Quoting Jonathan Ah Kit on Tuesday November 23, 2004:
| 
| Surely there are easier ways of doing this filtering instead of spoofing 
| the DNS, such as (are they common in .au? I can't recall offhand) 
| transparent proxying. It'd filter it out less users, surely, but doesn't 
| involve spoofing DNS.

Spoofing the DNS on your caching resolvers is probably pretty easy too,
and probably the easiest.  Just make them authoritative for the zone.

| Though does raise, of course ethical issues too. Though I can't imagine 
| too many users wanting at the moment to visit a pr0n star's site over an 
| Idol winner. Dunno.

I think the nature of the content is irrelevant to the discussion of the
ethics. It is about an ISP hijacking someone elses traffic just to cover
up their own marketing department's mistakes. According to the press
reports, the site being hijacked contains perfectly legal material.

If we were to draw a parallel from the phone world, if Telstra published
an erroneous telephone number in an advertisement (lets say 131313 for
the sake of argument), I doubt it would ever be acceptable from them to
redirect that number for their customers to the correct number. It seems
it is only the wild-west frontier of the Internet where it is okay to
play god.

kim