Slashdot Mirror
BT, Sky, and Virgin Enforce UK Porn Blocks By Hijacking Browsers
An anonymous reader writes with this story at Ars Technica, excerpting: BT, Sky, and Virgin Media are hijacking people's web connections to force customers to make a decision about family-friendly web filters. The move comes as the December deadline imposed by prime minister David Cameron looms, with ISPs struggling to get customers to say yes or no to the controversial adult content blocks. The messages, which vary by ISP, appear during browser sessions when a user tries to access any website. BT, Sky,TalkTalk and Virgin Media are required to ask all their customers if they want web filters turned on or off, with the government saying it wants to create a "family friendly" Internet free from pornography, gambling, extreme violence and other content inappropriate for children. But the measures being taken by ISPs have been described as "completely unnecessary" and "heavy handed" by Internet rights groups. The hijacking works by intercepting requests for unencrypted websites and rerouting a user to a different page. ISPs are using the technique to communicate with all undecided customers. Attempting to visit WIRED.co.uk, for example, could result in a user being redirected to a page asking them about web filtering. ISPs cannot intercept requests for encrypted websites in the same way.
They enforce the law by breaking the law. Sounds like a good plan if you want to piss everyone off.
But only if they are the ones doing it. Who watches the watchers?
If this is legal I can only assume it is also legal to hijack these companie's routers and servers. Right? If it is done in good faith. To protect children.
Set it up to no filter, prefer that I get asked instead of it being defaulted to on needing an opt out.
Not that arsed they hijacked my session to do that.
"free from pornography, gambling, extreme violence and other content inappropriate for children"
And I want a user friendly internet, free from governments, corporations, extreme advertising and other content inappropriate for ANYONE.
Cameron, please, for sanity's sake: Stop talking. Or, better, stop breathing.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Oh my God your ISP is redirecting one web request to get an opt-in or opt-out from you, BIG FUCKING DEAL, my router does worse than this.
Let's talk about how this is "hijacking the internet" shall we? Oh, I see we are.
A handful of people have reported that the "would you like to enable parental filters" message crops up. It's onbe of those setup screensthat a lot if ISPs use for initial setup.
Seriously, what's in it for the ISP to push these things? It makes their service less useful and costs the ISP money. Filtering requires servers to run the filters.
Is it not possible, that perhaps the router was reset or something was changed at the exchange and that triggered the setup messag to appear? Click "no" and carry on browsing.
Intentionally running a MITM attack against your customers aside, there is a huge problem with the legislation to begin with. There is a valid answer, and has been for quite a while, for people that want to keep their kids away from porn without the heavy handed Government regulation.
Cybersitter and NetNanny are not for me, but if I had young kids I may use that type of service if I was worried about their access. These companies get paid to manage content for you, and are _completely_voluntary so don't impose restrictions on everyone. And if those services are not available in the UK, or not good enough in the UK, why not create the company and let the free market do the work? As bad as the US has become, I'm glad I'm not from the UK.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Is redirection really that hard to defeat? Can I do it with my own hosts file?
beetlejuice!
beetlejuice!
beetlejuice!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Much of the will to make the internet what it is today has come from the perfectly understandable desire and curiosity to see porn*. These companies should know better.
* - Not condoning in any way anything done with non-adults involved - this should go without saying, but not anymore, not as the world is today.
Make your own little child walled garden and piss off already.
If you want to be a lazy parent and not explain what things are, go right ahead. But you can fund it yourselves. Pricks.
I can't wait till this shit explodes in the coming year or two and gets completely dropped.
Brilliant idea.
Now instead of offering the parents an option to enable a porn filter, little Billy goes to a random kids website and gets asked "Do you want to watch porn?".
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Much like Australia being too full of prison convict spooge for violent games, it seems the British are too sensitive to acknowledge that sex exists. Again. Ah well, good thing you've elected people who know what's best for your intellectually inferior populace.
It makes their service less useful
Conservative parents might disagree. They see filtering as a "feature" that lets them use the web as a babysitter without running quite as much of a risk of exposing children to things that parents think their children shouldn't see without context, such as Goatse or Tubgirl.
with the government saying it wants to create a "family friendly" Internet free from pornography, gambling, extreme violence and other content inappropriate for children
Would this exclude, say, a site containing a drawing of kids playing a gambling game with a toy gun?
"Bing -- because everyone forgets you can search for naughty pictures with us."
Use HTTPS. The article mentions:
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
We, as nerds, should be raising the bar and striving for a HTTPS-only web. The NSA wiretapping and ISPs injecting garbage into the data stream are good enough reasons already. Even HTTPS is not perfect, but it certainly would throw some extra endurance to those monsters. We want as many data channels as possible with end-to-end encryption.
My brief experience with this was really rather annoying. the filters activated a couple of weeks ago. A bunch of websites (inc my porn) just gave 500 errors. I was not taken to a page to explain what was happening. I only realised that my Cameronwall had been activated when my friends confirmed that they could still access the sites I could not. I logged into my BT account, found the part where I turn them back off again and did so only to be told that it would take up to 24 hours for the change to take effect. Additionally my partner's Macbook started to give a range of weird errors when connecting to a variety of webpages. I'm not overly techy but it seemed our router was remembering the redirect and still using it for a bunch of sites (even though the block had been removed by this point) and the macbook was refusing to display the sites it was being redirected to because it had detected a suspicious re-direct.
I'm curious about the security implications of them hijacking your session.
How is a one-time HTTP hijack worse than a captive portal showing a click-through TOS page when you open your laptop in a restaurant with open Wi-Fi?
The sodding "no thanks" button would just not work so you had to accept the request, then log back into the BT portal to disable it again. Then it finally went.
What also finally went was my patience with BT, ordered my MAC code and migrating to Andrews and Arnold.
BT, you lost a customer over this. Idiots.
I must say I've never needed a filter to avoid porn on the internet. I'm not sure why the government feels it must block access to something I don't wish to see in the first place, unless it ultimately has ulterior motives, intending to derail the free flow of information necessary for a participative democracy in the name of public morality. It's ironic that a government which recently ruled that health practitioners must refer patients for abortion in spite of their individual moral objections is now suddenly concerned about access to porn. I find it more believable that the ultimate goal is to restrict access to information embarrassing to the ruling party, using the ostensible reason of porn filtering to silence dissent.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
A hosts file has many uses, but defeating a captive portal isn't one of them. A competent captive portal will produce "Connection refused" on all ports of all other IP addresses until you've completed the authentication and preference-setting process.
The ISPs hate this regulatory bullshit but know that the alternative doing this ineffective show of allegiance would be more draconian legislation.
What you're seeing here is ISPs saying, "The government wants me to ask you this. Please feel free to tell them to fuck off. In fact, if you ignore our question - which we shall ask precisely once - we'll assume that's your answer. Please don't vote Tory next time. Or New Tory. Or Pound Shop Tory. Oh crap... Greens?"
And the UK government blocks are rendered irrelevant.
I don't have a filter on my bookcase.
I don't have a filter on my movie collection.
I don't have a filter on my video game collection.
Why do I need one on my Internet connection?
I work in schools. Nobody's ever really given me a satisfactory answer that doesn't include pushing parental responsibility to a third party.
I'm with Virgin. They haven't asked me yet. The only time I've ever been asked such things is when I signed up to a mobile network and they asked me if I wanted to turn off the filter on the connection. Given that I work IT, the answer was yes. I want as few third parties between me and my service providers as possible, thanks. But the number of times I'll be using 4G to go looking for anything is going to be slim.
By all means ask... but it would have been so much easier to not ask and let those who worry about it fix it for themselves.
DNS and HTTP to all IP addresses other than your ISP's customer support producing "Connection refused".
this would not even happen if they were using a different DNS such as google, it only happens with their DNS server
If all other IP addresses give "Connection refused" for customers who haven't yet expressed a censoring preference, then you can't even get to Google Public DNS (8.8.4.4 and 8.8.8.8).
Well, then why don't Conservative parents fuck off, do their own parenting
Because the cost of living has increased to the point where parents have to work instead of staying at home and parenting.
I see a small percentage of the population complain about something, and if they come off as being on the side of a society approved message ie; "porn is bad" then they can get their way, an inordinate amount of power for a small whiny percentage of the population.
While I understand that parents don't want their young children watching anal fisting porn, it's troubling parents choose to allow others to be responsible for that control.
I see this a lot, parents complaining about the need for more controls and laws to protect their kids, shifting the responsibility from personal to societal.
Or is that just the media using a "society approved" "we care about the children" propaganda message?
Did you know the CIA says it only takes %3 of a population to effect change, what does that say about the other %97?
Erica Chenoweth wrote an interesting paper on this, she found that for peaceful change, it took a larger percentage of the population to get involved, closer to %5 or higher, but for a violent change a smaller percentage is all that was needed, recall the CIA percentage I just mentioned?
She also found that peaceful change lasted longer and had better results than violent change, gives you an insight into how and what the CIA is about, hence so many "student revolutions" in foreign countries that end poorly and destabilized regions.
Personal responsibility is a sign of a mature person, and a mature society, increasing laws, regulations and societal pressures is the opposite.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
The UK have become so politically correct. I remember when ol' Blighty was an amazing place to live and work. Now? Not so much.
- The police in the UK cannot even kick down the doors of muslim suspects because they might interrupt their prayer and offend them.
- The UK porn filter is stupid and easily routed around
- The UK is so politically correct, that over the next couple of years, UKIP will make great gains -- beyond the by-elections already made
- UK citizens are sick and tired of the nanny state, sick and tired of muslim immigrants re-writing social mores, dictating special foods in schools, halal this, halal that...
The UK better wake up and fairly quickly. Political correctness is a disease of the highest order.
CAPTCHA: subsume
'Nuff said. Using an unencripted connection? You are fucking BEGGING for it to be hijacked.
How are you going to actually your HTTPS-only web sites when every single site you visit gives "Certificate error" until the householder has confirmed his censoring preference? This happens on open hotspots in hotels and restaurants, for example. The answer to "Why is HTTPS Everywhere preventing me from joining this hotel/school/other wireless network?" in the HTTPS Everywhere FAQ recommends visiting an HTTP-only site first in order to be redirected to the login page.
..with the government saying it wants to create a "family friendly" Internet free from pornography, gambling, extreme violence and other content inappropriate for children
Point #1: You do not 'own' the entire Internet
Point #2: It's not up to you to 'clean up' the Internet
Point #3: It has been proven over and over and over again that 'net nanny' and other censorship does not work
Point #4: Governments will subvert any censorship technology for their own propaganda and agenda purposes, destroying the original (misguided) intent
Point #5: Regardless of whatever you're telling your citizens, you likely will end up discriminating against people who don't want your filtering
Point #6: Ultimately your efforts will fail, for reasons of Point #3, and because people will always find a way around it regardless.
..and finally, not a 'point', but just my personal opinion on the matter: I think any government that engages in censorship are a bunch of fucking assholes who don't deserve to be in power. Leave the Internet alone and let people decide for themselves what they do and do not want their families and themselves to encounter or do there. Police UK-hosted sites against outright illegal activity or content? Yes. Make moral decisions for everyone else? Hell, no.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Subscribe to Slashdot and you'll see the secure URL.
If I don't say "yes", the answer is NO. Period.
The Net is dead. There's nothing we can do now, if ever. It was fun while it lasted.
... because that's obviously the least convenient time and I'll be most annoyed and most likely to ignore it! Oh, no, wait, I bet their logic is "that's the time I'm definitely sitting there and watching". Either way, I press "exit" and go on. It's annoying to get ads on a service I'm paying for (as opposed to ads on broadcast TV, that's just the way it is).
It will not be long that the UK government will choose to put any site they do not like into the black list.
In a few years time, the internet will contain government-approved material only.
If you want to read an opinion that is different than the government's, you will not be able to without turning the filter off.
If you turn the filter off, then you might be flagged as a terrorist.
The sad part in all this is not what the governments are trying to do though...it is the people's reaction. There is a largs percentage of people willing to accept tyrrany. This thread is full of them...look at all the posts that downplay the signifance of this filter equating it to wifi hotspot login...
Enough said. I nearly made the 'l' an 'r' but I must think of the children, as Dave Camoron the suppository salesman has said.
On y va, qui mal y pense!
I assume that the ISPs in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have a blacklist of pornographic websites? I think some parental filters in the United States of America use a blacklist that is updated frequently.
OpenDNS also operates a blacklist of pornographic websites, I think.
Cover the UK with cameras and now forbid what you are allowed to watch in the privacy of your own home.
Fuck Cameron. Seriously. This is insulting.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
Step 1: Pray that the foundational assumptions of state-of-the-art crypto remain true (no P=NP or quantum computer cracking nonsense, please).
Step 2: Rent/buy/lease/colo a VPS or dedicated server in a country that respects users' freedom and doesn't tamper with their network connection.
Step 3: Set up a VPN on said server.
Step 4: Use the latest crypto algs you can get your hands on; apply security patches aggressively; and watch out for notices of weaknesses.
Step 5: Use the VPN on absolutely every device you own: at work, on your phone, on your home router, etc.
Step 6: ???
Step 7: Eat My Bitstream! No more ISP interference.
IMO Step 1 is the shakiest, but it's all we've got for now.
This is not censorship; it is a free choice. If you are calling this censorship, please go grow a brain.
While i think this is a poor way to put the choice in front of their users (as the first to get to that redirected page may easily not be the billpayer), i can respect the effort to make it easier to protect children without forcing censorship on everyone. Like it or not, the science is clear that porn can be both addicting and destructive, particularly to those whose brains are still developing. So, just like we try to restrict children's access to nicotine, alcohol and other brain/body damaging inputs, we should at least be making some effort to protect stupid kids from porn. The government finds it worthwhile to bar 13 year olds from walking into strip clubs and porn shops, so it only makes sense that they should make an effort to keep those kids off of porn web sites too (which are generally worse than strip clubs).
Yes, we all know that such prohibition is never perfect. Kids still get cigarettes and alcohol and porn anyway. Perfect enforcement of any law is never an option. So our inability to enforce this perfectly is not a valid critique of the effort.
"Redirection by DNS When a client requests a website, DNS is queried by the browser. The firewall will make sure that only the DNS server(s) provided by DHCP can be used by unauthenticated clients (or, alternatively, it will forward all DNS requests by unauthenticated clients to that DNS server). This DNS server will return the IP address of the Captive Portal page as a result of all DNS lookups. In order to perform redirection by DNS the captive portal is using DNS poisoning to perform a man-in-the-middle attack. To limit the impact of DNS poisoning typically a TTL of 0 is used." from (your source) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Since the DNS *is* "poisoned" (redirected), hosts SHOULD work... since via hosts, you're not even USING DNS @ ALL & thus, bypassing it...
Care to comment?
It works for many things, & DNS poisoning's one of them (ONLY thing I'm NOT "dead up sure of", is the fact you have to hit a "portal" & validate there, 1st - would the firewall redirect take over, redirecting you to DNS then? Sounds it - however, as YOU of all people know, hosts can BYPASS DNS ENTIRELY, normally, by not using it @ all for host-domain name translation to IP address... hence, my point here).
Interesting & DIFFERENT/UNUSUAL case here - so, I'd like your feedback in fact.
APK
P.S.=> I.E.-> So, by bypassing DNS entirely as hosts can (never making requests to it), or possibly, using a *DIFFERENT* DNS server (in your IP stack settings + router)... apk
Apparently, by being "sucked in" to their portal system in the 1st place *IS* the problem from what you're saying but... see my 'p.s.' below!
Then from your explanation, the website has "control" of you via redirects via DNS in the case I pointed out (which IS key per my p.s. below).
You seem confident though, per your explanation & apparently experience also here (don't have any myself & *IF* I did with that type of site? I'd stop using them, personally...).
APK
P.S.=> Still, seems rather "odd" that WHEN I DON'T MAKE *ANY* DNS REQUESTS @ ALL, that they could stop me thus (unless the redirects you noted have a 'default' to redirect when you don't use *ANY* DNS @ ALL!
Pertinent quote is this one:
"In order to perform redirection by DNS the captive portal is using DNS poisoning to perform a man-in-the-middle attack"
THAT IS THE "KEY" HERE (since hosts DO get you around std. DNS poisoning - by NOT using DNS whatsoever for host-domain name resolutions to IP Address).
THUS - IMPORTANT QUESTION:
HOW CAN THEY DETERMINE *IF* YOU MADE DNS REQUESTS @ ALL IN THE 1st PLACE? Especially when you DON'T make any (as hosts allow you to do) to get past/keep you safe from, dns redirect poisoning as the quote above notes...
apk
"As Prime Minister David Cameron announced, we are required to ask ALL of our customers by the end of 2014 whether they wish to opt in or out of filtering of materials deemed offensive by the government's approved third-party monitors. As we have not yet received a response from you to our previous inquiries about this, we are now required to take additional steps to ensure that you have seen and responded to this question."
Or at least that's how I'd phrase it.
fencepost
just a little off
Comcast was doing this to me in an attempt to "upgrade" my modem to one of their wireless hotspots. Why browsing a site a msg was injected into my browser along the lines of "You need to upgrade to enjoy the fullspeed of the internet". After a couple of days they stopped.
How do the ISP know that they are not intercepting a RESTful GET request, and interrupting up some application?
I bet most of you don't know that Branson is gay.
True story.
He sucked my cock in a bathroom in a bar in Hong Kong.
If anyone really doesn't want their porn, I'll have it.
The only thing children need protection from are people who think they know what children need protecting from.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
So blackmailing someone to have sex with you isn't rape because she technically consented. Not like that rape rape that's really bad so blackmail rape is A O K, gotcha.
but no one is using the filters in the first place! so that going to be a lot of flag terrorists! so no the internet will not have gov approved material because no one will be using the filters!!! look it up only 4% are using it! check your facts before posting plz
stop fearmongering and check out how many are using the filter and you will see why many are not that worry, how can the people on the internet only read government approved material if most in the UK have there filters off? and its a fact to that most have turn the filters off check out the offcom report about it, also the filters are opt in not opt out meaning you have to turn the filters on to have a censored internet, its clear to me you dont understand what your talking about and only care about your own ego and saying people are accepting the tyrrany when that is not true at all. also saying this thread is full with people like that is highly offensive just saying
The dark night of Fascism is always descending on America, but it always falls on Europe.
I'm on BT and I got asked. Once, just once. I said "no filter", obviously.
Thing is, how did they know it was me, and not my 12-year-old daughter?
OK, so I don't HAVE a 12-year-old daughter, but the point remains. Anybody could have been at the PC when it asked the question; there was absolutely no check whatsoever done on the identity of the person clicking. Just a simple "Yes"/"No" choice. It could have been me, could have been my (non-existent) wife, could have been any of my (non-existent) kids, could have been the next-door neighbour come to check something while their internet is down, could have been my aged Mum, could have been anybody.
I guess the ISPs really aren't interested in anything beyond enforcing the letter of the government's request.
I know for a fact that Virgin Media have the ability to call the phone number of the account owner to ask them something, considering this is an automatic system wouldn't this make more sense?
While enforcing porn blocks on the Internet is fine in my eyes, I don't care for anything like that anyway but is that why virgin keep adding 'additional features' onto my bill when I know there is no way I watched them and there's no one else in the house?? Take it off the Internet, put it on customers bills instead?
If your road surface state sensor stations start submitting their measurements to a page asking them if they want to view porn or not, it's time to beef up the hardware so that it can use SSL... Oh, it's not BT's cost, not their problem. And if people crash on icy road because the info board displayed the last available measurement "Road:Dry" when it iced over, it's surely not the telcos that will go to prison.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
It will not be long that the UK government will choose to put any site they do not like into the black list.
That's how it is now. The "porn" sites are on the list, but the religious sites aren't, and their works are much more harmful to children, least because they include material which could be considered pornography under the government's own guidelines but primarily because of all the violence with specious justification.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This will backfire like a well fed big dog that hasn't been out all day. If you railroad people to use your broken, half-baked, unreliable networks and render our highly reliable self-contained devices that we pay for inoperative, well what is to stop us from promoting our machines to be APs with your MAC, your AP name and a big path to nowhere while we drink Long Island Iced Tea in your bar and surf 4G on our Note 4? Go ahead, block my phone too. Maybe you want to call your bankruptcy attorney to discuss your business model first. I was in a Sheraton last week that could not come up up with 2.5M down or get above 80Kbps up on $10 a day "10Mbps premium" service. I took the laptop out in the hall and wandered around too. The pipe was fried everywhere. If my MiFi AP had been blocked and my ability to work affected as a result the whole chain would have earned red-tag status on the extended stay far away plan. Some people just don't think things through.
See subject: & *IF*/when it gets one that's not "hardcoded" as acceptable (OR from a list of "acceptables") - in any event, use a site like that & you get what you get (I get it).
* Like I said earlier though, it's NOT something I'd end up using myself personally (the site doing it, that is).
APK
P.S.=> Let me guess: This is LARGELY a combination of clientside script-driven work (like in "registered 'luser'" accounts here) as well @ these "captive portals" in combination with server-side mechanics you've described.
(Let me know please when you can - this isn't one I am familar with as to what's going on in it, both client AND server-side, mechanics-wise... thanks!) apk
It seems to me that the solution is not to interfere with the service they're providing to me, which is the service I ASKED FOR, in the first place.
The only reason they throw up this page is because in their mind, you haven't finished ASKING FOR service. Until they know what specific kind of service you prefer, namely a filtered service or an unfiltered service, they don't provide any service.
So, this ISN'T some website, but rather a way of getting online period? The "filtering preferences" sound like a javascript mechanic to me (like having a registered account here on /., which DOES use javascript - pretty much/almost).
(Again - see subject, & thanks for your fast replies...)
APK
P.S.=> This sounds like, for example, an AOL type website (and internet access "complete package") - right? You use them as BOTH an ISP and as a gateway to getting online (if so, NOW it all makes sense)... apk
See my subject-line: That hosts are a "panacea"? I never *ONCE* have!
* Hairyfeet made that mistake, & so did BarbaraHudson/TomHudson - & neither could show proof of it in my literally stating "hosts are a panacea" or *anything remotely* like that...
E.G. (that I have stated, for instance): Hosts won't work vs. BGP exploits -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Yes - I *am* COMPLETELY reasonable - it's trolls around here that aren't (especially when I ask them to show me, for instance, that hosts do less than adblock AND that hosts do what they do, less efficiently than adblock OR that hosts are effective vs. DNS issues) - however/again: Hosts do *NOT* "cure it all" (nothing does) but Hosts ARE an effective defense, a speedup tool, they aid reliability (vs. downed or dns poisoned/redirected dns servers), & hosts even add anonymity (vs. dns request logs) - but I've NEVER, *EVER* said hosts "cure it all"... apk
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit updates favorite sites overcoming that & makes them faster via local in-memory IP address resolution from host-domain names... safer than DNS for a LONG time (& no need to call out to remote DNS = faster + secured vs. redirection).
It works, using less (moving parts complexity + room for breakdown OR exploit, less electrical power, CPU cycles, & RAM than other "so-called 'solutions'" that toss on all of that, including added messagepassing overheads + operating from a less cpu serviced ring of privelege, usermode, vs. hosts in kernelmode).
This *IS* how I use & take advantage of it since it's a native part with LESS moving parts, doing more with less too, to the point of raising its default priority in the register for even MORE speed from it, plus VERY rarely calling out to DNS period (sub 4% of the time per my router logs analyzed - I do stick by favorite sites a lot, since imo, they're better than others).
However, as to DNS: Now, but when I do call it as I don't ATTEMPT to "cache the entire internet" here locally, in hosts?
It's to OpenDNS, BOTH in my router + IP stack settings for that, & it's patched vs. the Kaminsky flaw (99.999% of ISP DNS aren't), uses DNSSEC to its upstream updaters, & is filtered vs. threats!
(There's MY way of overcoming having to use adblock which doesn't do its job fully by default anymore, crippled as it is, & doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts can for more speed, security, reliability, & yes - even anonymity... Plus, hosts do all that, with less + more efficiently by far).
P.S.=> Lastly/FINALLY: Per my subject-line - I don't enjoy others attempting to put words in my mouth I never said - glad to see you're clarifying that now... & words put into someone's mouth, hey - nobody likes it (seriously, who does?)
... apk
I'm with virgin and this happened a few months ago to me.
I have a script set up downloading a webpage containing my IP address then emailing it to me if it's changed - the webpage request was hijacked and I ended up being emailed the parental guidence webpage! It's a good thing virgin don't change your IP address very often or I could have been locked out.