...Just don't use your ISP's DNS.
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
386 points (95.3% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54758 readers
378 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Sadly doesn't work for gov level blocks that look at the SNI rather than blocking at DNS level
Edit: correction from ESNI to SNI
You mean SNI, not ESNI. ESNI is the Encrypted Server Name Indication that gets around that, though the newer ECH (Encrypted Client Hello) is better in many ways. Not all sites support either though.
If I utilise a DNS provider who supports ECH (mullvad) with a browser that supports ECH (Librewolf) will I still not be able to access certain websites? I haven't come across a website blocked by my ISP yet so don't know
Most ISP blocking is pretty superficial, usually just at the DNS level, you should be fine in the vast majority of cases. While parsing for the SNI flag on the client hello is technically possible, it's computationally expensive at scale, and generally avoided outside of enterprise networks.
With that siad, When in doubt, VPN out. ;)
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I don’t know where you’re from and therefore don’t know what laws affect you but unless the ISP is involved in the media game (i.e HBO & AT&T) they don’t care about restricting access. In fact, they’re against it in most scenarios because if a competitor that doesn’t restrict access to piracy related websites exists, that competitor is likely to siphon customers from ISPs who impose restrictions.
On top of that, most ISPs do the absolute bare minimum to restrict your access so that you can bypass it easily, the most common being the modification of DNS records which you can easily bypass by changing your resolver.
TL:DR blame your lawmakers not your isp
The DNS modification is slightly off. Some ISPs check UDP packets since they are insecure and will modify query results regardless of the DNS server you are sending to. Mediacom is known to do this for their billing and DMCA systems. They use DNS redirection to assist in MITMing the connection to load their own certificate to your browser. With that done, they can prepend their own Javascript to the response they receive from whatever web server you are trying to contact. That's how they get their data usage and DMCA popups loaded when you load up whatever site.
ISP mitm sounds infuriating
Even if it is not being done for a malicious reason, it is still a malicious practice. Websites can help prevent this by adopting wildcard Subject Alternate Names in their certificates thereby making the redirection much less likely to succeed, but you shouldn't have to view your own ISP as a threat actor.
load more comments
(1 replies)
They already do restrict you from using lemmy by charging full Internet price for it, and allowing special free data plans for Facebook.
Net neutrality matters.
My state of residence restricts access to certain sites. It's all bullshit.
Anyway... The ISP is either a common carrier or a content provider. Pick a fucking lane. You can't have half and half. Either you are responsible for ALL content provided or NONE.
If you choose none then you MUST NOT restrict access to any content.
If you chose ALL then you may restrict content based on what you are willing to take responsibility for. But in that case if someone does something illegal with content you provided you are liable.
Utah?
California. The internet contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
The list is growing: Utah, Florida, Kansas, South Dakota, and West Virginia, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Virginia all have legislation in progress
No offense but if they can do that you have to blame your government not the ISP.... as those are the ones allowing this to happen.
The government are the ones telling the ISPs to do it, not just allowing it.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is why we need more competition in the ISP space. And use a VPN.
Or the FCC to make internet a utility and strip their ability to restrict access, throttle speeds, or be bias in any way. Always use a VPN. Getting Mullvad on my next paycheck.
Getting Mullvad on my next paycheck.
Good choice
Yeah this is government level. They tell the ISPs what to block and they do what’s ordered. ISPs want your money. All the legal crap they have to do is part of business.
seems like a violation of our first amendment, it's none of the government business what site or what we can access on the net
my isp inserts ads into any http website
Holy hell that sounds cursed. How obnoxious are they? Can you share a screenshot?
Next time I'm cursing Spectrum I'll remind myself that they aren't doing that at least.
Before Wikipedia default to https, I remember being surprised seeing ads in a Wikipedia page. I was so disappointed that Wikipedia has stoop so low before eventually realizing my cursed ISP was the real culprit.
Next they put ads in your ads as well.
this is UW website at http://washington.edu(they seem to offer https but dont redirect to it by default)
besides those "news" ads there is also a popup video ad that i didnt manage to capture this time
img
load more comments
(2 replies)
Does http sites exist at this point though?
my uni's timetable :D
but yes otherwise its pretty obscure
Shenanigan like this was one of the main driving force to push website operators to use https by default. The other driving forces are the computational cost of serving https got significantly cheaper thanks to modern CPU with accelerated cryptography instructions support, and letsencrypt providing free TLS certificate to everyone.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
load more comments
(2 replies)
Censorship is wrong. Every rational, adult human being should have the fundamental right to their autonomy, without third party intervention, with full awareness of the laws that apply to them.
If they decide to abuse that freedom and awareness by accessing illegal content (even CSAM), then they are taking the risk of being discovered, prosecuted, and punished accordingly. And, in many cases (like CSAM), I hope they are caught and punished.
Regardless of the outcome, it still starts with the freedom for that individual to make that decision for themselves.
That's part of the price of freedom. Tor is a browser that makes it hard to be tracked down, so people use it to facilitate illegal activities. Crypto is a currency that makes it hard to be tracked down, so the same occurs. While most of us use and support these services for legal activities, just to be free from corporate and government oppression, there will always be people who use them to be from legal consequences.
Sadly, making it easier to find people who do things like post CSAM in turn makes it easier to find people who want to watch Porn without supplying a government ID. (Still can't believe my state of Virginia passed that law.)
people who want to watch Porn without supplying a government ID
Yeah, and this is where the part of my comment that discussed "laws that apply" is nuanced. If the laws that apply are designed to abridge people's autonomy, and right to privacy,, then that's an unjust law.
load more comments
(3 replies)
https://github.com/ValdikSS/GoodbyeDPI, https://www.f-droid.org/packages/ru.evgeniy.dpitunnelcli/ enjoy. Fuck cencorship!
Switch over to an ISP that doesn't do that. Leave record with your country's customer protection service and/or open press / open culture office that's why you did it. There. Done.
Lots of people come have a choice in who their ISP is. I don't. For my area, there's one provider. If I want to change that, I have to move.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Counter rant: This is why we built encryption and VPNs many years ago. This is a solved problem, but rather than solving it you'd rather just complain ineffectually about it. The solution, the product of years of work of technical people and privacy people, is sitting right there staring you in the face available for you to use as a free service, a paid service, or your own self-hosted service. Use a VPN, that's what it's for.
It's still right to complain and protest about something that is unjust, even when ways to circumvent it exist. Because the next logical policy step is to ban VPNs, as many countries already have, and the solved problem becomes unsolved again.
Free VPNs should be avoided at all costs for many reasons, and the alternatives are an additional service to pay for, to fix another service you already pay for too that doesn't work the way it should work in the first place.
I don't see what's ineffectual about the complaints. Of course people will, and should, complain. Loudly.
load more comments
(10 replies)
Counter counter rant: both can be true.
Just because there's a workaround doesn't mean there isn't a problem.
The problem is that VPNs can be a lot slower (for example large downloads) than a "normal" connection, at least iny experience.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
For the last part of the post about restricting Lemmy because lobbyists/investors don't like that it can't be controlled, things like that can actually be protected against happening with Net Neutrality. Which in the US they're trying to bring back finally https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairwoman-rosenworcel-proposes-restore-net-neutrality-rules
Likely wouldn't help with torrenting sites considering the first go-around with it had "Consumers deserve access to the lawful Internet content of their choice." as one of the big things which is a contradiction to what Net Neutrality stands for, but it's at least a step in the right direction.
view more: next ›