Page 1 of 1
Another brick in the (fire) wall
Posted: 28 Oct 2004, 14:17
by Lars Svensson
George Bush's official website no longer accessible outside US...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3958665.stm
How very odd...
Posted: 28 Oct 2004, 14:26
by markfiend
I noticed that yesterday. I wondered whether it was someone at our ISP playing games!
Posted: 28 Oct 2004, 14:30
by hallucienate
WTF?
Posted: 28 Oct 2004, 14:34
by markfiend
hallucienate wrote:WTF?
What? Why was I looking at georgewbush.com? There was a clicky to it on the landoverbaptist website. I assumed it would be (like landoverbaptist) a spoof site, but apparently not.
Posted: 28 Oct 2004, 14:37
by CellThree
Posted: 28 Oct 2004, 14:42
by Quiff Boy
or even
www.georgewbush.com 
at risk of filling the whitehouse's http referrer logs and bringing down the wrath of the cia & fbi,
clicky
Posted: 28 Oct 2004, 14:48
by hallucienate
b b b b b but why did they do it?
Posted: 28 Oct 2004, 14:52
by Quiff Boy
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/27/bushwhacked/
The official Bush re-election website - which blocked access to most of the world outside the US this week - is still visible to Canadians.
We don't know if it's fears about future attacks by hackers, concerns about keeping bandwidth costs to a minimum or an aggressive response to pinko UK broadsheet The Guardian's recent shameful pro-Kerry political lobbying efforts in Ohio which are behind moves that have rendered GeorgeWBush.com inaccessible to world + dog. Or, to be strictly accurate, most of the world bar the US and Canada which is presumably considered bandwidth-friendly, hacker-free and mercifully bereft of pinko broadsheets.
Posted: 28 Oct 2004, 15:01
by hallucienate
Quiff Boy wrote:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/27/bushwhacked/
The official Bush re-election website - which blocked access to most of the world outside the US this week - is still visible to Canadians.
We don't know if it's fears about future attacks by hackers, concerns about keeping bandwidth costs to a minimum or an aggressive response to pinko UK broadsheet The Guardian's recent shameful pro-Kerry political lobbying efforts in Ohio which are behind moves that have rendered GeorgeWBush.com inaccessible to world + dog. Or, to be strictly accurate, most of the world bar the US and Canada which is presumably considered bandwidth-friendly, hacker-free and mercifully bereft of pinko broadsheets.
which is nothing but pure speculation
How many millions did the bush campaign raise? surely enough to host a website?
Do they really think that blocking non-US traffic is gonna stop hackers?
and was the Guardian's effort really that effective?
Posted: 28 Oct 2004, 15:07
by Quiff Boy
hallucienate wrote:Quiff Boy wrote:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/27/bushwhacked/
The official Bush re-election website - which blocked access to most of the world outside the US this week - is still visible to Canadians.
We don't know if it's fears about future attacks by hackers, concerns about keeping bandwidth costs to a minimum or an aggressive response to pinko UK broadsheet The Guardian's recent shameful pro-Kerry political lobbying efforts in Ohio which are behind moves that have rendered GeorgeWBush.com inaccessible to world + dog. Or, to be strictly accurate, most of the world bar the US and Canada which is presumably considered bandwidth-friendly, hacker-free and mercifully bereft of pinko broadsheets.
which is nothing but pure speculation
How many millions did the bush campaign raise? surely enough to host a website?
Do they really think that blocking non-US traffic is gonna stop hackers?
and was the Guardian's effort really that effective?
yep, as the saying goes: "none of the above", i suspect
Posted: 28 Oct 2004, 16:12
by Hojyuu-obi
hallucienate wrote:Quiff Boy wrote:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/10/27/bushwhacked/
The official Bush re-election website - which blocked access to most of the world outside the US this week - is still visible to Canadians.
We don't know if it's fears about future attacks by hackers, concerns about keeping bandwidth costs to a minimum or an aggressive response to pinko UK broadsheet The Guardian's recent shameful pro-Kerry political lobbying efforts in Ohio which are behind moves that have rendered GeorgeWBush.com inaccessible to world + dog. Or, to be strictly accurate, most of the world bar the US and Canada which is presumably considered bandwidth-friendly, hacker-free and mercifully bereft of pinko broadsheets.
which is nothing but pure speculation
How many millions did the bush campaign raise? surely enough to host a website?
Do they really think that blocking non-US traffic is gonna stop hackers?
and was the Guardian's effort really that effective?
Which again proves the intelligence of this lot
Posted: 28 Oct 2004, 16:48
by hallucienate
Hojyuu-obi wrote:hallucienate wrote:
which is nothing but pure speculation
How many millions did the bush campaign raise? surely enough to host a website?
Do they really think that blocking non-US traffic is gonna stop hackers?
and was the Guardian's effort really that effective?
Which again proves the intelligence of this lot
who's that? elReg or Dubya?
Posted: 28 Oct 2004, 17:07
by Hojyuu-obi
My response merely went out to this sentence: "Do they really think that blocking non-US traffic is gonna stop hackers?" so the anwer to your question would be: whoever decided to block non-US traffic to the website (I imagine it's not Mr Walker Bush himself
)