why does att care that 4chan is being DDOS'd?
Because 4 chan is one of the biggest websites on the internet and apparently a large number of users who performed the attack were compromised computer who had AT&T accounts. The attack uses a large amount of bandwitdh so it costs allot of money for the AT&T company.
EDIT; I wouldn't be surprised if the attacks slowed down the rest of the internet as well (as in none AT&T users)
On July 27 2009 14:03 Gene wrote: can someone explain why 4chan constantly being DDOS'd has any affect on AT&T?
On July 27 2009 14:04 travis wrote:
On July 27 2009 13:56 Zzoram wrote:
UPDATED 6: 4chan’s current gameplan evolving over at Encyclopedia Dramatica (Great stuff!). Also, from reports gathered on Reddit, it seems this block allegedly is because of massive DDoS-attacks against img.4chan.org. The reports doesn’t say anything about why AT&T would block 15.5% of all US internet users from using a specific website without any warning, though.
Over-reacting to a normal ISP response of taking down sites that are hit with massive DDoS-attacks until they are stopped? Sounds like 4chan to me.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
TO EVERYONE SAYING THEY TOOK IT DOWN BECAUSE OF DDOS ATTACKS
could u pls explain the rational behind this?
how do the ddos attacks against 4chan effect at&t subscribers? how does it effect anyone other than the servers that host 4chan? your reasoning makes no sense.
DDoS = distributed denial of service
a lot of machines that are on AT&T bandwidth are attacking 4chan's servers
this is bad both for 4chan and for AT&T, because it uses up a lot of bandwidth on both ends
AT&T can only stop this by preventing access to the 4chan server
you don't see the many flaws in this logic?
1.) if the attacks are coming from at&t users, it's at&t's responsibility to shut down those users... 2.) no one ever contacted 4chan about it 3.) the bulk of the attacks were happening quite a while ago 4.) blocking a domain to every user (millions of people), because some people were sending ddos attacks is unprecedented, ridiculous, and a blatant breach of freedoms. 4chan is hardly the only site to face ddos attacks.
but really... #1 is the only one that matters. to block the site because their own users are attacking the site is ridiculous. it's like banning a kid from a public school because some bullies were picking on him.
do you have any idea what you're talking about from a technical perspective, or are you just mouthing off libertarian FIGHT THE POWER crap? you think AT&T gives a shit whether or not a bunch of furryfags can jerk off to hentai? what they care about is that there's a lot of compromised machines dramatically taking up AT&T bandwidth, and until they can selectively block it they have to resort to drastic measures
the ddos attacks through AT&T harm the internet experience for every single one of their customers by slowing legitimate internet traffic down to a crawl. temporarily blocking 4chan harms some greasy internet nerds from posting IT'S OVER 9000 for a week or so. which do you think matters more?
Wow, this is for real. I have dsl from AT&T and I tried going on /b/.
It just gave me a problem loading page. I don't really care as I hardly ever go to 4chan unless I'm extremely bored or looking for weird/childish funny things.
On July 27 2009 14:03 Gene wrote: can someone explain why 4chan constantly being DDOS'd has any affect on AT&T?
On July 27 2009 14:04 travis wrote:
On July 27 2009 13:56 Zzoram wrote:
UPDATED 6: 4chan’s current gameplan evolving over at Encyclopedia Dramatica (Great stuff!). Also, from reports gathered on Reddit, it seems this block allegedly is because of massive DDoS-attacks against img.4chan.org. The reports doesn’t say anything about why AT&T would block 15.5% of all US internet users from using a specific website without any warning, though.
Over-reacting to a normal ISP response of taking down sites that are hit with massive DDoS-attacks until they are stopped? Sounds like 4chan to me.
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
TO EVERYONE SAYING THEY TOOK IT DOWN BECAUSE OF DDOS ATTACKS
could u pls explain the rational behind this?
how do the ddos attacks against 4chan effect at&t subscribers? how does it effect anyone other than the servers that host 4chan? your reasoning makes no sense.
DDoS = distributed denial of service
a lot of machines that are on AT&T bandwidth are attacking 4chan's servers
this is bad both for 4chan and for AT&T, because it uses up a lot of bandwidth on both ends
AT&T can only stop this by preventing access to the 4chan server
you don't see the many flaws in this logic?
1.) if the attacks are coming from at&t users, it's at&t's responsibility to shut down those users... 2.) no one ever contacted 4chan about it 3.) the bulk of the attacks were happening quite a while ago 4.) blocking a domain to every user (millions of people), because some people were sending ddos attacks is unprecedented, ridiculous, and a blatant breach of freedoms. 4chan is hardly the only site to face ddos attacks.
but really... #1 is the only one that matters. to block the site because their own users are attacking the site is ridiculous. it's like banning a kid from a public school because some bullies were picking on him.
do you have any idea what you're talking about from a technical perspective, or are you just mouthing off libertarian FIGHT THE POWER crap, eager to have discovered yet another figure of authority allegedly infringing on your civil liberties.
you think AT&T gives a shit whether or not a bunch of furryfags can jerk off to hentai? what they care about is that there's a lot of compromised machines dramatically taking up AT&T bandwidth, and until they can selectively block it they have to resort to drastic measures. what is "contacting" 4chan going to do? it's not like they're DDoSing themselves. and AT&T can't shut down "the DDoSers" just like that—how can they tell who's a legitimate computer and who's not? (you thought it was bad not being able to go to 4chan, imagine being one of the people whose internet got shut down entirely, mistakenly, thanks to AT&TRAVIS)
the ddos attacks through AT&T harm the internet experience for every single one of their customers by slowing legitimate internet traffic down to a crawl. temporarily blocking 4chan harms some greasy internet nerds from posting IT'S OVER 9000 for a week or so. which do you think matters more?
Im not super tech savvy, but I really don't think you know what you are talking about.
you think 4chan is the only site that takes ddos attacks? why are there no precedents for this behavior?
and why "until they can selectively block it". that doesn't make any sense. why can't they selectively block it IMMEDIATELY?
and why would they not contact 4chan that they are going to block a huge percentage of their users? seems like common courtesy.
4chan isn't exactly a little site...
On July 27 2009 14:33 v[1.8]c wrote: That is exactly what AT&T did, they banned all of the potential bullies. In your analogy 4chan is the kid and AT&T didn't ban 4chan from the internet, they banned AT&T users, ie the bullies who are trying to DDoS 4chan, from getting to 4chan, which is the kid. Other users not from AT&T can still visit 4chan b and r9k board.
ok fine maybe that analogy works... but it's shady.... in a school of 4000 students that would mean there are like 600-650 potential bullies being banned.
I mean seriously grinq, you act like the entire internet was going to go down for at&t users because of these ddos attacks. 4chan wasn't even going down very often, when the entirety of the attacks are targetting them.
which has more bandwidth, at&t or 4chan? it just doesn't make any sense.
Travis, isn't it obvious? the ban came out of nowhere, no one got warned. The users got no message about this. 4chan got no letter that warned the that they had to cease wit whatever it was or they would get banned. Selective blocking only works for limited numbers, the attack prolly has so many computer with AT&T that a total ban is the only way to stop it. it's a last desperate attempt to finally stop the attack.
Ok look, I am not going to argue it's possible they did it because of DDos attacks. What I am saying is that even if they did, it was an unprecedent and ridiculous move - and it's still a breach of net neutrality.
And those attacks have been going on for weeks. You mean to say they care enough to block the entire domain to all AT&T users, but can't figure out the source of attacks over a period of WEEKS? That's ridiculous! It's just information going over pipes. AT&T holds all the cards, they should be able to find the source of the attacks in no time.
As I said before, I am not super tech savvy... but I am not clueless either. I have a decent idea of how the internet works, I did used to be into "hacking" and shit when I was a kid. Don't wanna get in an argument over stupid shit, just saying I am not entirely clueless here.
As an ATT user I haven't been affected by this in any way because I don't visit 4chan... but if this becomes ATT standard protocol i'd be forced to switch.... What happens if someone did the same to google? lolzzzzz....
On July 27 2009 14:01 GHOSTCLAW wrote: 4chan will end up as the victor I bet...
Just because they're probably more motivated and tech savvy than at&t is. I wouldn't put it past 4chan to just hack into at&t, and get themselves back "on the internet"
you think 4chan is more tech savy than at&t? do you know what at&t does?
Do you know what 4chan does?
they don't do 120 billion dollars of tech related business, for one.
seriously. ill reiterate - at&t is in the wrong. but they have nothing to worry about if 4chan takes the tech attack route. lets hope 4chan doesnt - all theyd do is lose sympathy.
I think AT&T is overstepping its boundaries here. People pay them to access the world's largest network of computers, not a network of computers and a black hole. Even in countries where the Internet is censored, it's the GOVERNMENT that does it, not some corporation that decides it has the power to do so. I doubt AT&T was getting enough complaints about sluggish Internet to warrant such extreme action. This action doesn't even line up with when the bulk of the attacks was occurring.
On July 27 2009 14:46 travis wrote: Ok look, I am not going to argue it's possible they did it because of DDos attacks. What I am saying is that even if they did, it was an unprecedent and ridiculous move - and it's still a breach of net neutrality.
And those attacks have been going on for weeks. You mean to say they care enough to block the entire domain to all AT&T users, but can't figure out the source of attacks over a period of WEEKS? That's ridiculous! It's just information going over pipes. AT&T holds all the cards, they should be able to find the source of the attacks in no time.
As I said before, I am not super tech savvy... but I am not clueless either. I have a decent idea of how the internet works, I did used to be into "hacking" and shit when I was a kid. Don't wanna get in an argument over stupid shit, just saying I am not entirely clueless here.
just listen to your own arguments.... You claim that you understand internet technology based on that you hacked when you were a kid. You claim that AT&T should be able to the source of the attacks in no time while in the same statement you also say that the attacks have been going on for weeks. Ánd btw, excellent job in simplying the whole internet infrastructure as " It's just information going over pipes".
lol we should have a moment of silence now for whatever poor soul has to take the role of spokesperson on their stance against /b/, they are in for quite a surprise.
I'm amazed at how many people here really have no idea what's going on even after it's been explained several times. This isn't about net neutrality, or censorship, or AT&T picking a fight with 4chan. This isn't something that you should be hyping up as some sort of epic battle between AT&T against 4chan. That's not what it is, at all. At least not on AT&T's side of things.
This is a breach of security. AT&T is taking measures to stop that. They have to do what they're doing in order to stop the attacks, because simply blocking the compromised computers that are launching the attacks takes time and manpower. It can't be done with a magical snap of the fingers, for several reasons. It takes time to figure out who the attackers are and to shut them down. Even worse, most of the attacks are coming from computers whose owners aren't even aware that their computer has been hacked into and is being used to launch an attack (that's generally the case in a DDoS attack). You have to deal with the situation very carefully. None of you would be very happy with your internet suddenly being shut off for something that you didn't even do. But that's exactly what many people are essentially suggesting. To me, that's a lot worse than simply blocking certain areas of a website temporarily in order to stop an attack.
It's shitty that AT&T had to resort to something like this for sure, and it's an even bigger shame that people don't understand what's going on and are overreacting about it. But this really isn't about censorship or anything like that, and this most likely was the most effective solution given the circumstances. If AT&T keeps parts or all of 4chan blocked for an extended period of time, then those arguments might be valid. In that case, go all out and bitch about censorship and the likes. But until then, that's not what this situation is about at all.
* Los Angeles and Surrounding Areas, CA * St. Louis, MO * SF Bay Area, CA * Detroit, MI * Berkeley, CA * San Francisco, CA * Tyler, TX * Houston, TX * Dallas, TX * Austin, TX * San Antonio, TX * Oklahoma City, OK * Tulsa and Metro area, Oklahoma * All former Ohio Bell areas (Cleveland, Dayton, Akron, Toledo) * Chicago, IL * Kendallville, IN * Indianapolis, IN * Several cities in CT * Sacramento, CA * Milwaukee, WI * Sheboygan, WI
On July 27 2009 15:07 koOl wrote: hmm..maybe at&t already gave up? it says on that encyclopedia dramatica article that people are reporting being unblocked
couple of twitter reports here and there that basically say the same thing as well.
On July 27 2009 14:46 travis wrote: Ok look, I am not going to argue it's possible they did it because of DDos attacks. What I am saying is that even if they did, it was an unprecedent and ridiculous move - and it's still a breach of net neutrality.
And those attacks have been going on for weeks. You mean to say they care enough to block the entire domain to all AT&T users, but can't figure out the source of attacks over a period of WEEKS? That's ridiculous! It's just information going over pipes. AT&T holds all the cards, they should be able to find the source of the attacks in no time.
As I said before, I am not super tech savvy... but I am not clueless either. I have a decent idea of how the internet works, I did used to be into "hacking" and shit when I was a kid. Don't wanna get in an argument over stupid shit, just saying I am not entirely clueless here.
just listen to your own arguments.... You claim that you understand internet technology based on that you hacked when you were a kid. You claim that AT&T should be able to the source of the attacks in no time while in the same statement you also say that the attacks have been going on for weeks. Ánd btw, excellent job in simplying the whole internet infrastructure as " It's just information going over pipes".
you like that? ty I thought it put it simply
yes, I am saying that they should be able to deal with it much better than they are. and certainly without blocking the entire domain and saying nothing about it.
btw reports seem to be that it's either a virus that's causing ddos attacks or just blocking the site for no reason. I have read a lot of them now. And if it's because of some drastically spreading virus then I kind of am wrong... but 4chan said nothing about facing some sort of extreme ddos attacks. So how drastic could it have been?
orlandu i think we all understand mostly that its not a personal thing, but that does not change the consequences of their actions, and /b/ is not the kind of thing you want to take away from their userbase.
On July 27 2009 15:07 koOl wrote: hmm..maybe at&t already gave up? it says on that encyclopedia dramatica article that people are reporting being unblocked
It's not that AT&T is "giving up." It's that as they gain control of the attacks and deal with the situation, they're able to slowly return to normal operations, which means lifting whatever blocks were set in place. This just further shows that this wasn't about censorship or net neutrality at all.
On July 27 2009 15:12 Gene wrote: orlandu i think we all understand mostly that its not a personal thing, but that does not change the consequences of their actions, and /b/ is not the kind of thing you want to take away from their userbase.
man i dont want it to be over yet.
I agree that it's an unfortunate situation, but just because 4chan is full of people who think that they're something special doesn't mean that the rest of AT&T's users and AT&T itself should have to suffer. AT&T is/was doing what they're supposed to do. They shouldn't have to compromise just because some people don't understand what's going on (such as those overreacting at 4chan).
I mean, yeah, I definitely think that some of the people at 4chan are capable of doing some damage, no argument there. But they're not justified in that, and it's an unfortunate side effect of the circumstances.
EDIT: Also, I wouldn't be so sure that "we all understand mostly that its not a personal thing." Seems like a lot of people in this thread and elsewhere think it's about something else.
On July 27 2009 15:07 Orlandu wrote: None of you would be very happy with your internet suddenly being shut off for something that you didn't even do. But that's exactly what many people are essentially suggesting. To me, that's a lot worse than simply blocking certain areas of a website temporarily in order to stop an attack.
Well if they stopped clicking the fake porn ads, they wouldn't have to worry about such cases, right? :p
Really though, whether it's legitimate or not, AT&T is in for a shitstorm anyways. 4chan has some ridiculous shit planned.
I find it hilarious people think 4chan can actually scratch AT&T if they decided to take the tech route. If it was so simple for people to dent a major Communications Mega-Corp which gets infrastructure subsidies from the Government there would be epic chaos ensuing from all the hackers having fun.
Naive people are Naive. Use the legal system if this perpetuates please.
Cue the Interstate Commerce Clause if they actually try and take down AT&T lol.
what they're doing helps the 4chan servers almosta s much as it does theirs. But to say its right, isn't necessarily correct. The average 4chan user pays just as much for their ISP to bring them to 4chan as those who do not. Quite silly to deny them that privilege that they pay for, just as much as any other AT&T customer.
On July 27 2009 15:16 Aegraen wrote: I find it hilarious people think 4chan can actually scratch AT&T if they decided to take the tech route. If it was so simple for people to dent a major Communications Mega-Corp which gets infrastructure subsidies from the Government there would be epic chaos ensuing from all the hackers having fun.
Naive people are Naive. Use the legal system if this perpetuates please.
Cue the Interstate Commerce Clause if they actually try and take down AT&T lol.
Aegrean, like i said before. Should AT&T unfortunately designate someone to make a statement about this publicly, /b/ will know where he or she lives immediately. They will know their phone number. It wouldn't be the greatest day of their life.
Sooo, whos going to win this scuffle? you all sound like 4chan is going to rape at@t, which is surprising because its a website vs a corporation. I guess 4chan has powerful hackers, or?? Guess im an internet newb? :O
On July 27 2009 15:18 Gene wrote: Aegrean, like i said before. Should AT&T unfortunately designate someone to make a statement about this publicly, /b/ will know where he or she lives immediately. They will know their phone number. It wouldn't be the greatest day of their life.
Naive people are naive.
This is the easiest way for the FBI to descend rapidly on everyone who does this and trust me, they can track down whoever will be doing this.
I also like how you threaten civil disobedience because you can't access 4chan. USE THE FUCKING LEGAL SYSTEM DON'T BECOME CRIMINALS. Fuck.
On July 27 2009 15:07 Orlandu wrote: I'm amazed at how many people here really have no idea what's going on even after it's been explained several times. This isn't about net neutrality, or censorship, or AT&T picking a fight with 4chan. This isn't something that you should be hyping up as some sort of epic battle between AT&T against 4chan. That's not what it is, at all. At least not on AT&T's side of things.
This is a breach of security. AT&T is taking measures to stop that. They have to do what they're doing in order to stop the attacks, because simply blocking the compromised computers that are launching the attacks takes time and manpower. It can't be done with a magical snap of the fingers, for several reasons. It takes time to figure out who the attackers are and to shut them down. Even worse, most of the attacks are coming from computers whose owners aren't even aware that their computer has been hacked into and is being used to launch an attack (that's generally the case in a DDoS attack). You have to deal with the situation very carefully. None of you would be very happy with your internet suddenly being shut off for something that you didn't even do. But that's exactly what many people are essentially suggesting. To me, that's a lot worse than simply blocking certain areas of a website temporarily in order to stop an attack.
It's shitty that AT&T had to resort to something like this for sure, and it's an even bigger shame that people don't understand what's going on and are overreacting about it. But this really isn't about censorship or anything like that, and this most likely was the most effective solution given the circumstances. If AT&T keeps parts or all of 4chan blocked for an extended period of time, then those arguments might be valid. In that case, go all out and bitch about censorship and the likes. But until then, that's not what this situation is about at all.
Whether or not this is the case, I doubt people will care all that much about 'getting it right.' Anything that looks like it could even potentially be something serious will be so grossly bent out of proportion that in the end that it won't really even matter why they did what they did. If this had happened to any other semi-popular site I'm sure some political blog somewhere would've picked up on it from a net-neutrality angle as well.
No, the real issue here is that it's 4chan, and that makes things infinitely worse. I don't know what's going to come out at the other end of this shitstorm, but if AT&T doesn't act fast there are good chances that it's not going to be pleasant.
On July 27 2009 15:18 Gene wrote: Aegrean, like i said before. Should AT&T unfortunately designate someone to make a statement about this publicly, /b/ will know where he or she lives immediately. They will know their phone number. It wouldn't be the greatest day of their life.
Naive people are naive.
This is the easiest way for the FBI to descend rapidly on everyone who does this and trust me, they can track down whoever will be doing this.
I also like how you threaten civil disobedience because you can't access 4chan. USE THE FUCKING LEGAL SYSTEM DON'T BECOME CRIMINALS. Fuck.
lol u a dumbofoshumbo. i dont know if i want to get involved in this so ill just lob passive aggressive replies from the sidelines until im satisfied.
On July 27 2009 15:18 Gene wrote: Aegrean, like i said before. Should AT&T unfortunately designate someone to make a statement about this publicly, /b/ will know where he or she lives immediately. They will know their phone number. It wouldn't be the greatest day of their life.
Naive people are naive.
This is the easiest way for the FBI to descend rapidly on everyone who does this and trust me, they can track down whoever will be doing this.
I also like how you threaten civil disobedience because you can't access 4chan. USE THE FUCKING LEGAL SYSTEM DON'T BECOME CRIMINALS. Fuck.
lol u a dumbofoshumbo. i dont know if i want to get involved in this so ill just lob passive aggressive replies from the sidelines until im satisfied.
Speak English. I'll just refer to everyone who agrees with the former sentiment from now on as a Criminal.
The funny thing is that 15% of connetions in USA are affected yet no one knows why it has happened everyone are just speculating and making their own educated guess haha.
On July 27 2009 15:18 Gene wrote: Aegrean, like i said before. Should AT&T unfortunately designate someone to make a statement about this publicly, /b/ will know where he or she lives immediately. They will know their phone number. It wouldn't be the greatest day of their life.
Naive people are naive.
This is the easiest way for the FBI to descend rapidly on everyone who does this and trust me, they can track down whoever will be doing this.
I also like how you threaten civil disobedience because you can't access 4chan. USE THE FUCKING LEGAL SYSTEM DON'T BECOME CRIMINALS. Fuck.
lol u a dumbofoshumbo. i dont know if i want to get involved in this so ill just lob passive aggressive replies from the sidelines until im satisfied.
Speak English. I'll just refer to everyone who agrees with the former sentiment from now on as a Criminal.
So you're trying to say people that dont speak english are criminals?
On July 27 2009 15:22 Gene wrote: lol i didnt threaten anything. and lol the fbi. if any of that qualified as civil disobedience(not that it does) bringing up the FBI is lol.
a little thought before hitting the post button
Thousands of people calling your house 24/7 because of the action of your employer. Yes, that is grounds for the FBI to intervene. Trust me, the FBI gets involved in cases like this all the time (Remember the death threats to the employees of Corporations this last winter/fall).
You can't disturb someone because you don't like what they or their employeer did. Advocating criminal action reminds me of a certain criminal enterprise (ACORN).
You want to know why the FBI would get involved and not local authorities? Jurisdiction. My family has been in the Law Enforcement field for nigh 100 years. Growing up with my Parents in the Military and my Grandparents Chief of Police and DoD Investigators I know what I am talking about.
On July 27 2009 15:19 Dazed_Spy wrote: Sooo, whos going to win this scuffle? you all sound like 4chan is going to rape at@t, which is surprising because its a website vs a corporation. I guess 4chan has powerful hackers, or?? Guess im an internet newb? :O
More likely that some 13 year old nerds will order 17123495 pizzas to be delivered to the CEO of AT&T. They might also DDoS AT&T websites in a curious turnabout of events, but that's more of a stretch.
So in essence nothing harmless, although very annoying and potentially quite hilarious to watch.
On July 27 2009 15:18 Gene wrote: Aegrean, like i said before. Should AT&T unfortunately designate someone to make a statement about this publicly, /b/ will know where he or she lives immediately. They will know their phone number. It wouldn't be the greatest day of their life.
Naive people are naive.
This is the easiest way for the FBI to descend rapidly on everyone who does this and trust me, they can track down whoever will be doing this.
I also like how you threaten civil disobedience because you can't access 4chan. USE THE FUCKING LEGAL SYSTEM DON'T BECOME CRIMINALS. Fuck.
lol u a dumbofoshumbo. i dont know if i want to get involved in this so ill just lob passive aggressive replies from the sidelines until im satisfied.
Speak English. I'll just refer to everyone who agrees with the former sentiment from now on as a Criminal.
there's a couple of quotes in that quote which quote is your quote referring to??
nobody is advocating anything. i was just simply stating a hypothetical response to your "AT&T IS TECHNICALLY ALL POWERFUL YOU ARE NAIVE" attitude.
So you admit that throwing around the words civil disobedience was compeletely irrelevant to the topic at hand? Are you posting just for the sake of arguing with people?
On July 27 2009 15:18 Gene wrote: Aegrean, like i said before. Should AT&T unfortunately designate someone to make a statement about this publicly, /b/ will know where he or she lives immediately. They will know their phone number. It wouldn't be the greatest day of their life.
Naive people are naive.
This is the easiest way for the FBI to descend rapidly on everyone who does this and trust me, they can track down whoever will be doing this.
I also like how you threaten civil disobedience because you can't access 4chan. USE THE FUCKING LEGAL SYSTEM DON'T BECOME CRIMINALS. Fuck.
lol u a dumbofoshumbo. i dont know if i want to get involved in this so ill just lob passive aggressive replies from the sidelines until im satisfied.
Speak English. I'll just refer to everyone who agrees with the former sentiment from now on as a Criminal.
So you're trying to say people that dont speak english are criminals?
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, how could anyone mistake those 4 posts. /sarc
people should try a freeway protest where they just organize a line or cars and stop randomly. that would be either the most successful or violent protests ever.
On July 27 2009 15:18 Gene wrote: Aegrean, like i said before. Should AT&T unfortunately designate someone to make a statement about this publicly, /b/ will know where he or she lives immediately. They will know their phone number. It wouldn't be the greatest day of their life.
Naive people are naive.
This is the easiest way for the FBI to descend rapidly on everyone who does this and trust me, they can track down whoever will be doing this.
I also like how you threaten civil disobedience because you can't access 4chan. USE THE FUCKING LEGAL SYSTEM DON'T BECOME CRIMINALS. Fuck.
lol u a dumbofoshumbo. i dont know if i want to get involved in this so ill just lob passive aggressive replies from the sidelines until im satisfied.
Speak English. I'll just refer to everyone who agrees with the former sentiment from now on as a Criminal.
there's a couple of quotes in that quote which quote is your quote referring to??
I thought it was obvious as there was only one Criminal action being advocated in the set of posts, but I'll highlight it for you:
Aegrean, like i said before. Should AT&T unfortunately designate someone to make a statement about this publicly, /b/ will know where he or she lives immediately. They will know their phone number. It wouldn't be the greatest day of their life.
Naive people are naive.
This is not what you want to do. This is not how you act.
On July 27 2009 15:19 Dazed_Spy wrote: Sooo, whos going to win this scuffle? you all sound like 4chan is going to rape at@t, which is surprising because its a website vs a corporation. I guess 4chan has powerful hackers, or?? Guess im an internet newb? :O
no. people seem to think 4chan has a team of supermen ready to attack poor, weak at&t in some vague but devastating way. it's not just a website vs a corporation, it's a multi multi MULTI billion dollar entity that has a little bit of tech savvy.
if this is anything nefarious on at&t's part, the legal route should (and probably will) be taken by 4chan and whomever else. despite how funny it is to say otherwise, at&t is not staffed by a bunch of computer illiterate seniors.
On July 27 2009 15:18 Gene wrote: Aegrean, like i said before. Should AT&T unfortunately designate someone to make a statement about this publicly, /b/ will know where he or she lives immediately. They will know their phone number. It wouldn't be the greatest day of their life.
Naive people are naive.
This is the easiest way for the FBI to descend rapidly on everyone who does this and trust me, they can track down whoever will be doing this.
I also like how you threaten civil disobedience because you can't access 4chan. USE THE FUCKING LEGAL SYSTEM DON'T BECOME CRIMINALS. Fuck.
lol u a dumbofoshumbo. i dont know if i want to get involved in this so ill just lob passive aggressive replies from the sidelines until im satisfied.
Speak English. I'll just refer to everyone who agrees with the former sentiment from now on as a Criminal.
there's a couple of quotes in that quote which quote is your quote referring to??
I thought it was obvious as there was only one Criminal action being advocated in the set of posts, but I'll highlight it for you:
Aegrean, like i said before. Should AT&T unfortunately designate someone to make a statement about this publicly, /b/ will know where he or she lives immediately. They will know their phone number. It wouldn't be the greatest day of their life.
Naive people are naive.
This is not what you want to do. This is not how you act.
/b/ isn't exactly populated with the most mature people in the world, you know. Telling people to do somethings (such as on the ED page) is one thing. Getting them to follow is another matter entirely.
Aegrean I'm convinced you have no idea what 4chan is or what it's capable of. When they want to those guys are VERY organized. Go look up the Anon movements. They aren't just a bunch of little internet nerds - a lot of those people actually know and work in the IT industry. If it ever came down to a "war" AT&T would lose lots of $$ fighting against them.
On July 27 2009 15:19 Dazed_Spy wrote: Sooo, whos going to win this scuffle? you all sound like 4chan is going to rape at@t, which is surprising because its a website vs a corporation. I guess 4chan has powerful hackers, or?? Guess im an internet newb? :O
no. people seem to think 4chan has a team of supermen ready to attack poor, weak at&t in some vague but devastating way. it's not just a website vs a corporation, it's a multi multi MULTI billion dollar entity that has a little bit of tech savvy.
if this is anything nefarious on at&t's part, the legal route should (and probably will) be taken by 4chan and whomever else. despite how funny it is to say otherwise, at&t is not staffed by a bunch of computer illiterate seniors.
lol ATT has already lifted their block. Took less than a day for 4chan to win.
AT&T Lifted it fearing a massive PR backlash. They know 4chan can easily spread harsh rumors to legitimate sites. The little boy crying Censorship about a mega corp could hurt stock.
On July 27 2009 15:07 koOl wrote: hmm..maybe at&t already gave up? it says on that encyclopedia dramatica article that people are reporting being unblocked
It's not that AT&T is "giving up." It's that as they gain control of the attacks and deal with the situation, they're able to slowly return to normal operations, which means lifting whatever blocks were set in place. This just further shows that this wasn't about censorship or net neutrality at all.
On July 27 2009 15:34 Ace wrote: Aegrean I'm convinced you have no idea what 4chan is or what it's capable of. When they want to those guys are VERY organized. Go look up the Anon movements. They aren't just a bunch of little internet nerds - a lot of those people actually know and work in the IT industry. If it ever came down to a "war" AT&T would lose lots of $$ fighting against them.
That's a pretty big IF. A lot of 4chan are just teenagers and people in their 20's - probably what you'd expect if you took a cross-section of any other site (i.e. TL) except without the need or desire to conform to any sort of posting etiquette. Those with jobs and the know-how are older and probably wouldn't commit themselves to any sort of childish raid unless it was serious.
On July 27 2009 15:34 Ace wrote: Aegrean I'm convinced you have no idea what 4chan is or what it's capable of. When they want to those guys are VERY organized. Go look up the Anon movements. They aren't just a bunch of little internet nerds - a lot of those people actually know and work in the IT industry. If it ever came down to a "war" AT&T would lose lots of $$ fighting against them.
That's a pretty big IF. A lot of 4chan are just teenagers and people in their 20's - probably what you'd expect if you took a cross-section of any other site (i.e. TL) except without the need or desire to conform to any sort of posting etiquette. Those with jobs and the know-how are older and probably wouldn't commit themselves to any sort of childish raid unless it was serious.
Oh I agree - I doubt the older members would do something like try and destroy AT&T. My point is that they are entirely capable of wrecking havoc. Aegrean assumes that these are unskilled net users that have no idea how to accomplish the very things they are known for.
On July 27 2009 15:34 Ace wrote: Aegrean I'm convinced you have no idea what 4chan is or what it's capable of. When they want to those guys are VERY organized. Go look up the Anon movements. They aren't just a bunch of little internet nerds - a lot of those people actually know and work in the IT industry. If it ever came down to a "war" AT&T would lose lots of $$ fighting against them.
That's a pretty big IF. A lot of 4chan are just teenagers and people in their 20's - probably what you'd expect if you took a cross-section of any other site (i.e. TL) except without the need or desire to conform to any sort of posting etiquette. Those with jobs and the know-how are older and probably wouldn't commit themselves to any sort of childish raid unless it was serious.
Oh I agree - I doubt the older members would do something like try and destroy AT&T. My point is that they are entirely capable of wrecking havoc. Aegrean assumes that these are unskilled net users that have no idea how to accomplish the very things they are known for.
No, I assume a Mega-Corp and the Government can tackle some nefarious "hackers" trying to undermine an entity that controls 25% of Americas Communication infrastructure.
Anyone even advocating something so absurd and thinks it will actually be fruitful is living in the clouds. Do you know how many business' rely on the internet? Do you know how much AT&T corners this market? Do you know what the Interstate Commerce Clause and the various Government Law Enforcement agencies designed to combat this will do?
We all have to fight censorship, but acting like rogue hackers and thinking it will actually help your cause borders on orwellian I'm sorry.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc45/snesfreak/GetYoPopcornReady.gif)
![[image loading]](http://media.tuzulo.com/images/5yqvs/5yhd9/07272009-lurk.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/mirror/smilies/lurk.gif)
