Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Republicans Government The Internet Politics

Bush Website Blocked Outside N. America 1797

acey72 writes "The BBC News are reporting that George W Bush's re-election website (don't bother if you aren't in the USA) is blocked to people accessing it from outside the USA. Netcraft spotted the change on Monday, and have a report on the matter. Oh well, at least John Kerry's site still works for us outlanders." At least some Canadians can access the Bush campaign site, but Europeans cannot (without going through a U.S. proxy).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bush Website Blocked Outside N. America

Comments Filter:
  • Forum abuse perhaps? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @11:02AM (#10641784)
    Does it have a forum, or a feedback system? It could be that they were getting a lot of, ahem, abusive messages from non-US citizens and decided this was the best way to curb them. Has anyone actually asked the admins?

    Either way BFD. Political websites are almost entirely content or truth free. Why bother reading them?
  • Not Surprised (Score:5, Interesting)

    by OverlordQ ( 264228 ) * on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @11:02AM (#10641785) Journal
    Given the previous attacks by Cyber-Terroists (eg: those few odd groups protesting the RNC) I'm not surprised. If they limit the connections to US only it'll be alot easier to track them down.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @11:04AM (#10641809)
    Mike Prettejohn, president of Netcraft, speculated that the blocking decision was 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.


    They did this to cut costs?! Are they that hard up?!

    Good thing there aren't any American voters outside the country.

    Like say... stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, etc. etc.
  • by Need More RWHP ( 818552 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @11:06AM (#10641854)
    Well, at least they didnt block the voter registration sites too. Oh wait...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @11:10AM (#10641914)
    Who are out of the country? I'm in the UK and there's been quite a bit of fuss from American organizations trying to get Americans-abroad to vote.

    Now, if there's a reason for George Bush to have a website, then there's a reason that US Citizens should be able to view it, no?

    I just don't see what is achieved here, has anyone tried it via proxy?
  • Re:Non-US Simulation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by suso ( 153703 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @11:10AM (#10641927) Journal
    So its not a routing table thing then, they are actually doing it from the web server. Crazy.

    It makes me wonder, how are they doing it and if they got all the IP blocks for non-us countries, or if they just went by "blocking APNIC and RIPE blocks"
  • by nberardi ( 199555 ) * on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @11:11AM (#10641932) Homepage
    I have a theory this has to do with people defacing the site in the last week of the campaign. It's probably nothing personal, and besides, to be blunt the world has no say in the American president so this really isn't an issue. People shouldn't take offense to this, because if some 17 year old kid defaces the site in the last days of the election it is going to be broadcast around the world and make W look bad.

    By limiting access you are only allow 1/24 (300,000,000/6,000,000,000) of the world to see the site and thus limiting the chance of attack by 23/24.

    This doesn't surprise me since most of Europe has let it be known that they don't like W.
  • by Ford Prefect ( 8777 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @11:12AM (#10641959) Homepage
    ... though it's a little off-message.

    So's the .co.uk site: http://www.georgewbush.co.uk/ [georgewbush.co.uk]

    Seems that Dubya's put on a bit of weight, too. :-)
  • by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @11:14AM (#10641999) Homepage Journal
    I'm in Indianapolis, but I work for a Swedish company so my net traffic looks like it's coming from Sweden. "Access Denied"!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @11:14AM (#10642001)
    This URL works even from Europe.

    How stupid can you be, if you want to shut out the rest of the world at least do it right, Jesus!
  • by jasoncart ( 573937 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @11:17AM (#10642042) Homepage

    When setting up a site on Akamai you have to set the origin (I've done many of these!).

    This still works, ripe for a DDOS... origin.georgewbush.com [georgewbush.com]

  • To prevent DDOS (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @11:20AM (#10642084)
    Maybe the reason it is blocked is to prevent DDOS attacks from outside the US (like 1000's of hacked boxes in Asia, etc).

    I'm sure the Bush site is a prime target for many of those types.
  • by DigitalRaptor ( 815681 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @11:21AM (#10642095)
    Everyone should read this before voting for Bush, or if they need help telling their friends why they shouldn't vote for Bush:

    http://www.algore04.com/news/gnn/EpAlEukuZEoWoQliy A.shtml [algore04.com].

    Yes, it's from Al Gore, but don't let that fool you. Al Gore isn't who he came across as during the 2000 debates. He is very, very intelligent and educated.

    This speech is right on the money when it comes to why Bush is such a threat to America and Americans.

    I've never voted anything but Republican my whole life (including voting for Bush in 2000), but I cannot in good conscience vote for Bush now. He has shown his true colors by his actions in office.

    And before you go off about Gore being a liar and claiming to invent the internet, realize that his comment was completely spun by the Bush campaign. He never claimed to invent the internet. He claimed to have been the sole senator responsible for the funding that led to its invention, which is completely accurate, and supported by those who actually did invent the internet.
  • by TheLoneCabbage ( 323135 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @11:22AM (#10642125) Homepage
    We already voted. Most of us anyway. Absentee ballots are either mailed in or delivered to our local embassy.

    Besides, I'm so sick of the locals here acting like they have a say in the US elections. So good for Bush, it's nice to see someone with a grasp of reality.

    PS. To anyone who may be offended by saying that that I'm sick of your comments on the US election (you know who you are): DEAL WITH IT! I don't get to vote in your petty little elections so stay out of mine. My country, my vote; I don't care what you or the rest of the world thinks. After you solve all of your problems then you can comment on ours.

  • Re:Non-US Simulation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Karma Farmer ( 595141 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @11:30AM (#10642250)
    If they haven't blocked it at the router, and they webserver is configured to to accept the connection and serve up an "access denied" page, then no, they have not done this to prevent DOS attacks.

    Actually, it is possible that their sys admin is incredibly incompetent, and thinks he's doing this to prevent DOS attacks.
  • by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @11:40AM (#10642385) Homepage Journal
    the Guardian to encourage its UK readers, i.e., not US citizens, to start a letter writing and email campaign to Ohioans encouraging them to vote for John Kerry
    Actually, that's not what they did. What they did (as you'd know if you'd done any research) was
    That's it. No specific policies, issues or candidates were suggested. It's called freedom of speech, buddy boy. Suck it up, it applies to non-Americans too.
    Besides, I'm not being told not to interfere in elections by the people who installed Pinochet, OK?
    Charlie Brooker described Bush in scathing terms, and concluded: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr., where are you now that we need you?"
    That would be Charlie Brooker, comedian, right? You're aware of the concept of humour, right? OK, this isn't very funny, but it is clearly a joke.

    Incidentally, About 15 years ago Ben Elton did *precisely* this joke about Margaret Thatcher. On national television, while dressed as Guy Fawkes (a terrorist, albeit a 17th century one, who attempted to blow up Parliament). Nobody cared, because we are not a nation of humorless retards, and we can detect a joke, and react appropriately.
  • by Shajenko42 ( 627901 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @11:59AM (#10642702)
    Notice I said it's one of their problems, not one of our problems. I live in the US, so cut out the ad hominems; they don't apply anyway.

    It's a debatable point that the USA hasn't entered into an unprovoked conflict since 1812 (sorry to the canadians, that one was our fault).
    Right now it's heavily debated. Unless, of course, you watch Fox "News" and think Iraq orchestrated 9/11 (sadly, there are plenty of people who believe this). Also, I'm pretty sure we were still committing genocide on the Native Americans after 1812. And then there's the various covert ops the US has conducted, specifically the cases where the US has assassinated democratically elected leaders and installed America-friendly dictators.

    Take off the blinders.
  • Dead Letter Office (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rev063 ( 591509 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @12:15PM (#10642944) Homepage
    Funny story about the georgewbush.org domain:

    It seems like some of the Bush campaign staffers have accidentally sent emails to colleagues at name@georgewbush.ORG instead of the correct name@georgewbush.COM. Fortunately, the georgewbush.org mailserver had a "catch-all" mailbox in place, and you can read the contents of this "Dead Letter Office [georgewbush.org]". There are some gems in there, like memos intended for Karl Rove, a weekly report from "Pennsylvania Evangelical Outreach", and even apparent evidence of illegal suppression of black votes (check out Caging1.xls).

    Interesting ... very interesting.

  • by FunWithHeadlines ( 644929 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @12:36PM (#10643255) Homepage
    This from the same campaign that applies loyalty tests to people who want to hear the President speak in person. Not a Bush supporter? Go away. This is a brilliant way to keep the President in an echo chamber of his own cheering. He never gets to be challenged, and when it finally happens after years of Yes Men behavior, we see what happened in the debates. He was not prepared to be challenged.

    So this web site nonsense is probably more of the same. "Non Americans? Who needs 'em!"

  • by sugar and acid ( 88555 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @12:38PM (#10643280)
    This could backfire. There is something like 3 million or more americans eligible to vote living overseas. Normally the vote turnout is low (30% or lower) due to the extra trouble of having to do an absentee ballot, and heavily slanted towards the republicans due to the large number of military personal that are stationed overseas. Interestingly there has been a massive upswing in voter registration and requests for absentee ballots for overseas voters due to how close the last election was, and how important overseas votes became (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6342710/ [msn.com]). Expect a large increase in overseas voting this election, and so a need by the candidates to attract that vote. So it isn't really smart to actively snub those voters by blocking them from your website.
  • Re:YES! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ifdef ( 450739 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @12:43PM (#10643377)
    From then article: "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam"

    Words fail me.
  • by davidwr ( 791652 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @12:52PM (#10643536) Homepage Journal
    Anyone care to guess how many "temporary proxies" will go up between now and election day so people overseas can see what Bush is really up to?

    This may have been a good financial decision, but it's a lousy political one. It just invites "what do you have to hide" backlash.
  • Re:Non-US Simulation (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pete-classic ( 75983 ) <hutnick@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @01:08PM (#10643772) Homepage Journal
    You'd be right if they were using the sort of setup you are describing, but they aren't. The Fine Article says they're using Akamai, which means there is no "they [sic] webserver."

    On they chance you don't know, Akamai [akamai.com] uses a world-wide mesh of webservers to serve up their client's sites. And since the site is full of video and such, one would expect this move to greatly reduce bandwidth expenses.

    Regarding competence; glass houses, stones, etc.

    -Peter
  • by sigemund ( 122744 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @01:09PM (#10643782)
    What about the American Citizens who live outside of the United States? Why should they not be allowed to view Bush's campaign site? What about the soldiers in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Korea?

    More votes for the opponents, I guess . . .
  • and (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @01:19PM (#10643951)
    I still find it absolutely amazing that American's still haven't figured out that there might be something fishy about a plan called "No Child Left Behind" that involves cutting funding for schools in poor neighborhoods.

    And requires schools to turn over the complete school record of any student to any US Military recruiter upon demand.

    Fuck bush. I am truly embarassed to be an american. I've already started to make plans to move to Canada (scored 98 on their test!) if he is reelected.

  • by dea9 ( 783648 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @02:13PM (#10644689) Homepage Journal
    "Falacious" has too positive a sounding word for the content of your statements here, so I'll stick with the ever reliable "bullshit."

    A) Late term abortion isn't promoted by anyone except for the reason of the mother's health. There aren't any abortion advocates really trying to argue about things after the third trimester. This issue is a total red herring, and it's intended effect is to make the entire issue of abortion about killing babies as opposed to flushing a non-viable bundle of cells.

    "The CDC estimates that 58 percent of legal abortions occur within the first eight weeks of gestation, and 88 percent are performed within the first 12 weeks. Only 1.5 percent occur after 20 weeks (CDC, 2003)."

    (Feel free to argue the bias of the source, I'll find another: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/facts/abo taft1st_010600.html)

    STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT, but propaganda-wise it's a goldmine. Your graphic description is just an emotional ploy, totally unrelated to the actual facts of the debate. However, this seems to be a successful trend with the current administration, so I can't fault you for jumping on the rhetorical bandwagon.

    Let's face it, the fundamental issue is when someone becomes a person. Since there is a fair percentage of us who don't buy the bible's explanation, and some others who don't buy the doctor's explanation ('cause you know, they're only doctors), we have to discuss it in the middle. The plan that the anti-abortion team has is to get anything they can into law that talks about the life of the fetus near the edge of the current grey area so that they have a beachhead to argue from. Same argument as killing a pregnant mother counting as a double murder. Certainly not supported by current abortion law, but they figure if they can sneak it into criminal law they can work it around eventually.

    Personally, I think you should be able to abort until the end of potty training.

    B) Ok, the Kerry thing has to be just trolling but I'll bite.

    First, no one can deny that the situation in Iraq after the invasion is totally borked, most especially the total lack of international support.

    Second, no one can deny that John Kerry's military service, whatever it is, is orders of magnitude more real than George Bush's, whatever it is. The guy actually carried a gun and shot people he could see. I'm pretty certain that gives a person important perspective on the concept of war.

    The current administration is so full of chickenhawks they had to build a database to hold them. http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user _action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawk s

    C) Here's the most important thing you're missing. Iraq and abortion aren't that important issues in my mind. A president who consistently lies to the American public about important issues (jizz in the oval office being a not-important issue, for instance), and who surrounds himself with people who do the same, is not qualified for the job. People support Kerry not because he's pro-abortion but because he seems like less of a liar than the current guy.

    Hey, this is my first angry slashdot post! Now where's my ribbon?

    dea9
  • by budgenator ( 254554 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:23PM (#10645573) Journal
    This mornings WSJ, Wall Street Journal, had an article about how large numbers of American's living over-seas have not recieved their absentee ballots, also I just stumbled across this story about how even people living localy haven't recieved ballots [sun-sentinel.com].
    My Magic Eight Ball says "outlook not good", 60,000 missing absentee ballots, in one county. Imagine what it must be like nationaly?
  • by johnnyb ( 4816 ) <jonathan@bartlettpublishing.com> on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @03:45PM (#10645881) Homepage
    "After the invasion: it's almost certain that a large chunk of the stuff we went to war so that Saddam wouldn't sell it to the terrorists is, well, in the hands of the terrorists."

    It was already going into the hands of terrorists. In the months leading up to the war, large convoys of trucks were sent across the border to Syria.

    In addition, one of the reasons for war is that in Saddam's weapons declarations, a lot of his arsenal just "disappeared" with no explanation. Since we know he has been funding and training terrorists, we feared he was giving it to them.

    What this means is that we probably should have acted even sooner. Like the first time the inspectors were thrown out.
  • Re:sorry, bro (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @05:31PM (#10647102)
    I still find it absolutely amazing that American's still haven't figured out that there might be something fishy about a plan called "No Child Left Behind" that involves cutting funding for schools in poor neighborhoods.

    How the hell did he do that when...
    The President's budget increases funding for Title I aid to disadvantaged students and schools, the central funding program in the No Child Left Behind Act, by $1 billion for FY 2004, on top of the $1 billion increase requested by the President for Title I for FY 2003. If enacted, the President's FY 2004 Budget will result in a 41 percent increase ($3.9 billion) in Title I spending since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act.
    and
    The President's FY 2004 Budget increases overall spending for NCLB from the $22,002,418 requested for FY 2003 to $22,508,018 for FY 2004. This increase comes on top of the 24 percent increase in ESEA spending ($4.3 billion) provided during the first year of the No Child Left Behind Act. [The No Child Left Behind Act authorizes Congress to spend "such sums as may be required" overall to implement the education reforms in FY 2003, FY 2004, and beyond. Democrat claims that $29.2 billion in funding was authorized or promised by NCLB for FY 2003, FY 2004, or any other year beyond FY 2002 are based on invalid assumptions that have no basis in the law.]
    http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/108th/educat io n/funding/budgetfactsheet020403.htm

    Also, since when does throwing money into a bad system help matters??
    Utah has the lowest student/spending ratio, $3,280 per year, but on the National Assessment of Educational Progress test, Utah students outperform students in New York, which spends $8,162 per pupil.
    Education bureaucrats claim the comparisons are unfair because minority students consistently score lower than white students, but the findings hold up even when only white students' test results are compared. For example, Mississippi's white students score almost as high as California's, while per pupil spending in Mississippi is substantially less than in California. Connecticut's white students are the top scoring group (NAEP of 687), but score only slightly better than North Dakota students (NAEP of 678), though the former spends $7,629 per student, versus $4,374 in North Dakota.

    http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Educate/backtoscho ol _1999.htm

    I think the only "something fishy" is your lack of understanding and probably education.
  • The Take (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Phantom of the Opera ( 1867 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @05:41PM (#10647223) Homepage
    You might be ineterested to hear what the magazine American Conservative has to say on it. http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html [amconmag.com]
  • by stephanruby ( 542433 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @08:21PM (#10648753)
    "But you can't really blame Bush for the CIA-orchestrated coup. "

    No, but you sure can blame Bush for the failed coup in Venezuela on April 11th, 2002 [guardian.co.uk]. The motive seems to have been the same [forbes.com] as the one in Iran [iranchamber.com].

  • Re:Last straw (Score:2, Interesting)

    by chitownIrish ( 769695 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @01:13AM (#10650612)
    Well if you're looking at one of the other candidates, let me counter your parents' view of Kerry.

    He was a well-respected prosecutor in Boston for a number of years and won some big cases against organized crime figures.

    When he entered the Senate in the mid-80's, he was instrumental in the investigations that became Iran-contra. Oliver North hates Kerry with a passion, but without Kerry, North would probably be just another retired Marine.

    He exposed and almost single-handedly brought down BCCI, which was a Jordan-based bank that was not much more than a front for money laundering for terrorist groups and drug dealers. The bank had influence with powerful people on both sides of the aisle in Congress and the Reagan/Bush administrations, and Kerry was repeatedly stonewalled in his investigation. Kerry persevered, and eventually the bank was shut down. The people involved with this bank are some names you might recognize: Manuel Noriega, Oliver North, Henry Kissingere and Osama bin Laden.

    The bank also made a $25 million investment to bail out George Bush's Harken Energy.

    Some more material on Kerry and BCCI:
    http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bc ci/
    http://www.alternet.org/election04/20268/

    Kerry also was instrumental in restoring relations between the US and Vietnam, and he and John McCain helped settle the POW/MIA issue. McCain initially disliked Kerry for his anti-war past, but the two are now good friends.

    Kerry does not have his name on much legislation, but from the above you can see that he is more of an 'investigative' senator than a 'legislative' one. You can take that as a plus or a minus, but he has shown the following that Bush obviously lacks;

    1. He has the intellectual stamina to get to the bottom of extremely complex issues, and does not gloss over the details like Bush.

    2. Despite what the Bush camp says, he will not be intimidated and will never back down from a cause he feels to be right. Kerry is truly resolute; Bush is just stubborn.

    3. Kerry will not save someone's ass just because they are a Democrat. Prominent Democrats urged him to drop his BCCI probe, but he would not.

    4. Kerry will (and has, with BCCI) go after terrorists orginazations with more than an M-1 tank. Bush's approach has no historical precedent for victory; no terrorist organization has ever been defeated by military force alone. Ask the British why the couldn't eradicate the IRA, and ask the Israelis how they are doing agains Hamas. You can only succeed if you're prepared to slaughter the entire population that is sympathetic to them.

    My opinion is that Kerry will make an exemplary president given the chance. He's not perfect, but I'm not going to list his faults here - the Bush campaign is listing some of them, and making up others.

The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine

Working...