Can technology beat the internet censors?
- 27 Oct 06, 09:31 PM
Its predecessor is 2000 years old but the Great Firewall of China is the wonder of the online world - so powerful that it can control net access for a fifth of humanity - it represents China's determination to control what's supposed to be uncontrollable - and it works. Watch my report here. In 2004 Shi Tao, a journalist in contact with democracy websites, took notes of a government briefing concerning how he should report the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, and sent it using his Yahoo email account. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison....
At his trial the prosecution presented
"Account holder information furnished by Yahoo Holdings (Hong Kong) Ltd which confirms that for IP address 218,76.8.20 at 11.32.17pm,,,the corresponding user information was as follows...."
You can read the : his 10 year sentence was classed as "lenient".
Yahoo had handed over crucial information linking Shi's anonymous Yahoo email account to the Chinese police.
Today Amnesty International launched a campaign to highlight the plight of bloggers, chatroom members and online journalists on the receiving end of net censorship. Amnesty's Kate Allen told us:
"We want Yahoo, Google and Microsoft to stand up to values they say they espouse. Access to information, freedom on the internet. We want people who use those companies to make their views clear so we don't end up with a two-tier internet."
Yahoo told us:
"We condemn punishment of any activity internationally recognized as free expression. The case of Shi Tao is distressing to us. However, law enforcement agencies worldwide are not required to explain businesses why they demand specific information regarding certain individuals. The case is a real example of why this issue is bigger than any one company and any one industry."
But I've been finding out that techie web users themselves are inventing ways to monitor and, increasingly, get around web censorship. the now publishes regular metrics on how, when and what is banned in countries as diverse as Saudi Arabia, Iran and China.
Meanwhile I've noticed that there's a little known tool on the Google Labs website, called the , that - as well as speeding up access to Google - just happens to encrypt your searches. I don't know whether it's available in China, but it's the kind of thing savvy web users in repressive countries are quietly using to keep their sessions away from the attention of the authorities. So three cheers for the 80:20 principle, where Google's engineers get a day a week to work on hobbies like this.
For a real heavy duty two-fingers job to regimes like Beijing, Tehran and Riyadh, users are turning to a programme called . It's a peer to peer programme that scrambles the data, spreads it around the hard disk of every user, and sends queries for data around a path so convoluted that only a London cabbie with a taxi-full of hapless tourists could match it. See it here - but beware you have no way of knowing whether you are helping host a Chinese democracy website or porn - and there is no case law in Britain yet that says scrambling the data is a defence.
Theodore Hong, one of the pioneers of Freenet, tells me there's a Chinese version that's being distributed on floppies and CDs. One of the downsides though, is that if we are all forced to start using tools like Freenet, the internet could just become a series of closed user-communities where only the trusted talk to each other and outsiders are viewed with suspicion.
So next week's UN conference on Internet Governance in Athens (sadly Newsnight's budget does not stretch to Athens since Justin Rowlatt blew it all in Jamaica) will be important. Some repressive countries want there to be more national control of access to the web, weakening ICANN, the global regulator: they might get more support than you would think because ICANN, while nominally global, is based in the USA and there's a lot of suspicion of that.
I talked to a big internet company today who are worried about this trend - and they said: why doesn't the UK government push censorship up the trade agenda, moving it into the WTO negotiations. The UK government made sympathetic noises about that, but pointed out that trade is handled by Brussels. They said no more, but it is well known that France wants a strong national influence on global controls - so the EU is not united over solutions to the kind of censorship that put Shi Tao in jail. As always hit the comment button.
Comments Post your comment
All this is a bit hypocritical.
My criticisms of the UK's security services involvment in arming and directing British Loyalist terrorists in the killing of Irish people is regularly censored on this site.
I have posted comments on the article relating to President Musarif of PAkistan, THe article on the recently murdered Russion journalist killed by Russian security service controlled paramilitaries and others pointing out that the UK security services have done worse, and my comments are not posted by the blog owners.
Complain about this post
I was just prevented from making the following posting on the excellent Loyns report.
I was impressed with Loyns report.
But laughed out loud when the commentator in the studio commented that this was in line with the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ's independence in other conflicts over the last 25 years.
When is the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ going to tell the British puiblic that the Dublin/Monaghan bonbing enquiry is being blocked by MI5 as they would be exposed as compilict in a bombing worse than the recent London bombings?
When is the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ going to report that that MI5 is blocking the Stephens enquiry as it exposes them and the so-called army intelligence as being involved in the killing of hundreds of Birtish and Irish civilian citizens.
When is the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ going to tell the public that paramilitaries controlled by the security services killed journalist Martin O'Hagan for trying to expose all of this? Maybe when exposing the Russian security services for doing the same thing with Anna Politkovskaya?? Yea, right.
Will this be another posting you will censor? Mybe I should be posting my comments on the Chinese News services blog site.
Complain about this post
Ref Brenda #1
Anywhere else you have posted these observations so we can judged for ourselves & see if Newsnight had a point or not?
vikingar
Complain about this post
The ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ should know all about censorship. The ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Today message board regular bans people who refuse to kowtow to the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ's liberal left hegemony.
Question Time is another highly controlled programme which tries to potray itself as giving voice to the masses, but it's so out of kilter with public opinion that it is no longer worth watching.
Complain about this post
FREE EXPRESSION & CENSORSHIP
Newsnight is a refreshing change thus far, ref review by moderator/blog owner of user submission ….. hope it does not let it slip *
* had a few things rejected myself, hope I am learning what flies & what does not.
But I echo JPseudonym #3 ref ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ overall policy to social networking (using HAVE YOUR SAY under real name, only several submissions passed heavy handed censorship from about 30+ submissions so for a long time I do not bother now).
Too many 'opinions' are like Readers Digest rejections & have as much cutting comment as a blunt knife. Also as a TV Licence payer & British Tax payers resent not being to use the service I pay for & support (whilst all comers from around the world who do not pay tax/licence post consistently - perhaps users should pretend to be from abroad).
Even The Guardian talk (Guardian Unlimited) allows discussion & challenging comments (but it has limits) & GU moderators are too much of a cabal. *
* ironically, commentary opinions I have been allowed to raise on Newsnight has not flown on GU.
So in general why does two virtues of liberal press (³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ & The Guardian) who promote expression, freedom of speech & wax lyrical about 'rights' & the need to exchange opinions between groups, not allow robust exchanges (Beeb far guilty than Guardian, but latter rather more dishonest because they do allow radical rants … by the extreme left variety … & then bang on about tolerance).
Talking about it but not practicing by both NCA organisations is rather telling **
** unless your one of their favourite 'disadvantaged' groups, then virtually anything goes.
Also even more ironic given 'GU' & perhaps the Beeb? make use of cookies to track users habits.
Q. ref yahoo disgraceful quisling behaviour - can that imprisoned Chinese blogger prosecute yahoo?
vikingar
Complain about this post
Over on the 'Friday, 27 October, 2006', blog entry, I last night posted a suggestion for offering practical help to people in other countries who put themselves at risk when they post. There has not been a single response. It seems that many of your posters are happy to pontificate on a range of subjects but do nothing.
It is too late to help the people who have already fallen victim to internet censorship but surely we have a significant weapon up our sleeves when it comes to future situations. Hit the providers where it hurts - in the pocket. We know what Yahoo (HK) does with it's information now and we should be deserting Yahoo in our millions. Because the Yahoo toolbar is a function for MS Internet Explorer, we should be moving on to Firefox. Yahoo partner with BT in the UK so there is another possibility. Yahoo is already losing ground to competitors and now would be a very good time to tell them what we think by just not using them anymore.
Complain about this post
Re: Vikinger at 4.
You can disable cookies in your browser or clear your cache after each session so that they can tell the organisations which use them absolutely nothing.
IP addresses are a whole different thing. Even in the relatively liberal climate of the UK, BT are required to hold IP address information for every internet exchange for (I believe) 12 months - this so that the authorities can more easily track drug dealers, terrorists, child abusers and the like.
I don't actually have a problem with this - a bit like surveillance cameras - if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. It is when the information is misused for purposes such as political repression that the problem arises and it should be the responsibility of the providers to move their facilities outside the jurisdiction of the repressive regimes or suffer the financial consequences when those of us in the liberal west abandon them in protest
Complain about this post
vikingar (in #4) writes:-
"Newsnight is a refreshing change thus far, ref review by moderator/blog owner of user submission ….. hope it does not let it slip *
* had a few things rejected myself, hope I am learning what flies & what does not."
This learning process is somewhat inconsistent. It appears to depend on who is monitoring submissions to the Newsnight blog. Some monitors will accept a post others won't. And there is no way of knowing if or why a post has been rejected. The other day I sent the the same post twice, and the second time it appeared, without me needing to make any modifications. It seems as though acceptance is down to the personal prejudices of the duty monitor.
Complain about this post
Ref Paul D #6
Thanks for reminder about cookies.
Really more interested in what they do with this info i.e. NCA orgs, capturing it is one thing, why & to what purposes is another?
I echoes same ref IP, but reality is if they are on disc/tape (DR & Backup) unless the orgs actually destroy or recycle (as most do) they are there as long as they want.
Back in late 90's attended a UUNet hosted conference on Security & the net. Remember what the 'experts' told us. Just the traffic on the AOL pipeline between US & UK would require 200 million disks (750 Mb type) per day.
Then you would still have to process that info.
Then the approach was to target individuals/groups as similar in phone taps, presume that has not massively change :)
-----------------------------------------
Ref JPseudonym #7
Agree that its down to the inconsistency which makes it a lottery, but works both ways & we have no way of knowing which person is on duty - so its trial & error.
Do not suppose each journalist actually reviews all submission, they must pool editorial/moderator review depending on number of submission, time of day & how busy they are,
Typically I find run of the mill things (non challenging commentary) flies late at night & always during the day.
As night time more contentious commentary, less likelihood of publishing without the need for review.
Record to date for myself is three redrafts before submission at different times of the days, but would put it down to my lack of caveat'd wording ref Naomi Campbell & Madonna antics & alleged membership of Kabbalah & the need to use the word 'allegedly' several times 0330 AM #29 [1]
But compared to the rest of the Beeb, Newsnight blog & submission policy is radical :)
Newsnight don't circum to 'right on' presumptions & pressures ref debate & free speech.
It's pointless holding liberal notions if they are not put into practice, preferably on permanent basis & in the most challenging of circumstances (without being unduly naïve/bloody minded)
vikingar
SOURCES:
[1] /blogs/newsnight/2006/10/wednesday_25_oct_2006.html
Complain about this post
Newsnight - Can technology beat the internet censors?
Was looking forward to my first post on what I heard was an interesting new social networking site.
Having read with interest the blog contributions, thought Newsnight was being decidedly different than others who stifle & limit debate between certain types.
After a few emails from poster friends - very disappointed to hear of first major poster ban.
How ironic that the Taliban via David Loyn & the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ/Newsnight can voice their extremism. However, British Tax payers & TV Licence payers are seemingly unable to voice their opinion on the media organ they fund.
Really sorry to hear then that Newsnight has caved in to the usual agendas so dominant in the 'liberal' online press, did not expect it to KowTow.
Sure 'The Usual Suspects' will continue the same conversation amongst usual cliques, detached from mainstream, exchanging same views to each other on Digital TV, Radio, Newspapers etc.
Very foolish, in this day of consumer power & technological empowerment.
Why do they still presume people will put up with this & allow them to dominate our various media.
An audience just simply turns elsewhere & speak less loudly or not at all next time the debate about justification over licence is raised and/or stop buying certain/all newspapers & get their news from sources who show a degree of mutual respect (esp online variety).
The utter disingenuous intolerance of the 'liberal' press is its undoing … i.e. enjoy your rights' but don't dare too contradict or speak against our opinions.
- From a free speech perspective - sad & pathetic
- From a business perspective - not sustainable.
³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ please remember ... "Elegance thrives on exclusion" - Mason Cooley
Complain about this post
The problem with a debate such as the one being explored in this article and the comments above is that the average man in the street shrugs his shoulders and says "So what?".
Until censorship is on our doorstep you won't find much of an appetite to fight it, by which time we may have lost the means to oppose it.
How then do we motivate the people of this country (and indeed all free speaking democracies) to recognise what we have and what we have to lose? I have a positive suggestion - but not the talent to put into place - perhaps someone could establish a "portal" that ordinary people could log into to then explore the internet and what it would look like if we lived in a censored world...if it already exists it should be better advertised (or perhaps someone's censoring the adverts!).
I look forward to seeing this come to reality.
Complain about this post
on 02 Nov 2006, british_tv_licence_payer wrote:
'³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ please remember ... "Elegance thrives on exclusion" - Mason Cooley'
What's that all about?
The same Mason Cooley also said "Self-criticism expands the opportunites for discourse and eliminates the need for an adversary".
Here are two more:
"The problem with applying aphorisms to a problem is that they oversimplify the problem and ignore the solution" - John
"Free speech, just like free trade, is an impossible ideal" - John
Complain about this post