Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

Get Adobe Flash player

The Jehoshua Novels


Bush website blocked outside US

October 27

BBC – Surfers outside the US have been unable to visit the official re-election site of President George W Bush [here]. The blocking of browsers sited outside the US began in the early hours of Monday morning. Since then people outside the US trying to browse the site get a message saying they are not authorised to view it.

The blocking does not appear to be due to an attack by vandals or malicious hackers, but as a result of a policy decision by the Bush camp.

Not just foreigners – this affects US citizens now abroad too. The folks at boingboing  have posted more info and work-arounds. -j

45 comments to Bush website blocked outside US

  • Anonymous

    Also check out the Dead Letter Office, a collection of email mis-sent to georgewbush.org instead of .com – some funny, some shocking.

  • Anonymous

    http://www.whitehouse.org/feedback/28.asp

    The reader’s mail. Some people think they really are on Bush-Cheney site !

  • Anonymous

    I think quite a few of those people actually are going to change their vote, thinking the .org site was real. Astounding.

  • Anonymous

    The administration has crossed the line so many times that a large portion of the public can’t tell spoof from reality. We’re living a Saturday Night Live sketch.

  • Anonymous

    I looked at the site before, but never paid enough attention. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know it’s a farce.

  • Anonymous

    Report an acces denied too.

  • Anonymous

    all they did was post this little AFP blurb at the bottom of the “Campaign Briefing” shorts column, didn’t have anyone write on it:

    THE INTERNET

    BUSH WEB SITE HAS PROBLEMS President Bush’s campaign Web site, http://www.georgewbush.com, was inaccessible from outside the United States on Wednesday. The campaign said it was aware of the problem but declined further comment. The British Web site http://www.netcraft.com, which analyzes Internet traffic, said the Bush site was inaccessible from London, Sydney and Amsterdam since Monday. Canada was not affected. It was inaccessible for hours on Tuesday in what campaign officials said might have been the work of hackers. (Agence France-Presse)

    And really, why is it important? Who cares? I doubt a single overseas American voter wants to see the website right now, most of them have prolly voted already. Some kind of plot non-Americans worried about, something being put on there that we are gonna keep secret from you? Get real, you’d read about it in a minute! :-)

    P.S. to me, the reaction sort of shows a kind of surreal thinking about the self-importance of the internet! If the NYT print edition shipment in the Midwest got delayed by some truck strike or something, you wouldn’t think it that strange if you were a subscriber and it was missing from your doorstep one day this, you’d think it was some kind of glitch, not a plot!

  • Anonymous

    And really, why is it important? … If the NYT print edition shipment in the Midwest got delayed by some truck strike or something, you wouldn’t think it that strange if you were a subscriber and it was missing from your doorstep one day this, you’d think it was some kind of glitch, not a plot!

    The difference here is that, by default, web servers don’t discriminate based on the location of the reader.  You have to take a positive action in order to block readers from specific locations – you even have to do it carefully so that you don’t block readers that you want.  It means that someone made a policy decision to block readers in certain locations.  So it is natural to ask the question: why did they make that decision?  It is possible that some middle-hierarchy party member was just feeling xenophobic and just didn’t want “them foreigners” touching his web server, it is possible that someone noticed that statements on the site are not in accord with foreign policy (e.g., positively offensive to much of the world).  My guess is that the site is being subject to a “denial of service” attack sourced from outside the US (e.g., flooding the server with bogus requests so that legitimate readers can’t get through).  There is no good defense against a DoS attack, but if you don’t care about readers outside the US, then a blanket block can help.

  • Anonymous

    Well, I do, if it’s a deliberate outage rather than a simple techno brainfart.

    You wanna be in the running for the position of “the leader of the free world,” you have to talk to the rest of the world, irregardless of whether they get to vote in the election. It’s part and parcel of the multi-lateralism that most of us here support, MHO.

    I will point out that the biggest, most dangerous fuck-ups in politics and national security generally happen because people are talking past each other and/or failing to parse the messages to effectively discriminate between spin for domestic consumption and real positions. It’s a long-term smart move for the guy sitting in the big chair to provide as much evidence as possible to those outside his country so that they can effectively model where he’s coming from and see to what extent he’s a prisoner of his party base / rhetoric.

  • Anonymous

    …terrible faux pas of responding to myself, I will also note that this sort of short-term “up-yours” tactical move isn’t reflective of a terribly confident electioneering team. Very much acting like a candidate rather than POTUS.

  • Anonymous

    NYT took a ‘not important’ approach to story

    all they did was post this little AFP blurb at the bottom of the “Campaign Briefing” shorts column, didn’t have anyone write on it:

    AA- Remind me to get you on this one but some time after Nov.2.
    -)

    sorry I didn’t realize that all Agonists should lockjaw on the NYT’s “important ” POV.

    Seems like only last year the Times did such crappy work on the runup to the war……

    the Agonist coverage of the War was as good as it was, because it looked outside the Times/Wapo for some of its best stuff.

    Of course some of this was mainstream foreign press (when the BBC hadn’t had the balls kicked out of it), but lots of other,more obscure sources
    emerged as important.

  • Anonymous

    I posted instead of previewing the second time
    and didn’t take out gratuitous material. Apologies, I will repost.

  • Anonymous


    NYT took a ‘not important’ approach to story
    all they did was post this little AFP blurb at the bottom of the “Campaign Briefing” shorts column, didn’t have anyone write on it:

    Why should Agonists lockjaw on the NYT’s “important ” POV ?  

    Seems like only last year the Times did such crappy work on the runup to the war……

    the Agonist coverage of the War was as good as it was, because it looked outside the Times/Wapo for some of its best stuff.

    Of course some of this was mainstream foreign press (when the BBC hadn’t had the balls kicked out of it), but lots of other,more obscure sources
    emerged as important.

     IMO , the mainstream coverage improved because reporters (who sometimes rightly felt intimidated because they had to feed/house themselves by what they wrote) took courage from the fearless volunteers, who may not have been able to provide the same standards of evidence but made very significant events visible.

    Many of the worst type of inaccurate stories from the professional newspapers recently have come not from being influenced by a blogging culture with looser standards or pressure from those sources but (e.g. Jayson Blair)a reluctance to internally fact check because the stories were so juicy, something that’s been around far longer. Much of the fact checking (e.g. the Sixty Minutes fiasco)has in fact been left to the bloggers.

    Importance( except as validated much later by how things turn out )seems to me a word historically loaded with insider/outsider overtones.

  • Anonymous

    Are you joking Arta ?

    That’s per million of NET user, no discrimination on their origin country. So I don’t think there is “no one” who wants to look at it ! That they have voted or not, that’s a minimum that they can access to information on their candidate !

    It’s certainly not the watergate, but,hum, everyone grind their theeth when a chinese or an Iranian blogger get shut off. Why not emits at least a little “squick” on this !  

  • Anonymous

    a denial of service attack closer to the election.

    Perhaps they may be going to change the name because of the com/org spoof sight.(they could add jr but I don’t think that would look too great:-)

    Or perhaps they are setting up for:
         “The October Surprise”.

    Has anyone found references to this problem in any of the (ahem) right-wing blogs that
    may be more likely to get some answer from the
    site owners?

  • Anonymous

    but their servers deny me :)

  • Anonymous

    to click on the Bush website. They are recording the ISP numbers, the F.B.I. will get a copy of that log, a la J. Edgar Hoover.

    Your post inspired me!

    Sheesh guys, all I have to do is question whether lots of coverage on something is silly, and you post on it and are interested in it ad nauseum. It’s like all your hate toward the traditional media comes pouring out.

    Well, yes, in this case, I still agree with the NYT amount of coverage on this one. It’s a minor story. It’s navel-gazing by webbies, fine if you want to do it and you’re interested in this kind of thing, but then keep in mind that it’s hypocritical to pick on TV or print press when they think their media is all so important.

    I still don’t care that George Bush’s website went down for some. I don’t think in any way, shape or form it can possibly affect the election. I was simply wondering why others might care.

    And I still don’t think many on the internet care about candidate’s websites. Guess I judge that partly from the lack of interest in the Election Board on the old BB–maybe I am prejudiced by that! :-) ) To me, it’s kind of silly to care all of sudden that it’s not there anymore, when you didn’t care about it in the first place.

  • Anonymous

    that took my question as meant and tried to answer it. I can see how it might be interesting to find out who was behind an attack on the Bush website if in fact there was a attack on the website from Europe.

  • Anonymous

    Who cares about the election ? I’m fed up of the damn election! Even my dogs are fed up of the election ;)

    What scares me is the technology ! I didn’t know it was so effective ! We are building enough walls in real life, do we need more there ?

    I don’t care about not being able to see Rovian brain juive splashed on a webby, But I care about how and why they did it. DDoS ? From where ? Israel , philipinnes  ? France ? Can they do it the other way ?

    Can it be about Bush and not be about the godamn election ?

    Look at that :
    http://scoop.agonist.org/story/2004/10/6/171816/971

    I could speak for hours about that, yet, Graham see it as a minor story. Who cares? If someone is willing to dialogue, I will !

  • Anonymous

    Most DoS attacks are by barely competent cybervandals who succeed only because the general computer user community is so security naive – most spyware/adware etc includes a backdoor that allows the cybervandals to co-opt infected PCs in a DoS attack.  The attack on the site (WaPo confirmed that the block was in response to a DoS attack) is the equivalent of keying government cars because you don’t like Bush.

  • Anonymous

    I was wondering about that. If a bunch of teen script-kiddies can bring the Admin to such radical move, what could state sponsored cyber-vandalism could do ? It would not kill anybody, but our society will become more and more dependent on the internet, that’s a fact. and there is a lot of money  made and lost on the internet now.

    I think it is one of our weak spot.

  • Anonymous

    that TCP/IP is … what, twenty, nearly thirty years old as a protocol and was developed without thought for malicious network users.  Most current protocol problems can be solved by switching to IPv6/IPsec – but the majority of network users have to make the switch for it to be helpful.  The switch will happen eventually.  If the attacks become troublesome the switch will happen more quickly.

  • Anonymous

    a white knight cyber warrior, known to have successfully won several past battles.

    :-)

  • Anonymous

    I WAS talking about the freepers servers!

    Attack prompts Bush website block
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3961557.stm

    has a graphic on traffic too :)

  • Anonymous

    ArtAppraiser:

    Surely you see a pattern!

    When you post an article without opinion, Agonists read it, in the main,wordlessly appreciate/take for granted the work that went into it, and go away.

    Your opinions, however, when posted, are seldom low-key – underneath their careful wording-
    part of that meme is to be provoking :-)

    Once you start it off ,
    the thread snowballs over to what anybody thinks of any word in what you’ve posted, and unless some abolutely conclusive zinger finishes it off, the comment stream goes on and on and on until we drop off to sleep or to grind our teeth on another thread.

    But this analysis is highly suspect, as I am a Red Sox fan :-)

  • Anonymous

    cooltech.iafrica.com
    TECH NEWS
    Foreigners shut out of Bush website
    Posted Thu, 28 Oct 2004

    President George W. Bush’s reelection campaign said on Wednesday it had cut its website off from access from certain foreign countries “for security reasons”, but declined to elaborate.

    “The measure was taken for security reasons,” said campaign spokesperson Scott Stanzel.

    The Republican president’s campaign said earlier it had received telephone calls about access failures.

    Bush campaign aides would not offer any more details, but last week the site went down for about five hours after a “denial of service” attack.

    When the web address http://www.georgewbush.com is typed from some countries, the following message appears: “You are not authorised to view this page. You might not have permission to view this directory or page using the credentials you supplied.”

    AFP’s bureau in Washington, whose internet access goes through Paris, was unable to see Bush’s website.

    The British website http://www.netcraft.com, which analyses internet traffic to detect fraud and count the most visited sites, said the Bush campaign website had been inaccessible from London, Sydney and Amsterdam since Monday, although Canada was apparently not affected.

    The website was down and inaccessible for several hours on Tuesday in what campaign officials said could be the work of hackers.

    AFP
    http://www.iafrica.com/pls/cms/iac.page?p_t1=12&p_t2=248&p_t3=0&p_t4=0&p_dynamic=YP&
    amp;p_content_id=385986&p_site_id=2

    This article is a printout from iafrica.com
    Copyright © 2000 iafrica.com*, a division of Metropolis*

     

  • Anonymous

    into my commenting sometimes. I comment when it’s something that interests me, when it strikes me, specifically, most often, media matters and spin. If I can’t de-spin without aggravating people, I am not interested in being here. I think you read “fuss” when I don’t intend any. And sheesh, lol, believe me, my comments are rarely carefully worded! (Could that be part of the problem, you think they are carefully worded? NOT! Most of the comments I make are first draft, off top of my head! I already spend far far too much time here to do that too. :-) )

  • Anonymous

    if the Times had chosen to summarize it with less “attitude” and more detail, would have knocked off some of this thread, I would say, and maybe started some other conversations going……

  • Anonymous

    I am always trying to make sense of something-
    it’s that philosophy degree again…… :-)

  • Anonymous

    of what the NYT put in the print version of the paper this morning, the coverage you thought wasn’t good enough, yes, they NYT, put the AFP

    I adds the new stuff on the “security reasons”, like 4 sentences, but it has some of the same sentences!
    http://scoop.agonist.org/comments/2004/10/27/153918/17/9#9
    And all I was saying is: that’s all the coverage it deserved! That’s all you need to know! Not a big deal except for techies! That NYT did not feel it necessary to do a long story on it, did not assign anyone, but just used the paragraph report from AFP. (Even the BBC article was short.) Was simply trying to say: c’mon guys, I don’t think it’s wise to spend a lot of brainpower on conspiracy theories here, not when so much else is not being covered.

  • Anonymous

    I was discussing what you put in your comment that I took as what the (electronic) Times had posted.
    Since I did not see the complete AFP article posted in the thread,  I thought I was adding info as to what the block was about.

    Good night.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think there is any conspiracy. No one is really saying this. There is this explanation from candy article :
    Data gathered by Netcraft on the pattern of traffic to the site shows that the blocking is not the result of another denial of service attack.

    Mike Prettejohn, Netcraft president, speculated that the blocking decision might have been taken to cut costs, and traffic, in the run-up to the election on 2 November.

    He said the site may see no reason to distribute content to people who will not be voting next week.

    Managing traffic could also be a good way to ensure that the site stays working in the closing days of the election campaign


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3961557.stm

    Anyway. It so much funnier than speaking about 380 tons of explosive.

    <run>

  • Anonymous

    he at least has the sense to stay away from the keyboard.

    Binary consultations are always good here, tho.

  • Anonymous

    I didn’t know that before! Now I get it!

    I despise philosophy ya know, my brain does not work that way, it must be forced–to read philosophy for me is like putting on one of those skullcrusher torture instruments with the thumbscrews on the sides.

    :-)

  • Anonymous

    stumbling tongue – scroll down to  October 12…

  • Anonymous

    There is some people who love that treatment you know !!!!! LOL

  • Anonymous

    much better than Chinese fortune cookies :-)

    eom

  • Anonymous

    Was under-reported.

    <run>

Leave a Reply