Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community - Reply to Topic

Thread: [Ars] CenturyLink blocked its customers’ Internet access in order to show an ad Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
12-31-2018 09:44 AM
Asmodian
Quote: Originally Posted by xJumper View Post
So how exactly did they do this? Some kind of DNS proxy setup in their router/modem package? All the more reason to not use ISP provided hardware.

My ISP had something like that setup so I had to agree to a bunch of terms and stuff before I could use the internet, I just VPN'ed past their DNS proxy and was able to use the net for like a month until I found the time to read it all, agree and sign.
They don't need any hardware on your end of the connection. They control the hardware your router plugs into so of course they can do whatever they want to your traffic, no matter what hardware you use at home.

This blocks the VPN as well, they cannot spy on or inject data into the VPN traffic but your VPN client doesn't get the expected response from whoever you connect to, because the ISP is injecting the ad instead of letting the response from the VPN server through. Your VPN connection goes down and you cannot connect to a VPN again before acknowledging the ad so they let your normal traffic through.
12-26-2018 06:36 AM
rbarrett96 "Lawsuit Inc. If the FTC doesn't do anything about this one, seems net neutrality really is dead and the FTC is powerless to stop them."



The FTC has never had any power. They don't make laws.
12-20-2018 01:17 PM
New green Weapons of psychological warfare are a means to use communication technology to sway public opinion.

I see nothing wrong with Utah’s state law that informs parents about available tools that they can use as they see fit.

I see everything wrong with deactivating a service to promote an advertisement in this manner.
12-20-2018 12:42 PM
xJumper So how exactly did they do this? Some kind of DNS proxy setup in their router/modem package? All the more reason to not use ISP provided hardware.

My ISP had something like that setup so I had to agree to a bunch of terms and stuff before I could use the internet, I just VPN'ed past their DNS proxy and was able to use the net for like a month until I found the time to read it all, agree and sign.
12-20-2018 10:56 AM
mothergoose729
Quote: Originally Posted by 7thOmen View Post
Why are 'we' mad at CenturyTel? Why are 'we' NOT mad at the fact that there needs to be another law that reduces and/or replaces parents responsibilities? How about we take accountability for our own actions instead of allowing the creation of some nanny state?


"Uncle Sam, mah kids found teh pron! Oh, heavens me, please do somethin' so I don't have to and let me get back to my self-centered life, puhleeease!"


Tragic...


Omen
More ludicrous still is the fear of sex in the first place. Violent or degrading porn is one thing, but what way do teenagers need to be protected from graphic sex?

Quote: Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post
But parents are liable and accountable just like they always were, the law doesn't change one iota about that, you still seem to be putting words and intentions in the law that simply aren't there and with that you're making a big deal out of nothing. If a future law becomes intrusive or nanny state like, then I'll agree with you, but this is just providing information that the parents are 100% free to do what they want with it, including nothing, and said information could have been accomplished with a single sentence on a single monthly bill if it weren't for this particular ISP to mess it up due to their commercial interests in the specific Norton package offer.
It's a legislative bazooka to tackle what is objectively a non issue. There is already software available to filter internet content on a local network, that would be just as ineffective and silly as what the ISP is offering here.
12-19-2018 11:15 AM
7thOmen
Quote: Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post
But parents are liable and accountable just like they always were, the law doesn't change one iota about that, you still seem to be putting words and intentions in the law that simply aren't there and with that you're making a big deal out of nothing. If a future law becomes intrusive or nanny state like, then I'll agree with you, but this is just providing information that the parents are 100% free to do what they want with it, including nothing, and said information could have been accomplished with a single sentence on a single monthly bill if it weren't for this particular ISP to mess it up due to their commercial interests in the specific Norton package offer.

Fair enough.


Although your first sentence shows me how dire this issue truly is.


A couple of things have become clear to me; that there does not seem to be a way for me to articulate my thought process in a manner you can understand, and that OCN is not the correct forum for me to attempt to pursue clarity.


I pass the Conch to you for any final words as I am finished with this.


Omen
12-19-2018 10:41 AM
tpi2007
Quote: Originally Posted by 7thOmen View Post
Spoiler!

But parents are liable and accountable just like they always were, the law doesn't change one iota about that, you still seem to be putting words and intentions in the law that simply aren't there and with that you're making a big deal out of nothing. If a future law becomes intrusive or nanny state like, then I'll agree with you, but this is just providing information that the parents are 100% free to do what they want with it, including nothing, and said information could have been accomplished with a single sentence on a single monthly bill if it weren't for this particular ISP to mess it up due to their commercial interests in the specific Norton package offer.
12-19-2018 10:05 AM
miklkit It's Utah. This is what they want for all of us. The Salem Witch Hunts will be back in vogue if they have their way.
12-19-2018 09:56 AM
7thOmen
Quote: Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post
Again, this law isn't meant to be a substitute of anything, go read it, it just institutes a legal obligation on the ISP's part to inform parents that there are options available for something that they may deem useful in their parenting. That's it. Nothing more. It's just to provide information.

You still inherently possess too much of an "IT view" of the world, where just about everybody should know how to formulate the question of whether there is a technical way to filter certain websites from loading. Laws are made for everybody, including people who need to use computers but are very 'analogue' about it, and those that don't have "peers at work" because they are self-employed, nor work for a mid-large company that has anything resembling an "IT department", and believe it or not, many people don't feel any need to have Facebook. Sometimes in order to know where to look, you need to be made aware that certain things exist. Then it becomes obvious. The law isn't replacing parents' responsibilities, it's just meant to inform them, give them more information, I don't really see what problem that entails.

The bold. Why is it any obligation of the ISP to have to inform parents? Shouldn't the parents be liable for sourcing their own information? Where is the accountability?


Sadly, my view of the world has little to do with "IT view", but I digress. How hard is it to ask potentially knowledgeable people in any forum or venue about "how to prevent my children from seeing nudity and adult content on the internet" (at the risk of being cheeky, please note the lack of technicality in that)? Clearly the answer must be 'very', because laws/rules had to be created to ease the burden of asking such a seemingly difficult question. That begs the next question, "Why the difficulty?" Should not a parent be willing to give up life and limb to protect their children? What is different here? Perhaps my sarcastic quote (from my initial post) wasn't too far off the mark?



It is the fact that governments are asked to, or feel compelled to, create these rules and regulations to protect those who should (and could) be accountable for their own protections. If the rule was not created, there would not be a news post about CenturyTel angering people. 'We' do not need more rules, especially when common sense should dictate our course of actions.



The problem is the precedence that is set here. Eventually, thanks to rules and regulation such as this, parents will just come (continue?) to rely on 'the village' to raise their kids. This can not possibly be healthy for future generations.



Before the goal posts get moved, let us just stick to this solitary example.


Omen




Edited for clarity.
12-19-2018 08:17 AM
tpi2007
Quote: Originally Posted by 7thOmen View Post
Laws and rules like this become a substitute for parents doing their due diligence in child rearing.
Twenty years ago, I would agree that there were was little to no choice for content filtering. Things have changed since then. A mother or father can inquire with their peers at work, their IT department, on Facebook, perform their own simple web searches, etc., etc. There is a multitude of resources available for unsavvy members of our species.

Now 'we' have to have laws or (FCC) rules created because parents can't or won't be bothered with their duties and obligations to their children.
Hence, my sarcasm in quotes.


Omen

Again, this law isn't meant to be a substitute of anything, go read it, it just institutes a legal obligation on the ISP's part to inform parents that there are options available for something that they may deem useful in their parenting. That's it. Nothing more. It's just to provide information.

You still inherently possess too much of an "IT view" of the world, where just about everybody should know how to formulate the question of whether there is a technical way to filter certain websites from loading. Laws are made for everybody, including people who need to use computers but are very 'analogue' about it, and those that don't have "peers at work" because they are self-employed, nor work for a mid-large company that has anything resembling an "IT department", and believe it or not, many people don't feel any need to have Facebook. Sometimes in order to know where to look, you need to be made aware that certain things exist. Then it becomes obvious. The law isn't replacing parents' responsibilities, it's just meant to inform them, give them more information, I don't really see what problem that entails.
This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off