Monday, February 25, 2008 | Reason : Political | print version

Pakistan blocks YouTube over blasphemous video

by CNN

Reposted from:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/02/25/pakistan.youtube/index.html

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- Pakistan becomes the latest country to block access to YouTube
- Country's officials claimed one or more videos on Web site offend Islam
- No official word on what the video or videos in question depict

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Conflicting reports emerged out of Pakistan on Tuesday over the duration of a Pakistani government block on the video-sharing Web site YouTube for showing a "highly blasphemous Dutch" video.

The video, which the Pakistani Telecommunications Authority described as "highly provocative" and "anti-Quranic," featured Dutch politician Geert Wilders and had "the potential to cause more unrest and possible loss of life and property across the country," PTA said in a statement on its Web site.

"PTA believes that the said footage absolutely stands against the values of religious tolerance and peaceful co-existence arousing deep anguish and distress across the Muslim world."

Wilders, a far-right Dutch lawmaker, announced last month that he would release an anti-Islam film. Both the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the FBI have expressed concern that the film would spark global protests and riots.

The Pakistan government is asking YouTube to remove the "objectionable content," said Nabiha Mehmood, a spokeswoman for the PTA.

She said the government would reinstate access to the video-sharing site if YouTube complied with the request. But YouTube, in a statement, only referred to access problems for about two hours on Sunday.

YouTube's statement did not address the Pakistani government blocking access to its site. It said that an issue related to its site in Pakistan affected access to YouTube for users around the globe for about two hours on Sunday.

"Traffic to YouTube was routed according to erroneous Internet protocols, and many users around the world could not access our site," the statement said.

YouTube added: "We have determined that the source of these events was a network in Pakistan. We are investigating and working with others in the Internet community to prevent this from happening again."

The government said it decided to block the video after senior representatives from several ministries of the Pakistani government met, according to a statement on the PTA Web site.

Soon after the meeting, the authority sent a letter to Internet service providers Friday evening ordering them to prevent people in Pakistan from visiting YouTube, Mehmood said.

The 3-year-old video-sharing Web site has exploded in popularity by letting ordinary people post their own videos online and watch videos that others have posted. The Web site's growth also has spawned efforts around the world to regulate it.

Authorities in Brazil, China, Iran, Morocco, Myanmar, Syria and Thailand have blocked access to YouTube in the last few years, according to Reporters Without Borders, a press advocacy organization.

The countries acted after concluding that YouTube videos were subversive (China), immoral (Iran), embarrassing to well-known figures (Brazil) or critical of a country's king (Thailand), the group said.

Governments also have sought to regulate user-supplied Internet content to stymie allegations that they abuse human rights, the group said.

A few months ago, YouTube, responding to complaints, took down videos posted by an award-winning Egyptian human rights advocate that showed what he described as police abuse. About five months later, after media reports, YouTube restored his account and let him continue posting videos.

The decision in Pakistan received mixed reactions.

"Some people are quite upset and screaming. They say they have been using YouTube regularly," said Wahal us Siraj, one of the founders of the Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan, and chief executive officer of Micronet Broadband. "There are others who say that YouTube is full of videos... that are damaging to the character of children."

Roughly 3 million to 5 million of Pakistan's 165 million people have Internet access, according to Siraj's association.

YouTube is a subsidiary of Google Inc., which bought the site in 2006 for nearly $1.7 billion.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, February 25, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 167 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #133133 by aznxscorpion517 on February 25, 2008 at 4:37 pm

So that's what was going on yesterday. I was wondering why I couldn't access the site.

This abuse of power over free speech must be stopped! They want tolerance eh? That's funny when Islam is an antonym of tolerance.

Other Comments by aznxscorpion517

2. Comment #133138 by Ian Bamlett on February 25, 2008 at 4:47 pm

I don't think they looked to hard at You tube before banning it if they think the Dutch video is the worst thing out there offending Islam.

Probably for the best; they just can't handle free speech bless them.

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

3. Comment #133141 by bentleyd on February 25, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Wilders, a far-right Dutch lawmaker, announced last month that he would release an anti-Islam film. Both the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the FBI have expressed concern that the film would spark global protests and riots.

This is the most upsetting part of the article. My country siding with the Islamic wackos, instead of standing up for 1st Amendment rights (freedom of speech & freedom of the press).

Other Comments by bentleyd

4. Comment #133142 by Ian Bamlett on February 25, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Both the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the FBI have expressed concern that the film would spark global protests and riots.

That is pathetic. So because we fear the muslim reaction we have to keep our mouths shut?

I'll say one thing for the christians, they've learned to take it on the chin. They don't like it - but they take it. We can't be afraid to talk in our countries because of how some muslim is going to flip out.

Let them riot. Let them burn.

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

5. Comment #133143 by Goldy on February 25, 2008 at 5:09 pm

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/feb08/extremecreationists.htm
It's the new trend. Still, once they are nice and happy, we zap them with cartoons!

Other Comments by Goldy

6. Comment #133146 by info_dump on February 25, 2008 at 5:20 pm

The countries acted after concluding that YouTube videos were subversive (China), immoral (Iran), embarrassing to well-known figures (Brazil) or critical of a country's king (Thailand), the group said.

My reaction to this article surprised me: it made me smile. Honestly I don't fully understand why, but I think it's because the more these countries protest sites like YouTube, which (for the most part) promote free speech, the more I think these sites are doing something right.

I'm also smiling because of the paragraph I quoted above. All of the complaints listed are GOOD things in my mind. We need more web sites that are considered subversive to communist China, and immoral by Iran's standards. Brazil, what's wrong with embarrassing well-known figures? And is Thailand's king really so insecure that he can't handle criticism on the internet?

The freedom allowed by so many areas of the Internet, the freedom to share ideas, is ultimately dangerous to repressive regimes. It promotes the use of our brain, which is bad when you're trying to control people.

I think the Internet is going to cause big revolutions before too long. You can see countries like Pakistan are nervous about it. They can't block out ALL of the offensive material on the Internet. Yes, they can effectively filter out quite a bit of it, but the technology to circumvent their censorship is readily available.

I'm smiling more now. I can't wait for people to wake up and use their brains.

Other Comments by info_dump

7. Comment #133150 by bentleyd on February 25, 2008 at 5:39 pm

Roughly 3 million to 5 million of Pakistan's 165 million people have Internet access, according to Siraj's association.

That's only 1.8% to 3%, and those few people would really have to search out the videos and websites that are offensive to them.

Other Comments by bentleyd

8. Comment #133151 by JuxtaMonkey on February 25, 2008 at 5:44 pm

The small big haired Dutchmen stood looming in the shadows, with his fingers bouncing off the other, waiting, watching for his diabolical plan to unfold riots across Pakistan and soon...the whole of Islam. His well orchestrated evilness was soon approaching and under his breath one could softly hear, "Muhahahaha." But, as Sunday came, no response, no reply...no fucking blood bath riots. "What," he pondered, "could be making Islam so peaceful!?" Perhaps he was wrong about Islam, maybe they were a tolerant people able to take another's opinion. "G O O G L E" he slowly typed and then, aiming the missile of free speech, his finger plopped down and depressed that rectangular button, "Enter". Pakistan counter attacked his mission before it even leapt from the ground. Islam, the writers of peace and tolerance, saved the world from blasphemy once again. The intolerant sneer and throw up their middle finger, "Fuck-you," they exclaim, but You Tube stood by their tertiary followers, sealing the silver tape to their mouths. Alas, tolerance and peace win again over free speech.

Other Comments by JuxtaMonkey

9. Comment #133152 by Mango on February 25, 2008 at 5:48 pm

In agreement with comment #2, there are thousands of videos that devout Muslims will find offensive. It's bizarre that Pakistan would block the website because of one video in particular rather than the whole concept of user-generated content [free speech] in particular.

Other Comments by Mango

10. Comment #133153 by JuxtaMonkey on February 25, 2008 at 5:57 pm

Link to Ayaan Hirsi Ali defending dutch film

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/25/video-ayaan-hirsi-ali-defends-dutch-mps-anti-koran-film/

Other Comments by JuxtaMonkey

11. Comment #133156 by rthille on February 25, 2008 at 6:04 pm

Re #3 & #4, the quote doesn't say that the FBI or homeland security department though the video shouldn't be released, only that they had concerns about the outcome if it was released. Now, those concerns seem to me to be a bit prejudiced against followers of Islam. After all, why would anyone get violent over the release of a movie? (ok, that was sarcasm)

The way I see it, our security departments _should_ be concerned that a bunch of wackos are going to go batshit over a video and riot. Now I don't think that we should self-censor, but we should be prepared for the results. And we should express dismay and disgust at those who are violent as the result of the free expression of ideas.

I'm still of the opinion that we should have a national desecrate a flag day, to celebrate the fact that we can, but I can't seem to get a quorum in favor of that...

Other Comments by rthille

12. Comment #133176 by CShepGuy on February 25, 2008 at 6:49 pm

One more sarcastic comment on here and I am blocking this website from myself.

Other Comments by CShepGuy

13. Comment #133179 by JuxtaMonkey on February 25, 2008 at 6:51 pm

I say we have a "Burn all muslim countries flag day"! Why do I want to burn my country's flag? That's just what they want! Ekkkk. But, yes, we can if we want to, and that is the point! I fucking hate any religion the intrudes on MY freedom to watch a flick if I want to watch a movie. It is ironic that Islam shuts down a movie that is expressing the very point of what they are indeed DOING by blocking the movie that is sooooo intolerant. "Bend to our will or we will kill you!"..."Oh yeah, YOUR intolerant." -Signed Allah touki poots a lot.

Other Comments by JuxtaMonkey

14. Comment #133180 by JuxtaMonkey on February 25, 2008 at 6:53 pm

LMAO CShepGuy! Nice!

Other Comments by JuxtaMonkey

15. Comment #133198 by WhoDatNinja on February 25, 2008 at 8:01 pm

Re: Goldy

This is from a comment below the article you linked that really made me smile:

----------begin------------

The proper reaction to these people is "ahh, bless" (and a pat on the head). To rekindle your sense of humour I include below this delightfully funny quote from one of the usual run-of-the-mill know-all whackjobs:

"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it."

----------end------------

Seriously, though, I really don't know how to deal with these people - it's not like they would trust (let alone understand) an academic article I might refer them to. One of my best friends is a middle school science teacher who genuinely believes that evolution is a myth; when I found out, I was utterly speechless. What can you possibly say to someone that blind? Sigh.

Other Comments by WhoDatNinja

16. Comment #133200 by prettygoodformonkeys on February 25, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Please line up here to offend Islam.

Fuck Islam.
I slam Islam.
Muhammad sucks.
Pin the tail on Muhammad.

Next.

(edited)

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

17. Comment #133202 by toomanytribbles on February 25, 2008 at 8:22 pm

actually pakistan's actions resulted in a worldwide outtage:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23339712/

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

18. Comment #133204 by Samwise on February 25, 2008 at 8:26 pm

I confess, I saw the headline and was giddy thinking it was Pat Condell's video.

Alas. It sure could have been.

Keep offending those who rush to be offended.

Other Comments by Samwise

19. Comment #133206 by JuxtaMonkey on February 25, 2008 at 8:42 pm

Thanks Toomanytribbles

I redact the, "You Tube stood by their tertiary followers, sealing the silver tape to their mouths." Much apologies...I so hate it when I assume, when I don't mean to..duoh!

Other Comments by JuxtaMonkey

20. Comment #133207 by JuxtaMonkey on February 25, 2008 at 8:44 pm

So why can I still not pull up the whole movie?

Other Comments by JuxtaMonkey

21. Comment #133212 by mblarson323 on February 25, 2008 at 9:42 pm

"Authorities in Brazil, China, Iran, Morocco, Myanmar, Syria and Thailand have blocked access to YouTube in the last few years, according to Reporters Without Borders, a press advocacy organization. "

So let's flood the internet with subversive and blasphemous content of all types! All these dictatorial countries and oppressive religions will be forced to block so much internet content that it will become virtually useless to them. They'll be cut off from the rest of the world. They're economies will crumble, their social fabric will begin to unravel, their despotic regimes will fall into chaos and the populace will eventually run the tyrants out of town in tar and feathers. We'll be rid of them forever! Voila!

Other Comments by mblarson323

22. Comment #133213 by MelM on February 25, 2008 at 9:45 pm

To anyone in Pakistan, Brazil, China, Iran, Morocco, Myanmar, Syria and Thailand whose government has blocked access to YouTube in the last few years: you should be outraged. If you're not, I don't understand how you can stand to live like that.

Hitchens on islam and freedom of speech Toronto(part 3): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3OTS5gSO0E

Hitchens whole Toronto speech: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/03/free_speech_6.html

I wonder if this blog is tolerated in those countries?

Other Comments by MelM

23. Comment #133218 by sent2null on February 25, 2008 at 10:27 pm

The funny thing about site "blocking" to IT geeks like myself is that it is rarely ever done properly. If you want to block a site to an entire region you have to do it at *every* inbound facing router port (ie filter the offending incoming IP address responses). Since many countries have dozens to hundreds to thousands of router lines into their countries this is impractical to do. The fastest way to block is to remove the DNS name to IP address mapping in their incoming DNS servers ( a much smaller set of machines that are usually governed in a known location) this is effective in masking access to the site but doesn't truly "block" it. Simply running a ping on the DNS name (or having someone outside your country do it for you) can get you the IP address of the source server, this will allow immediate access for "blocking" that only involves DNS. (unless again every incoming router has that single IP on a block list which never happens) Funny thing is even the IP route blocking trick is not as effective as it was in the past when one IP did indeed map back to a site, these days multiple public IP's can map back to a site hosted on a distributed cluster, so getting any one of the IP addresses allows access.

So, enterprising users in those countries can get to pretty much any "blocked" site if they use the right tricks (IP not DNS)...you lose the user friendly domain name "youtube" and replace it by the universal: 208.65.153.253 which should route into pretty much every large country in multiple locations. ;)

Other Comments by sent2null

24. Comment #133221 by Vinelectric on February 25, 2008 at 10:49 pm

Anyone else sees the difference between the well researched essays on comparative religion by well known atheist writers (even the entertainingly irreverant Hitchens) and the right wing screaming-banshees?

As if we don't have enough community tensions already, some retard suddenly goes into a Free-Speech-Tourette fit for the sake of fullfilling a completely useless "free-speech" urge.

We end up, as usual, with a situation with some retards screaming "Fuck Islam" while others scream "Fuck the West" retardingly ever after.

And then what?

Other Comments by Vinelectric

25. Comment #133224 by LorienRyan on February 25, 2008 at 11:00 pm

Hope they didn't ban bollywood from youtube, that little michael jackson kid is cool...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSUaydSHCPs

Other Comments by LorienRyan

26. Comment #133225 by sarah95 on February 25, 2008 at 11:00 pm

Vinelectric said:

We end up, as usual, with a situation with some retards screaming "Fuck Islam" while others scream "Fuck the West" retardingly ever after.

And then what?

I disagree. Just because someone says "Fuck Islam" does not mean they're a "right wing screaming-banshee". I say it because it's a religion, and a very dangerous one at that.
The difference is that the retards who scream "Fuck the West" do it to encite violence and because that's the only point of view their government(ie, Pakistan, Iran) will tolerate. "Retards" who scream "Fuck Islam" can be anti-religionists like me, or they can be right wingers(the real retards), but just saying "Fuck Islam" doesn't make you right wing and doesn't make free speech "useless" as you put it. Free speech is anything BUT useless.

Other Comments by sarah95

27. Comment #133227 by LorienRyan on February 25, 2008 at 11:09 pm

So, enterprising users in those countries can get to pretty much any "blocked" site if they use the right tricks (IP not DNS)...you lose the user friendly domain name "youtube" and replace it by the universal: 208.65.153.253 which should route into pretty much every large country in multiple locations. ;)

Unless it is blocked at the root or '.' server level, then it could not be resolved to the '.com' level. Pakistan citizens could access tons of material from torrents anyway.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

28. Comment #133237 by HunterZolomon on February 26, 2008 at 12:44 am

I also smiled as I read this article. To think that a little hobby project like Youtube would in three years expose these intolerant, undemocratic countries for what they are. And this is my pick of the quotes:

"Some people are quite upset and screaming."

Internet: 1
Totalitarian Regimes: 0

Other Comments by HunterZolomon

29. Comment #133242 by epeeist on February 26, 2008 at 1:04 am

Comment #133218 by sent2nullThe funny thing about site "blocking" to IT geeks like myself is that it is rarely ever done properly.
So the truism holds - the Internet sees any attempt to block it as damage and routes around it.

Other Comments by epeeist

30. Comment #133249 by padster1976 on February 26, 2008 at 1:23 am

"PTA believes that the said footage absolutely stands against the values of religious tolerance and peaceful co-existence arousing deep anguish and distress across the Muslim world."

Values such as killing students, stoning women to death, killing all those who don't believe in exactly the same rubbish, stifling dissent and free thought with threats of death.

Values I con't wait to sign up to!

Surely 'religious tolerance' is a misnomer!?

Other Comments by padster1976

31. Comment #133254 by irate_atheist on February 26, 2008 at 1:37 am

Please feel free to insert my usual response here:

_____________________

Other Comments by irate_atheist

32. Comment #133261 by Tyler Durden on February 26, 2008 at 1:46 am

PTA believes that the said footage absolutely stands against the values of religious tolerance and peaceful co-existence arousing deep anguish and distress across the Muslim world.

The list of things that do not cause "deep anguish and distress across the Muslim world" could be written on the back of a postage stamp!

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

33. Comment #133269 by irate_atheist on February 26, 2008 at 2:12 am

32. Comment #133261 by Tyler Durden -

The list of things that do not cause "deep anguish and distress across the Muslim world" could be written on the back of a postage stamp!

...by a blind man using a marker pen.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

34. Comment #133271 by LorienRyan on February 26, 2008 at 2:14 am

...by a blind man using a marker pen.

...at a spanish bull run.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

35. Comment #133274 by Tyler Durden on February 26, 2008 at 2:21 am

Comment #133269 by irate_atheist:

And with space left over for David Robertson to outline his "tenets" for atheism!

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

36. Comment #133275 by rod-the-farmer on February 26, 2008 at 2:22 am

JuxtaMonkey
I think the reason you (and the rest of us) cannot see this video yet is that it has not been released yet! Which makes the Pakistani government action all the more laughable. Pre-censorship. Do they ban triple X films ? When several newspapers in EU reprinted those offensive cartoons, I was truly hoping that ALL newspapers around the world would do the same thing, to show solidarity, and help muslim fundies understand that freedom of speech is entrenched in western societies. I thought for sure Pat Condell would be one of the reasons an islamic country would ban YouTube. Maybe even this site !. On that, has anyone heard from Josh lately ? I recommended he post some cartoons by Dan Piraro, of Bizarro fame. But Josh has not responded to either me or Dan.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

37. Comment #133278 by AfraidToDie on February 26, 2008 at 2:39 am

16. Comment #133200 by prettygoodformonkeys Please line up here to offend Islam…. Fuck Islam.
I slam Islam. Muhammad sucks. Pin the tail on Muhammad… Next

Muhammad is Gay! …Hey, they can't find us by our avatar can they? I think I just blasphemied (try saying that 3 times).

...fullfilling a completely useless "free-speech" urge

What? You don't like Saturday Night Live? Come on! The problem with Islam is they need a lot more Fuck, so I agree… Fuck Islam

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

38. Comment #133279 by AshtonBlack on February 26, 2008 at 2:41 am

Comment #133151 by JuxtaMonkey,

I've got to say, you have a wonderful turn of phrase: "Perhaps he was wrong about Islam, maybe they were a tolerant people able to take another's opinion."

roflmao!

Comment #133218 by sent2null

Agreed. I work in erm.... a middle eastern Islamic country. I use my very own proxy outside of the country which encripts all my IP traffic anyway. They can't block it if they can't see it. (And yes it does "cost" in bandwith overheads but no blocked shite for me.)

Comment #133254 by irate_atheist

Would that be "Fucktards"?

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

39. Comment #133280 by AdrianB on February 26, 2008 at 2:43 am

Authorities in Brazil, China, Iran, Morocco, Myanmar, Syria and Thailand have blocked access to YouTube in the last few years, according to Reporters Without Borders, a press advocacy organization.

The countries acted after concluding that YouTube videos were subversive (China), immoral (Iran), embarrassing to well-known figures (Brazil) or critical of a country's king (Thailand), the group said.

Governments also have sought to regulate user-supplied Internet content to stymie allegations that they abuse human rights, the group said.

If, as many have suggested here, it is futile to try and block sites, these countries really need to look to Afghanistan to see how the Internet can be controlled.

Death to anybody that looks at sites the authorities don't like should do the trick.

Other Comments by AdrianB

40. Comment #133281 by Steve Zara on February 26, 2008 at 2:51 am

If you want to block a site to an entire region you have to do it at *every* inbound facing router port (ie filter the offending incoming IP address responses).

I may not understand things correctly, but you can cause a lot of trouble without having to do that, as routing information is propogated throughout the internet.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #133288 by Dr Nev on February 26, 2008 at 3:06 am

Greeting's everyone.This is my first post, just new to this...

The Internet is 'The Great Liberator'. No matter who tries to block it's content, whether it's religious fundamentalists or dodgy regimes it wont work! It'll still get out!
It seems to me that it's such a 'cop out' that many Muslim's cannot tolerate other opinions. One wonders if they may someday remove their head's from their arses - Recto Cranial Inversion is no laughing matter. - Dr Nev

Other Comments by Dr Nev

42. Comment #133292 by AshtonBlack on February 26, 2008 at 3:14 am

I may not understand things correctly, but you can cause a lot of trouble without having to do that, as routing information is propagated throughout the internet.

Routing, is indeed, done at the IP level. What he is talking about is setting a filter on every router, that is connected to the wider internet, within, say Pakistan (this would be at the ISP level) This is to refuse to "pass on" the offending IP packets within that country only.

This would not be 100% efficient, however, anyone using an ISP outside of the country. For example, a Satellite based connection to India. (or in my case Qatar) is not bound by the routers in the country of origin. Even the "Great Firewall" of China runs into this problem. (Sat shot to, Taiwan, Hong Kong, S.Korea, Japan)

I believe that, from reading a little more into this story, that the PTA attempted to change the DNS pointer record (PTR) at it's highest level, which in turn, lead to a number of countries being effected. This was quickly resolved (after a few hours of replication). As Sen2null mentioned this would have no effect on it's IP.

There is only one way to stop a site and that is to have it "taken down". With something like You-Tube this is NOT going to happen, unless the US government get involved.

(Finally, after many months, we find a subject I can talk more about than as an interested amateur)

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

43. Comment #133299 by Noodly on February 26, 2008 at 3:29 am

AshtonBlack, send2null and other super techies out there (I still have to wear my underpants inside my trousers):

1) Would distributed DNS and IPv6 help. I.e. peer to peer technology spreading alternate DNS servers all over the net. IPv6 would allow hosts to use zillions of IP addresses and change them frequently (pushing them to DDNS).

2) Corresponding distributed anonymous proxy servers (DAPS) would be needed to minimize blocking from the host end. E.g. unlikey situations such as "Mr Google, I'll give you a few billion dollars if you don't allow the people of China unrestricted access to your search engine".

Other Comments by Noodly

44. Comment #133311 by AshtonBlack on February 26, 2008 at 3:52 am

1) Fundamentally, we already have DDNS. Each country has it's own. However it's the "top level" DNS servers (4 in the US I think) that have "final say". What happened in this case is that an ISP changed thier own DNS entries and it started to be replicated around the world, but was stopped from by having "more authorititive" DNS servers elsewhere or by correcting the change.

1.1)IPv6 is on it's way, but there are a number of issues still to be resolved. A hardware/IOS refresh of some backbone routers will be required (by Cisco). This is happening, but in developing nations this would take a while. (or require outside help) Using dynamic IP is risky for a static site since even DDNS would need to replicate throughout the world.

2) As I mentioned I already use an Anon Proxy, not an ideal solution, (bandwith overheads), but immune to a particlar countires whims and fads.

I honestly think that the PTA tried to make a change that they, thought, would only effect their own country. As it turned out, the change tried to replicate and shone the flashlight of indignation upon the censoring gits.

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

45. Comment #133321 by Logicel on February 26, 2008 at 4:08 am

rod-the-farmer, did you use this email address: Submit an article for the front page by sending an email with the information to: articles@richarddawkins.net

Other Comments by Logicel

46. Comment #133326 by Ygern on February 26, 2008 at 4:22 am

I'm with Dr Nev on this one. Ever since the internet naysayers arrived, I have defended it (sometimes foaming slightly at the mouth) as one of the most effective blows against those who would repress freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas and knowledge.

Those who complain the loudest about it are invariably those who don't like their control over how people ought to think eroded.

Other Comments by Ygern

47. Comment #133333 by PrimeNumbers on February 26, 2008 at 4:39 am

Remember, the very existence of us Atheists offends muslims. As I've said before, muslims need to learn that they're not special, and their crazy belief system is just that - it doesn't give them any special rights or privilidges.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

48. Comment #133336 by cursor on February 26, 2008 at 4:55 am

If copyright has been infringed, individual videos are removed from the site. Record companies and film studios do not try to block the whole site from an entire country.

If someone's been offended by a single video, why not just request that it is removed rather than deny the rationally-minded population of Pakistan the millions of other videos on YouTube?

Other Comments by cursor

49. Comment #133341 by SPS on February 26, 2008 at 5:03 am

It may help those trying to access blocked sites by using Tor in conjunction with Torbutton available with Firefox as an option during installation of Tor.

Other Comments by SPS

50. Comment #133343 by irate_atheist on February 26, 2008 at 5:16 am

38. Comment #133279 by AshtonBlack -

Would that be "Fucktards"?

Correct. And for your bonus points, please identify the following poster:

Darwinism cannot be a religion. We are still trying to pull out the E.T from delusional stage to the fact that it is not a fact. Religion is based on the fact and truth. Holy books are the interpretation of the universe and science is the eyes, sometimes binoculars or microscope of God's creation. Religion says God created the earth and sun as a heater and science finds out how? And sometimes holy books guide the scientists to find the truth as well. Darwin was inspired a couple scientists and their letters not the islands- and wrote evolution book and as I see in the story of Liar Liar analogy no offense Darwin did not know when he wrote many things that were against science since in his time science was at very early beginning. So I would not call him a liar. In fact , if he were a believer he would be a very useful scientist.

and suggest what particular psychiatric disorder the poster suffers from.

Other Comments by irate_atheist