Slashdot Mirror
Pakistan Blocks YouTube
Multiple readers have written to tell us of news that Pakistan has ordered its ISPs to block access to YouTube "for containing blasphemous web content/movies." This follows increasing unrest in Pakistan over a Danish newspaper's reprinting of cartoons which depict Islam in a less-than-favorable light. The cartoons also sparked controversy when they were first published a few years ago.
SILENCE!! I KIIILL YOU
I wonder if they have blocked this site: Skeptics annotated Quran
Science is the Real TRUTH!
I'm pretty sure that was Turkey, not Morocco. I remember because quite a few blog posts in Turkey syndicated my anti-blocking instructions. I'm probably a fugitive there for having a minor amount of technical knowledge. :-P
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I am posting from within Pakistan, youtube is accessible again.
... and nobody told me, or somebody in Germany has demanded to block youtube, too. Just timeouts here.
I'm pretty sure no one insulted the Turkish king because Turkey is a republic. I think it is quite possible both countries blocked Youtube at some moment. (and of course stopped blocking after realizing this is a bad idea)
Read, refresh, repeat.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Which Eurpoean country is 'more enlightened'? Not only does Wikipedia contradict your statement about the UK, but your 'mysterious enlightened country' is no where to be found.
I'm strongly opposed to circumcision . . . and talking out your ass.
Nothing to do with DNS. The SOA records are still showing as authoritative on youtube's domain servers with the last update as of 17 Feb 08. What is actually happening is that AS17557 (Pakistan Telecom Authority) is advertising more specific prefixes from their AS which are being blackholed at ingress, rather than the "official" ASN of 36561 which is still visible in BGP, but is less specific. (Those who know about IP routing will know that a more specific prefix always takes precedence over a supernet/aggregate/summary). Basically PTA screwed up the BGP advertisements and are affecting the whole internet, rather than just blackholing internally to their country...
Not really relevant, your whois is just showing replies for domains with a "similar" name (when it really shouldn't be doing that). You'll get varying results depending on what whois server you're asking.
YOUTUBE.COM.IS.N0T.AS.1337.AS.WWW.GULLI.COM resolves to a (lol) "hacking" and warez site of some sort. It's just someone having fun with DNS and whois.
Why are you doing a whois when you can't reach youtube? For all intents and purposes, whois is completely useless these days.
As for youtube being down... Meh, probably some routing problem, or some ship accidentally dragging their anchors over googles datacenters.
Then you will be happy to know that in the latest elections radical religious are considered the biggest losers. They lost a lot of their political power.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It's because your views in this matter are so outrageous, it's hard to realize if you're really that deranged, or just pretend to be.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Not that it's really important, but many are saying there is DNS hijacking going on.
It's actually IP hijacking (from what I'm reading on the NANOG list anyway). An ISP in Pakistan is advertising a "more specific route" to Youtube's ip space. So, routers are taking the traffic there instead.
It could easily be accidental, like someone not having the right filter in place to block that advertisement going out to everyone.
I hope they are enjoying all of the extra packets.
4096R/EF7BAFA6 79E1 DF98 D09D 898F 9A11 F6F0 DDDC 23FA EF7B AFA6
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
In the UK, if I were to have a child of mine circumcised, not only would I find it hard most likely impossible to get the hospital to carry it out, but if I did find someone who was willing to carry it out privately as the child would neither be from a Jewish nor Muslim background it is quite clear I would be open for prosecution for assault, even if I didn't carry out the work myself. Which, while from my perspective is much less than ideal (as I still do not think the legislation is robust enough, as I have said), directly contrasts with the situation in the US where it is routinely carried out without any clinical or cultural justification (or even consideration).
If you'd been following the press reports and court rulings more carefully you might be better informed. You seem to be entirely, relying on Wikipedia to tell you everything you need to know on it and it's not covering the whole story. You don't even seem to be reading the Wikipedia article, which directly contradicts you (not me):
The only reference on Wikipedia article to a legal opinion - in the form of one published in the Journal of Medical Ethic by Fox and Thomson at Keele University's School of Law - states unequivocally that "there is no compelling legal authority for the common view that male circumcision is lawful." in the opening paragraph of the paper.
To provide a counter point, a representative from the General Medical Council stated that, in the opinion of the GMC, that it was an ethical issue not a legal one and that they do not believe that male circumcision on the UK is illegal. The GMC, however, are not a legal body and the statement was only the opinion of a representative from the standards committee (not a lawyer).
One might assume that having having the apparent backing of the GMC (who have published guidelines on the topic) would at least grant some level of legal protection for a licensed practitioner carrying out the procedure, but even I was (if only somewhat) surprised to hear that in the opinions of the legal professionals who were panelists on a BBC debate on the topic last year, that that was not the case and that relying on the GMC's published opinion would not be a valid case for defense. Of course they still have the power to have to have a doctor stuck off for breaking any guidelines which they do choose to set out, all of which is a little incongruous. Which European country is 'more enlightened'? Off the top of my head? Finland and Germany have already ruled it's illegal without consent. As noted, in the UK the legislation also affords more protection than in the US (even if it is still incomplete).
Many European states are in a similar situation, not least because many have similar legislation in place (e.g. state specific legislation - such as the UK's Human Rights Act - and incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights). In the UK the HRA in particular has been a hot topic for a while and has already had a huge impact on health care here and is frequently noted as being relevant when the topic of male circumcision is discussed by medical practitioners and human rights lawyers.
No one mentioned atheism. The 'slit their throats in the night' guy's attitude is what causes radicalism. Unless, of course, you're trying to associate rationality/atheism with genocide, and judging by the false dichotomy you set up, that wouldn't surprise me.
It's funny that a bunch of Muslims get all upset over a picture of Prophet Mohammad Bomb-for-a-head, while not making nearly quite a fuss over a bunch of Danish Muslim leaders distributing their own image of Paedophile Mohammed (an obvious reference to Mo having a 9 year old girl for a wife[1]) in order to incite more hatred against Danish cartoonists.
The fanatics seem to be oblivious to the Streisand Effect. The Mohammad Image Archive makes for fascinating reading.
[1] It's immaculate paraphilia, not paedophilia. Honest, m'lud!
Blancmange
That isn't actually accurate. (Disclaimer: I used to be muslim).
To begin with Sharia was a creation that came into existence many centuries after Islam and was primarily religious folks trying to unify the people against their 'corrupt' leaders using a unified codex across the Islamic lands.
Nobody can and/or should be forced to do anything. The whole bit about 'There can be no compulsion in religion'
Even quranically the prophet was told to back off after telling people what was right/wrong because the rest was upto them.
In the spirit of full disclosure I at the moment believe that religion itself is bunk, regardless of which variety you look at.
The amusing thing in this case is that Pakistan screwed up their censorship an managed to knock youtube off the *entire* internet for over two hours.
The net didn't interpret censorship as damage and route around it; the net interpreted censorship as a superior path and routed everyone into it.
The belief that technology alone will protect us from political oppression is mistaken and harmful.
In my experience, most women are fascinated by an intact penis if they hadn't seen one before. Other women regard it as no big deal. I personally think it looks pretty neat with the foreskin, but if I ever want to look at it the other way I can engage in the perfectly non-destructive act of rolling the foreskin back.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
I like my sex and so do all of us circumcised US males. Speak for yourself, asshole.