See other Editorial Articles
Title: A Sneak Peek at a Fractured Web, Internet censorship is spreading and becoming more sophisticated across the planet
Source:
WIRED
URL Source: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72104-0.html?tw=wn_politics_7
Published: Nov 30, 2006
Author: By Mark Anderson
Post Date: 2006-11-30 07:45:53 by tom007
Keywords: None
Views: 635
Comments: 60
A Sneak Peek at a Fractured Web * Chinese Blogger Slams Microsoft * Progress Report for Net Censors By Mark Anderson| Also by this reporter 02:00 AM Nov, 13, 2006 CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts -- Internet censorship is spreading and becoming more sophisticated across the planet, even as users develop savvier ways around it, according to early results in the first-ever comprehensive global survey of internet censorship. The internet watchdog organization OpenNet Initiative is compiling a year's worth of data gathered by nearly 50 cyberlaw, free-speech and network experts across as many countries, whose governments are known internet filterers. The study systematically tested if, when, how and by whom thousands of controversial websites are blocked in each nation. Last week, ONI researchers gathered at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School to begin hashing through their as-yet unpublished -- and in many cases, still incomplete -- findings. Wired News sat down with five members of the ONI team to catch a sneak preview of the study that, when it's published in the spring, is expected to set the gold standard for measuring freedom of expression across the internet. The spectrum of internet censorship, the researchers found, ranged from transparent to utterly murky. Perhaps the country with the most accessible filtering system was Saudi Arabia, said Berkman Center research affiliate Helmi Noman. "On their website, they have all the information of why they block and what they block," he said. "And they invite contributions (of other sites to be blocked) from the public." Vietnam, on the other hand, floats decoys. As ONI first documented this summer and confirmed in this year's study, the Southeast Asian regime purports to censor sexually explicit content. But ONI's computers found no such blocking in place. They did find, however, plenty of unadvertised censorship of political and religious websites critical of the country's one-party state. Sometimes a censoring government tries to conceal its filtering behind spoofed web-browser error messages. ONI discovered that Tunisia, for instance, masks filtered pages by serving a mockup of Internet Explorer's 404 error page. These supposed error pages stood out, because ONI doesn't use IE. "Rather than getting a page that says 'This page has been blocked,' you get a page saying 'Page not found,' designed to look exactly like the Internet Explorer 404 page," said Cairo-based ONI consultant Elijah Zarwan. Sometimes a censoring government apparently dips into the bag of tricks more commonly used by online extortionists and script kiddies. ONI researcher Stephen Murdoch of Cambridge University points to denial of service attacks on multiple opposition-party websites preceding countrywide elections in both Belarus and Kyrgyzstan. Although ONI cannot prove the government was the instigator, the government benefited from the attacks. If the state had nothing to do with the denial-of-service carpet bombings, some mysterious third party took big risks acting malevolently on the state's behalf. Indeed, speculates ONI researcher Nart Villeneuve of the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab, the difficulty in tracing the source may be why denial-of-service attacks may appear more and more attractive to governments. "There is some plausible deniability in a denial of service attack," he said. "Whereas if they send out a fax to internet service providers saying to block this site, and somebody leaks that fax, then we can directly prove that the government is blocking this site." Government filtering is beginning to expand beyond the bounds of the web browser, too. Last summer, Bahrain blocked all access to Google Earth, before yielding to global political pressure from bloggers and lifting the ban. Internet filtering can sometimes have clearly commercial motives, said Noman. "The (United Arab Emirates) block voice over IP, but they think they have a legal reason: The only telecommunications company in the country is the sole (legal) provider of telecommunications services. So going through the internet is a violation of the monopoly," he said. However, government censors don't have a corner on innovation. The new generation of censorship circumvention hacks are coming online too, though they're typically known only by the tiny percentage of users who are also geeks. Noman discussed a new breed of web browser and web applications that can use foreign web servers to disguise a user's IP address, and thus evade censorship protocols. He declines to mention any specific products, though, for fear of giving away too much information to the other side. More prosaic workarounds exist too. In Syria, Zarwan said, content from some blocked websites quickly translates into impromptu e-mail blasts from the website owners to its regular readers. "E-mail and SMS are probably more important than the web for political organizing," he said. One Syrian website used to "go after government members by name and was really fearless," said Zarwan. "It was quickly blocked. So they started sending (the site's content) out by e-mail. Then the government started blocking that e-mail address, and so he started a new e-mail address ... to the point where he was changing e-mail addresses three times a week." In Egypt, Zarwan added, activists from the local pro-democracy group Kifaya performed a similar trick, only using Yahoo Groups instead of e-mail. Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Iran, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Kyrgyzstan and Belarus also have the distinction of making up the lion's share of Reporters Without Borders' new list of 13 Internet Enemies, released last week. Reporters Without Borders' Julien Pain is one activist eager to see ONI's final report next spring. "Five years ago, only a few countries censored the internet, or censored it at all efficiently," he said. "The first one to do that was China, and they were kind of a model for other dictatorships around the world." But we see now that it's spreading all over the world, and even in sub-Saharan African countries," Pain said. ONI is a collaboration between digital frontier organizations at Harvard University, the University of Toronto, Cambridge and Oxford Universities in the U.K. Although many organizations, including ONI itself, have released progress reports on the state of internet censorship in individual countries, no one has to date attempted a comparative study of all of them at once. ONI's past work has been extremely thorough and up to date, said Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch, so he expects the ONI survey will become the bellwether for internet free-speech researchers around the world. "I've found their work to be very impressive, because it's such a complicated field," he said. "It's not like other fields where at least it's static enough that you can draw some straightforward conclusions. This is hard work." One of ONI's worries, said project manager Rob Faris, is that the information it gathers will be used by censorious governments to refine their techniques and tighten their grip. "One of the things that we could do inadvertently in our work is to create a compendium of websites that should have been blocked by the standards of that country that haven't been blocked," Faris said. "We don't want to do their work for them."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 41.
#8. To: tom007, All, yertle turtle, neil Mciver, christine, zipporah, historian1944, red jones, skydrifter, lodwick, robin, wbales, all (#0)
But we see now that it's spreading all over the world, and even in sub-Saharan African countries," Pain said. This is a historical pattern repeating itself in the same way the printing press, radio, television and now the internet evolve. First there is the "wild west" period of complete freedom of expression, then there is the "for the children!" regulation of adult oriented stuff, then the "that's unfair to minorities, women, the poor, etc" kind of censorship, then people get used to being censored. Once that happens, then there is a "fairness doctrine" or an "equal time" doctrine applied, so that "both sides" get equal access (ignoring any other "side" there might be to an issue); and eventually your information outlet becomes plain happy pap and vanilla ice cream, and to get anything really contraversial you have to stay up til 2 am. And you are effectively silenced. The Reichwingers thought they had this situation licked because they were able to counter all of the truth floating around out there with their massive disinformation sources like FOX Snooze and Limpballs and insHannitys. Instead, the truth got out anyway, which I am sure really, really pissed them off. Just like the votes against them overwhelming their Diebold cheating margins did. So how do they fix it? If they can't outshout you, they'll simply shut you up. What I'm saying is that free speech on the web has a limited temporal window, and that window is slowly shutting. If you love free speech and freedom, don't count on the internet to forever provide you an outlet. When in your life have you been able (other than on the internet) to get something you wanted to say out to a lot of people? Stand on a soapbox in a city park and you've got to get a permit and if you stray from what you are approved to say, expect to be arrested. Try to get truth in a letter to the editor and the editor has to approve it, which means his advertisers have to approve it also so you'd damn well not criticize the local car dealership, right? Try to get on television? You'd better blow something up or be famous, 'cause otherwise you have no chance. The people who profit from the current system want you to shut up. They will figure out a way to shut you up and make you like it. Just witness the amount of disinformation I got from the El Pee regulars about THIS site before I quit that one and began posting here. You need to use this time of relative freedom to say what you like and build networks and relationships with like minded people so that when the web is censored and this site shut down you still have the connections. The relationships are what is important. The mode of communication is secondary. Word to the wise.
there are still more of us than there are of them. i can't help but to have some faith in the ingenuity of people to find a way to get around them. it is the world wide web afterall. hey, maybe some of your hope has rubbed off on me.
Technically, the Internet as it is currently implemented is mostly open to the free exchange of information in the western world. The problem is that the gateways are owned and operated by corporations. Imagine that you get in your car and begin a trip. You get on the road you live on, drive to a larger highway and eventually take an entry onto the interstate. When you have reached your exit you leave the interstate and drive a highway to the road that leads to your destination. Now imagine that at every entry or exit to the highway or interstate a roadblock is set up where your vehicle is examined according to a set of rules designed to allow or prohibit access based on the outcome of how you meet the rule criteria. If you are not allowed access you might try the next entry point, where you will encounter the same set of rules. If the roadblocks are set up at every entry and exit point you have no hope of reaching you destination unless you can trick the rule mechanism by disguise, by piggybacking a system-trusted carrier, or by traversing to your destination without having to drive the highways and interstates. Even worse suppose that failure to meet the roadblock rules criteria were considered an illegal act. You are now a criminal. Every router on the Internet is a gateway to another network, beginning with the router at your home. Every router can be programmed to allow or not any kind of traffic. You can see how possible it would be for the routers, especially the routers acting as gateways to the "superhighway", to be programmed to deny access either coming or going for virtually any kind of information. At present most information is not blocked but you can be sure that the information is monitored and notes are being taken. In my experience I believe that the roadblocks are already in place and that there are mechanisms that deal with identifying the source and destination of information that is deemed dangerous or undesirable. Once the mandate for lockdown occurs the choices for several levels of control will be implemented and will range from subjective blocking of targeted sites to pulling the plug in extreme cases. In any event what this will mean is a curtailing of the free exchange of information. And a database entry for identification of any who believe they can buck the system. How do I know this? I've been an IT professional for twelve years and can see the writing on the wall. I have programmed routers for many of those years both small scale and medium scale. If the flow of anything can be controlled and manipulated it will be. The Internet is an example of a flow that can be controlled to the nth degree should it become necessary or desirable for the gatekeepers. It's only a matter of time. My feeling is that we should take advantage while we have it to spread awareness and truth, to communicate and solidify our relationships. When the SHTF the ability to communicate on this wonder called the Internet will quickly disappear.
In order to effectively limit the information that can pass through the "highway entrances" the internet would have to be shut down. I don't think there is a middle ground. If they selectively filter the actual content, 99% of all websites will be unreachable. Censorship is a waste of resources. It can be circumvented. Shutting down the internet is another matter entirely. Even selectively filtering content can be circumvented. Say a forum like this would be filtered since certain keywords appear all over the place. Well, it would not be too hard configure the scripting to replace the keywords with benignly named .jpg or .gif images of the words. It might look funny, but it would work. Like this: The The point is, no matter what they do, short of shutting things down entirely, we will get around it. :)
That must be why the MSM doesn't censor. Or the military, or governments, or corporations. A complete waste of resources indeed. "In order to effectively limit the information that can pass through the "highway entrances" the internet would have to be shut down. I don't think there is a middle ground." You are completely off base on this one. I suppose you, like me, have a list of resources that you routinely go to for your information. You know, places like F4UM. Now where would you go if these sites were not available? To approved sites? Maybe fauxnews? I know I feel deprived if my connection goes down or I can't reach a site that I depend on for my information. As I said many different levels of control can be implemented. "Even selectively filtering content can be circumvented. Say a forum like this would be filtered since certain keywords appear all over the place. Well, it would not be too hard configure the scripting to replace the keywords with benignly named .jpg or .gif images of the words. It might look funny, but it would work. Like this: " Trust me, the gatekeepers are well aware of this tactic. They already have AI to scan images for text (OCR) recognition. And one better... AI can scan images for coded patterns stored in image pixels. The technology has been around for years and is advancing in capability at a remarkable rate. No beef with you bro, but you have no clue. Anything we can do, they can do better. Yes there are and will be ways to circumvent the system. They are short lived and have to be constantly changed to work. The 99.99% who don't have the know-how or ingenuity to do it though will be forced to accept it as the norm. Any takers to the challenge risk breaking the laws legislated solely to protect the system. It's a system and all systems can be broken. But when a system is completely under control it can be very hard to beat. Witness the Drivers License system as a great example. How many people do you know who can work their way around that one without risk? Peace
I never said there wasn't risk. I only said that it can and will be done. The resources required to filter every bit of text and every bit of every image going in both directions involving hundreds of millions if not billions of users will be an enormous drain on gov't. When things become so restricted that the gov't will resort to this, the risks will be worth taking, and when caught taking them, take a few of the buggers out with you on the way to the maker. If they think Iraq is a quagmire, wait til they force us to behave like Iraqis. lmfao!
For crying out loud, you have an exalted, exaggerated view of the propensity of Americans to "resist". We gave in on Corps dictating afterwork behavior, (drug tests), now people are being fired for smoking. In America, fascism arrives via the personal; the flip side of the personal is political dictum of the 60's. No way, Jose, people have their credit ratings to worry about.
thanks for telling us how the internet is effectively censored in China. I agree with you about how many of 'us' have an exaggerated view of our ability to resist fascism.
I know it's simplistic and who in his right mind could defend smoking anymore (moi!), but I regard it as a metaphor in our society - DeTocqueville's tyranny of the majority. Yesterday it was druggies, todays it's smokers and we all agree with that. Tomorrow?
Tomorrow? Us vs. Them is the name, obedience is the game. Divide and conquer. Maybe the most useful control tool in all history. Individualism is the enemy of the hive and must be destroyed for the greater good.
There are no replies to Comment # 41. End Trace Mode for Comment # 41.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"Five years ago, only a few countries censored the internet, or censored it at all efficiently," he said. "The first one to do that was China, and they were kind of a model for other dictatorships around the world."
#10. To: bluedogtxn (#8)
#19. To: christine (#10)
i can't help but to have some faith in the ingenuity of people to find a way to get around them
#21. To: lightmind (#19)
When the SHTF the ability to communicate on this wonder called the Internet will quickly disappear.
in 
has nothing to do with 
.
#24. To: Critter (#21)
Censorship is a waste of resources.
#30. To: lightmind (#24)
How many people do you know who can work their way around that one without risk?
#31. To: Critter (#30)
#34. To: swarthyguy (#31)
#35. To: Red Jones (#34)
(Edited)
#41. To: swarthyguy (#35)
Yesterday it was druggies, todays it's smokers and we all agree with that.
Replies to Comment # 41.