How can it possibly be, that an ISP, which I’m paying for gets to decid, which sites I’m allowed to have access to, and which not?

All the torrenting sites are restricted. I know, I can use VPN, and such… but I want to do it because of my privacy concerns and not because of some higher-up decided to bend over for the lobbying industry.

While on the other hand, if there’s a data breach of a legit big-corp website (looking at you FB), I’m still able to access it, they get fined with a fraction of their revenue, and I’m still left empty-handed. What a hipocracy!!

What comes next? Are they gonna restrict me from using lemmy too, bc some lobbyist doesn’t like the fact that it’s a decentralized system which they have no control over?

Rant, over!

I didn’t even know that my router was using my ISPs DNS, and that I can just ditch it, even though I’m running AdGuard (selfhosted)

193 points

…Just don’t use your ISP’s DNS.

permalink
report
reply
53 points
*

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
58 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Bring free on cloudflare makes it widely adopted quickly likely.

It’s also going to break all the firewalls at work which will no longer be able to do dns and http filtering based on set categories like phishing, malware, gore, and porn. I wish I didn’t need to block these things, but users can’t be trusted and not everyone is happy seeing porn and gore on their co-workers screens!

The malware and other malicious site blocking though is me. At every turn users will click the google prompted ad sites, just like the keepass one this week.

Anyway all that’s likely to not work now! I guess all that’s left is to break encryption by adding true mitm with installing certificates on everyone’s machines and making it a proxy. Something I was loathe to do.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Corrected, thanks!

I’m looking forward to ECH, if i’m not mistaken that relies on DoH which has pretty widespread adoption in browsers at the mo

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It’s still require DoH, right? Not sure what my ISP does, but DoH has very high latency and often timeout on my end, probably to discourage their customers to turn on DoH.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

You can try the new ECH feature, in the FF browser for example. It encrypts the SNI on compatible websites

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

Sometimes the block is on whole different level than a DNS

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Yeah, even if they miss your DNS request, the ISP can still do a reverse lookup on the destination IP you’re attempting to connect to and just drop the traffic silently. That is pretty rare though, at least in US, mainly because It costs money to enforce restrictions like that at scale, which means blocking things isn’t profitable. However, slurping up your DNS requests can allow them to feed you false error pages, littered with profitable ads, all under the guies of enforcing copyright protections.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It’s pretty much the only way they enforce stuff here in Ukraine. Back in 2015 when the government blocked social media websites tied to Russian companies and in 2022 when .ru domains were blocked, changing your DNS provider didn’t help. I’m not sure about piracy sites, though, because everyone kinda doesn’t care about this stuff here, but I don’t think they would invent other mechanisms when they have a working one that doesn’t rely on DNS.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
79 points

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

permalink
report
reply
9 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

ISP mitm sounds infuriating

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
59 points
*

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.

permalink
report
reply
51 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
6 points
*

Utah?

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

California. The internet contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

The list is growing: Utah, Florida, Kansas, South Dakota, and West Virginia, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Virginia all have legislation in progress

permalink
report
parent
reply
46 points
*

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.

permalink
report
reply
14 points

The government are the ones telling the ISPs to do it, not just allowing it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

In some cases yes, but I would say that is allowing it too… Idk… I don’t see the need to nitpick but yeah.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The government is elected by people who care or don’t care about certain topics

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The only choice he have here are stupid people and tech illiterate ones. Not a lot we can do except face palm at the ridiculously stupid solutions they come up with.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Those companies choose to do so as well.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Companies will do whatever legal measure makes them the most money.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah… But if there were laws that prohibited it they couldn’t do it that is my point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

As if the government wasn’t controlled by probate lobbyists.

Blame goes to private interests being allowed to influence public decision makers, in my opinion. Infrastructure companies should not be for-profit companies.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

!piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Create post
⚓ 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


💰 Please help cover server costs.


Community stats

  • 5.6K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.2K

    Posts

  • 84K

    Comments