| ▲ | simonjgreen 6 hours ago |
| Noting this article skips over any discussion about why, or potentially (in the eyes of the law at least) legitimate reason an ISP might do this. Many ISPs in many countries are forced to do this for certain enforcement action that gets put upon them by their respective states for things such as age gating, censorship, monitoring, it varies state by state. And to be clear this is in no way an endorsement of the practice, and I am confident no ISP WANTS to do this. I am speaking here as the owner of a UK ISP (who does not currently do this). |
|
| ▲ | mqwdojhv5 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| If you're a UK ISP owner, you're almost certainly a RIPE NCC member, given the UK is within its regional scope. Therefore, you've probably spoken to other RIPE NCC members via mailing lists or meetings at least once. Since I also represent a provider that is a RIPE NCC member, I can object that not everybody shares the same ideology you noted. There are some providers that actually speak in favor of such over-regulation and censorship. Everybody can read and/or participate in the RIPE Discussion List, though, and you will be amazed by some responses from ISPs that speak in favor of such measures. But the good news is that at least the majority (for now) is against it. |
|
| ▲ | Geezus_42 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm pretty confident ISPs do want hijack DNS since they've been doing it for decades in order to push ads to their customers. |
| |
| ▲ | gruez 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Examples? | | |
| ▲ | dspillett 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There were certainly a number of ISPs in the UK that tested ways to inject ads in content in the 2000s, there was quite a hoo-hah about it in some forums. That was usually by modifying HTML content in transit via transparent proxies though, not DNS poisoning, but it shows that the intent exist{ed|s}. This is one of the reasons that HTTPS-everywhere is a good idea even if you aren't concerned about snooping in general. | | |
| ▲ | paranoidrobot 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Some mobile phone network carriers would inject certain PII (such as your mobile number) into HTTP request headers sent to ad networks. I'm sure they still do it, but by requiring the site to have some extra request to be made instea. Some carriers also passed info in these headers to be used to make billing calls to the Telco, such as subscribing to premium services with minimal (if any) consent from the user. I got stung by this years ago. An ad for mobile ringtones showed up on some news site I visited on my phone, I scrolled past without clicking. Next minute I get a text telling me I've subscribed signed up to a (iirc) $25/month ringtone plan and that it'd show up on my phone bill. It took an hour on the phone to my carrier to block the charges and get a refund. The ringtone company kept messaging me for a year that I needed to contact them and "fix" the issue. | |
| ▲ | robjan 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | An example I remember is when Virgin Media replaced any DNS queries returning NXDOMAIN with their own "search page" plastered with ads. https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2021/03/advanced-network-error-sear... | | |
| ▲ | dspillett 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ah, yes, I forgot the NXDOMAIN hijacking. I was thinking about interfering with existing sites. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mafuy 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Deutsche Telekom (largest ISP in Germany) did this, not sure if they still do or were ordered to stop by court yet |
|
|
|
| ▲ | saidnooneever 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| this is valid, in NL most DNS is also heavy monitored and intercepted to do blocks if mandated etc. if you want to get around it u can tunnel ur tlsdns thingy to another place and they essentially cannot intercept it, they can still block the IPs it resolves to so its hit and miss depending on how the other end is implemented. its usually not nefarious, that is just the simpelest (and usually, not always) wrong explanation. people who think this is not normal probarbly didnt experience what kind of shit u could find on the pre google pre monitored internet. for sure shit u do not want your kids to find. if u dont understand, then likely u dont have kids and very weird fetishes... |
|
| ▲ | NordStreamYacht 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | pjc50 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Huh, tried this on my phone and I get an error "DNS points to local or disallowed IP" page from Cloudflare. Either they've experienced some sort of nameserver registry level takedown or they've messed up their DNS. | |
| ▲ | numpad0 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Shouldn't it be politically problematic to say a woman looking for pornography has reasons to be troubled, in a democratic and secular state? Assuming, you had cues for the gender & intent of the author, which I don't, but otherwise it's even more horrible to think about. | |
| ▲ | neuroticnews25 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why she? Karthikey is a male name and the youtube streams show a male face. (Of course it's just a weak signal that can be overriden with an autor's declaration!) | |
| ▲ | RockRobotRock 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That is incorrect. It's a generic torrent site. | |
| ▲ | vasco 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What's wrong with downloading porn? | | |
| ▲ | figmert 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Could be that porn is banned, or could but that the problem is the torrent side, not the porn side. | |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| ▲ | witnessme 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Why do you assume the others have same ethical compass as you? I hope everyone has the same compass but we have seen again and again trust being broken. |
| |
