Open Rights Group International Says Virgin, Sky Blocking Innocent Sites

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Open Rights Group International Says Virgin, Sky Blocking Innocent Sites

Posted by timothy on Sunday October 20, 2013 @09:12PM from the no-brush-is-quite-broad-enough dept.

New submitter stewartrob70 writes with an explanation of the inadvertent (or at least unwarranted) blocking of innocuous sites that UK ISPs Virgin and Sky are engaged in, as reported by PC Pro. The ISPs' filtering systems "appear to be blocking innocent third-party sites with apparently little or no human oversight." stewartrob70 excerpts from a blog posting with an explanation of why: "In order to understand why this specific issue happened, you need to be familiar with a quirk in how DNS is commonly used in third-party load-balanced site deployments. Many third-party load balanced systems, for example those using Amazon's AWS infrastructure, are enabled by pointing CNAME records at names controlled by those third-party systems. For example www.example.com may be pointed at loadbalancer.example.net. However, 'example.com' usually cannot be directly given a CNAME record (CNAME records cannot be mixed with the other record types needed such as those pointing to nameservers and mailservers). A common approach is to point "example.com" to a server that merely redirects all requests to 'www.example.com.' From forum posts we can see that it's this redirection system, in this specific case an A record used for 'http-redirection-a.dnsmadeeasy.com,' that has been blocked by the ISPs — probably a court-order-blocked site is also using the service — making numerous sites unavailable for any request made without the ''www' prefix."

83 comments

And this is why by gigaherz · 2013-10-20 21:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is why ISPs have been complaining for years that filtering bad content is not as easy as the copyright people make the politicians think it is.
1. Re:And this is why by FriendlyLurker · 2013-10-20 21:48 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You assume that "copyright people", "politicians" and rich elites in general care about "Innocent Sites": censorship for limiting, framing and generally controlling the political discourse is the goal. They have solved the majority of the ISP problem by compensating them with our tax dollars so their complaint's disappear. Soon if not already it is profitable for said ISP's to censor content against secret behind closed door lists, so only those with some sense of moral compass outside of pure profit motive will complain and that will be fine as they can be ignored by mass media. Virgin and Sky were too big to ignore when they were complaining - now they are silent on the issue.
2. Re:And this is why by gigaherz · 2013-10-20 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  Of course they don't care. We are talking about corporations and politicians. What they were complaining about was that it's not EASY, so it requires more EFFORT. And in corporate terms, effort means money. Of course they stop complaining when you compensate them for the cost of running the filters, but the point stands: they DID complain.
3. Re:And this is why by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-10-20 22:23 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  "This is why ISPs..."
  Oh, what bullshit. ISPs have bent over backwards so they don't lose out on delicious government contracts, which in the UK require satisfactory filtering methods in place.
  There are maybe one or two ISPs which have had a backbone in all this - such as Andrews&Arnold. You can tell the difference because their Internet service is 100% unfiltered. They even ask you if you want filtering and refuse to provide you with service if you say "yes".
4. Re:And this is why by gigaherz · 2013-10-20 22:27 · Score: 2
  
  My point was that some ISPs have complained about the cost of running good filters, not that it affects innocent websites. Good filters happen to be the ones that do NOT block innocent websites, but of course they cost more. Avoiding that cost is a very important topic for the ISPs, while blocking innocent websites is just a small PR issue. In the case of Virgin and Sky, cheap blocking seems to have been the chocie.
5. Re:And this is why by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 22:36 · Score: 0
  
  But they do care about "innocent sites". Filtering "bad stuff" would be so much easier if there was a government agency that checked sites to create a list of sites that are "good" and fit for consumption by the general populace - for a very modest monthly fee, of course.
6. Re:And this is why by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-10-20 22:44 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I haven't heard many complaints about the cost, to be honest.
  Run no filter:
  - lose gov contracts;
  Run cheap filter:
  - gain gov contracts;
  - increase prices slightly for everyone;
  - minority of people notice they're missing legitimate web sites;
  Run expensive filter:
  - minority still complain because they tend to object to filtering in principle;
  - lose custom from extra costs which will be passed on to consumer.
  So "run cheap filter" is always the profitable option in the UK, which is why everyone feeds the IWF list plus the easiest interpretation of court orders into something in the style of the original Cleanfeed, augmented more recently by DPI by some ISPs.
7. Re:And this is why by isorox · 2013-10-20 22:58 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "This is why ISPs..."
  Oh, what bullshit. ISPs have bent over backwards so they don't lose out on delicious government contracts, which in the UK require satisfactory filtering methods in place.
  There are maybe one or two ISPs which have had a backbone in all this - such as Andrews&Arnold. You can tell the difference because their Internet service is 100% unfiltered. They even ask you if you want filtering and refuse to provide you with service if you say "yes".
  Not all ISPs
  Not only is Andrews & Arnold XKCD 806 compliant, but they meet all of mumsnet^W David Cameron's censorship requirements.
  
  The government wants us to offer filtering as an option, so we offer an active choice when you sign up, you choose one of two options:-
  Unfiltered Internet access - no filtering of any content within the A&A network - you are responsible for any filtering in your own network, or
  Censored Internet access - restricted access to unpublished government mandated filter list (plus Daily Mail web site) - but still cannot guarantee kids don't access porn.
  If you choose censored you are advised: Sorry, for a censored internet you will have to pick a different ISP or move to North Korea. Our services are all unfiltered.
  Is that a good enough active choice for you Mr Cameron?
8. Re:And this is why by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-10-20 23:43 · Score: 2
  
  I did mention AAISP in the final paragraph, but I suppose their approach is so correct that it's worth mentioning twice (or thrice, right here!).
  Government and big business play an on-going game of pretending to wrestle each other, but they're usually happy enough to work together while giving the plebs some "state vs private sector interests" theatre to get worked up about.
9. Re:And this is why by zippthorne · 2013-10-20 23:50 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  ISPs like Comcast? Cox? TimeWarner?
  Which ISPs have been making this claim?
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
10. Re:And this is why by AmiMoJo · 2013-10-21 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  I really don't see the point of what A&A are trying to do because ultimately they still use BT's network and you are still subject to full spying. They even help GCHQ out by not using carrier grade NAT. You still need a VPN out of the country to even begin to be safe and have some privacy, and they could easily offer that service as a standard part of their package. I'm sure a lot of people would love to simply tick a box and have all their traffic re-directed to say Sweden over a fully encrypted link.
  Okay, they don't block a few sites, at least until someone bothers to sue them. Those sites are unblocked for me anyway because I use a VPN.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
11. Re:And this is why by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 00:39 · Score: 0
  
  and his point still stands: ISPs are NOT complaining anymore. Monetary compensation is doing its job to subvert the major issue that most ISPs had with filtering - the cost.
12. Re:And this is why by RaceProUK · 2013-10-21 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  The only way A&A could protect you from GCHQ is by running their own copper/fibre all over the country, which would be ridiculously expensive for a small ISP. Even then, as soon as the data leaves their copper/fibre, they can offer no protection whatsoever.
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
13. Re:And this is why by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-10-21 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  "They even help GCHQ out by not using carrier grade NAT."
  Oh dear.
  "all their traffic re-directed to say Sweden"
  Oh dear oh dear.
14. Re:And this is why by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  They have solved the majority of the ISP problem by compensating them with our tax dollars so their complaint's disappear.
  Still haven't graduated high school, eh?
15. Re:And this is why by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  Run no filter: - lose gov contracts;
  Run cheap filter: - gain gov contracts;...
  What contracts (emphasis on the plural) would those be? If you think your local Jobcentre will be paying £20 a month to TalkTalk or whoever you're very much mistaken. I would expect that a government has enough clout to do business with BT wholesale and cut out the middle man.
16. Re:And this is why by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-10-21 02:31 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  See e.g. the long thread on the Be Internet user forum. It was noted that the government refuses to purchase services from ISPs which aren't already enforcing IWF-strength filtering. This was done to encourage ISPs to follow government pro-censorship policy, instead of directly legislating to require censorship. Then the ISP's filters would look like a business decision and the civil libertarians who are "pro-freedom-of-business" wouldn't be able to get their panties in a twist. Fairly clever, if you ask me, and it's just another reminder of the danger of public-private partnerships.
17. Re:And this is why by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 02:52 · Score: 0
  
  Interesting, although I can't imagine when they would be purchasing services from smaller ISPs anyway; it's not as though they've dumped Vodafone after those tax shenanigans.
18. Re:And this is why by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-10-21 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  They were purchasing from Telefonica O2, of which Be was a subsidiary. Telefonica ain't small.
19. Re:And this is why by isorox · 2013-10-22 00:15 · Score: 1
  
  I did mention AAISP in the final paragraph, but I suppose their approach is so correct that it's worth mentioning twice (or thrice, right here!).
  Yeah, sorry, stupid me! Since slashdot started going downhil (1999, hoho), I've taken to reading it on my phone using google web toolkit, but you only get the start of the posts.
Re:Not all is inadvertent by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 21:34 · Score: 1

I can access that site from a Sky connection with no problems.
Everything's fine. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 21:35 · Score: 0

Blocking innocent materials is exactly how DNS censoring systems have always worked anywhere they have been implemented.
Move along people, i see nothing surprising there, this was all foretold.
BGP instead of DNS filtering makes more sense? by Quick+Reply · 2013-10-20 21:41 · Score: 2

Technically speaking that is, not politically.
I remember reading about this on one of my ISPs' blog a while ago.
http://steve.blogs.exetel.com.au/index.php?/archives/186-Content-Filtering.html
1. Re:BGP instead of DNS filtering makes more sense? by dutchwhizzman · 2013-10-20 22:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No, any IP based filtering is bad if you want to only block websites. As just explained in TFA, the http protocol is used to put more than one website on a single IP address. You will block other websites if you are blocking entire IP addresses.
  The big catch here is that to do this "properly" ISPs will have to put up transparent HTTP proxies and MitM https as well, just to be able to block these websites. This will effectively make the entire internet insecure for any serious stuff like banking or purchasing goods, since anyone will be able to spoof https. Not only that, but ISPs will suddenly have complete records of your complete web browsing history. There is no way to deny it, those logs will end up in the hands of the government sooner or later. Having ISPs block web sites is like having road workers make sytems that block foreign people that commit traffic violations, it's just not a feasible concept.
  
  --
  I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
2. Re:BGP instead of DNS filtering makes more sense? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 22:37 · Score: 1
  
  What's being blocked is a service that is (apparently) used by one site that is meant to be blocked and others that (supposedly) aren't meant to be blocked. It doesn't matter whether you block them by DNS or BGP: If that service is blocked, all the sites that use it are blocked.
  What does make more sense is not to censor the web but to go after the companies and people that do illegal things. If you think there's a better way to implement censorship, you're part of the problem.
3. Re:BGP instead of DNS filtering makes more sense? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 23:03 · Score: 0
  
  You know what would make more sense? IPv6!
4. Re:BGP instead of DNS filtering makes more sense? by Quick+Reply · 2013-10-20 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  MitM is a Politically bad idea, not technical. If the proxy servers in the middle have enough bandwidth and resources, the performance could theoretically even be an improvement. I most certainly agree (from a Political perspective) it is a dangerously slippery slope.
  From a technical perspective, it doesn't make the internet (banking, shopping, etc or other https activity) any different because a government/ISP MitM filter is no different to a Malicious Hacker MitM attack, which is already feasible. Also, I maybe wrong about HTTPS, but I believe that the Private SSL key would need to be installed on the MitM server, otherwise the MitM server would need to use a different certificate - a red flag - than the real server.
  I wouldn't be surprised if government spying agencies are doing their own MitM attacks already on a BGP level, and in the case of HTTPS websites, compromise any private SSL keys they need to do it without detection.
5. Re:BGP instead of DNS filtering makes more sense? by SuricouRaven · 2013-10-20 23:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Actually, they *do*. That's how the 'cleanfeed' system works. As was discovered when they blocked wikipedia a few years ago - ISPs redirected all traffic for that IP on port 80 to a transparent proxy that then blocked the offending files specifically, playing hell with wikipedia's anti-vandalism measures.
6. Re:BGP instead of DNS filtering makes more sense? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  You know what would make more sense? IPv6!
  Great idea. Let tell the idiots politicians that they need IPv6 to implement censorship so they will push IPv6 implementation for us. Then we can just route around censorship like we always routed around damage.
Re:Not all is inadvertent by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 21:41 · Score: 1

On Sky: Check
Can access ar15.com: Check
Blocked on Sky? No
Your point?
why?! by Gravis+Zero · 2013-10-20 21:43 · Score: 2, Funny

who is this Sky character and why is he blocking innocent sites?
oh, virgin... maybe he just needs to get laid.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:why?! by gigaherz · 2013-10-20 22:24 · Score: 1
  
  Says Virgin and Sky Blocking are two people who are part of the Open Rights Group International, who happen to run innocent sites, despite the accusations.
2. Re:why?! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 22:59 · Score: 0
  
  Dear Slashdot, English Capitalization Is Bad for Visual Legibility & Comprehension. Take a point and adapt a more readable European style. Thanks.
3. Re:why?! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 00:13 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Lieber Slashdot Englisch Kapitalisierung ist schlecht für visuelle Lesbarkeit und Verständnis. Werfen Sie einen Punkt und nimmt eine besser lesbare europäischen Stil. Vielen Dank.
  Like that?
4. Re:why?! by Skowronek · 2013-10-21 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that the organization's name can be, quite naturally, abbreviated to ORGI, makes their averred innocence all the more doubtful.
Old News from August? by stiggle · 2013-10-20 22:01 · Score: 4, Informative

I know Slashdot is usually behind the curve on news, but the linked articles date back to August....
(I know - shocking someone read both linked articles :-) )
Re:I say keep it up. by Tx · 2013-10-20 22:17 · Score: 1

What do you mean by "support"? Use? Because if you want pay TV in the UK, for example for decent sports coverage, then you basically you have to be a customer of one or the other. And that being the case, buying your broadband from them in a package deal is very cost-effective, and while they may be "awful", so are some of the biggest competitors (BT, TalkTalk, EE).

--
Oh no... it's the future.
Re:Not all is inadvertent by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 22:18 · Score: 0

Accessed from Virgin Media - not a problem.
Re:Not all is inadvertent by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-10-20 22:25 · Score: 3, Funny

I assume this is a parody of the gun nuts who weaken every decent discussion with paranoid, extremist ramblings.
Hardly surprising by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 22:33 · Score: 0

Everybody knew this would happen. Didn't stop anyone. Nobody cares about a working network anymore. There's censorship by the government, tracking and datamining by advertisers, the appification of the general purpose computer by the big computer companies, rate and volume limiting by the network operators, ubiquitous surveillance by the NSA and other ungovernable spy organisations, and the reaction of most users is a shrug at the most. It was nice while it lasted, but it's time to move on.
Re:I say keep it up. by CadentOrange · 2013-10-20 22:35 · Score: 1, Interesting

I was with Be for years. Excellent ISP, no blocking, real unlimited bandwidth and helpful technical support to boot. I jumped ship to Virgin when they were bought out by Sky as I really hate Sky. Who else was I going to go with? BT?
There are no more good ISPs left in the UK. This is a real shame.
p.s. As this is Slashdot, I would love to be corrected on the last point ^_^
Re:Not all is inadvertent by cyber-vandal · 2013-10-20 22:39 · Score: 2

Guns are not illegal in the UK, they are just much harder to get.
Re:I say keep it up. by the+real+darkskye · 2013-10-20 22:41 · Score: 1

There can be only one ...
Andrews & Arnold is probably the best in terms of respecting the End User, but that quality does come at a price.

--
Music is everybody's possession.
It's only publishers who think that people own it.
Fuck Beta
~John Lenno
Re:Not all is inadvertent by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 22:46 · Score: 0

And thats a good thing. No massacres like we have in the US every other week.
Re:Not all is inadvertent by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 22:52 · Score: 0

Safety should not be anyone's prime concern.
just a little collateral damage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 22:53 · Score: 0

small sacrifice in the fight to keep big media profits
Re:Not all is inadvertent by oobayly · 2013-10-20 22:53 · Score: 3, Funny

No, it's a bad thing - have you any idea how these people not being killed in gun massacres are over-burdening the NHS? Come on people, you have to think about the greater good.
Re:I say keep it up. by oobayly · 2013-10-20 22:58 · Score: 1

Yup, they're great, but you're right about the cost. They need to charge me £100 for installing FTTC (Infinity), whereas BT will do it free of charge, and charge less per month. It's tempting to go to BT, get them to install it, and then go back to Andrews and Arnold after the contract is up.
Open Rights Group by lundqvist · 2013-10-20 23:31 · Score: 0

They seem to be idiots, currently campaigning because the filtering seems to be blocking 'esoteric' sites. As far as anyone with any sense can make out, its either a typo, and should read 'erotic', or a deliberate substitution by the Open Rights Group in order to drum up support within the pagan/alternative communities.
1. Re:Open Rights Group by Krenair · 2013-10-21 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=uk+to+block+esoteric+sites It's not a typo, and it's not "to drum up support within the pagan/alternative communities".
Re:Not all is inadvertent by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 00:09 · Score: 1

Looks like someone doesn't realise that everyone and his mum is packing down here.
Re:Not all is inadvertent by zippthorne · 2013-10-21 00:11 · Score: 1

They don't do any more damage than the name-calling stereotypers.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
www is nothing special. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 00:13 · Score: 0

i think "www" is not a prefix.
"www" it is just the name of a machine on the "example.com" domain.
methinks it's just historic that the computer running a webserver software is given the
name "www".
Thank you for that by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 00:23 · Score: 0

What we REALLY needed was an example of the idiot who thinks that the method of filtering web pages was a good idea.
And you've demonstrated for us exactly that idiot. Well done and thanks.
www means web pages. If you wan the same site's dhcp service, you change www to dhcp. Simples.
Re:Not all is inadvertent by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-10-21 00:24 · Score: 1

OK, you can be "free" and dead. I'll be enjoying my slightly less "free" life.
Re:Not all is inadvertent by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-10-21 00:27 · Score: 1

"When Joining Yet Again was talking about paranoid gun nuts, he MUST HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ME."
Excuses and Misdirection by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 00:48 · Score: 0

This is just an excuse for why this form of censorship is having the "wrong" effect. Censorship always has the wrong effect. Censorship is wrong. If the website is violating the law, go after the site using the law and go through the courts. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and blocking websites assumes guilt without making a legitimate effort to see that the law is enforced.
They can spout all the crap they want about "load balancing and routing made this worse than it is!", but really it's just a distraction from the truth: arbitrary censorship is wrong.
"Oh, I punched you in the face, I'm sorry. Here, I meant to punch that other guy in the face, he's the 'right' person. So if I had only punched him in the face then I wouldn't have done anything wrong...right?"
SWEDEN!? by FriendlyLurker · 2013-10-21 00:57 · Score: 3, Informative

VPN via Sweden, are you freakin kidding me - you might as well cc all your data to GCHQ directly!? Sweden's NSA Spy Links “Deeply Troubling”, or check out the professors blog for ongoing abuses on all fronts by the Swedish authorities. Whatever cred Sweden may have established during the cold war years, they have more than used up and are still digging down. The country (well its political leaders) can't be trusted - not a good place to do business anymore.
If any country near the UK has some semblance of credibility, perhaps try Iceland as the first hop for your VPN. They are even trying to promote themselves as a naturally cooled server hub, which is nice...
1. Re:SWEDEN!? by AmiMoJo · 2013-10-21 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Of course Sweden is just as compromised as the UK, but that isn't the point. The VPN helps hide your identity, but there are still two dangers. There might be legal pressure put on the VPN provider, but Sweden actually has some quite strong protections. At least, scum like music industry parasites can't use civil courts to make them hand over data. The other danger is a spy agency monitoring both ends of the connection to try and identify you, but Sweden probably doesn't have the resources to do it.
  Iceland is probably the best, you are correct.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
2. Re:SWEDEN!? by FriendlyLurker · 2013-10-21 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  Sweden - NSA Codename "Sardine" - more than likely receives secret funding from the NSA to establish the infrastructure, just like the UK does. They may even recieve more funding than the UK given their gateway status to Russian internet traffic.
  Also check out the professor blog website I linked previously - you cannot trust Swedens perception of "strong protections" anymore - there are good reasons why Sweden is now rated below Botswana, Romania and Senegal in the WJP Rule of Law Index. Sad how bad it has got there, really.
3. Re:SWEDEN!? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh, security through delusion.
4. Re:SWEDEN!? by FriendlyLurker · 2013-10-21 23:19 · Score: 1
  
  Slightly offtopic - new information just in on Icelandic independence (or lack of).
finally www has a purpose by colfer · 2013-10-21 01:15 · Score: 1

Deplorable network competence there, but it does bring up an unrelated issue. Like most people I've been tending away the "www." in canonical site addresses, but it does have nice redundancy in meaning. Terseness is not always the bestness.
Re:Not all is inadvertent by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 01:25 · Score: 0

Bollox! Guns need to be licensed and unless you're in law enforcement or a registered hunter (or part of the gentry/farmer), you will not get one.
Re:Not all is inadvertent by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-10-21 01:30 · Score: 2

Last successful invasion: 1066.
Get back to me in a millennium, yank.
Well by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 01:36 · Score: 0

Human oversight cost money. I think the lawyers for the MPAA/etc probably knew this and counted on it when implementing their copyright schemes.
Knowing full well that companies would automate it, it's the most cost effective way so therefore it is predictable corporate behaviour.
Re:Not all is inadvertent by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 02:12 · Score: 0

The police will grant a shotgun license unless there is good reason not to. Sometimes, unfortunately, they will grant one anyway.
Re:Not all is inadvertent by TheCarp · 2013-10-21 02:39 · Score: 1

If they happened every other week they might be worth talking about. You are talking about something that happens less often than that, over a sample size of 300 million people in 3.97 million square miles. Anything that happens at least once a day over such a sample size is pretty fucking rare....and these massacres happen, maybe once or twice a year at most.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Dyndns service by fast+turtle · 2013-10-21 02:39 · Score: 1

What they are doing is enforcing their TOS against servers on residential lines - dynamically assigned IP's, in order to get either more money or convince the wastrel to move to another provider.
Sorry folks but this has nothing to do with a government bloc in place. It's just another breakage of the internet into little fiefdoms.

--
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
Re:I say keep it up. by CadentOrange · 2013-10-21 02:53 · Score: 1

Have never heard of them, but they look a little pricey.
Re:Not all is inadvertent by PRMan · 2013-10-21 03:05 · Score: 0

So having London bombed to toothpicks in WWII doesn't count?

--
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Re:Not all is inadvertent by Joining+Yet+Again · 2013-10-21 03:49 · Score: 3, Informative

As a successful invasion? No. Not unless 9/11 counts as a successful invasion of the US.
Although WW2 was over 5 years after the Battle of Britain, while the US has indentured itself for decades, so maybe 9/11 was a more effective attack. Thanks for making me think about this.
We-are-samurai dept. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 03:52 · Score: 0

"Well, then put the ships under manual control."
"There's no such thing anymore, Duke"
Re:Not all is inadvertent by TheRaven64 · 2013-10-21 05:22 · Score: 2

I don't shoot anymore (it's fun for a while, but it gets boring after a bit), but I never had problems getting access to shotguns or target rifles (including some fully and semi automatic) as a teenager in the UK. Handguns became illegal around this time, although there were some exemptions, such as for black-powder revolvers that kept most hobbyists happy (they take ages to reload, but you get half a dozen shots before you need to, which lets you put some holes in a target) and many of the rest moved to air pistols or carbines.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Not all is inadvertent by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 06:14 · Score: 0

Not sure how you define toothpicks, but no we weren't bombed that badly. I live in a house that was bombed in the 2nd world war, we believe a V1 exploded at the end (we live in Greenwich), and whilst London took a lot of damage in some areas, it was nothing compared to Hamburg, Dresden or Berlin. In comparison London looked like a rather heavy Facebook party had passed through the night before.