This post was made in response to news that the People's Republic of China has blocked access to certain world-wide web sites whose content offends the current government. (One such site is the Los Angeles Times). The implication, of course, is that such blocking is impossible; there are simply too many ways around it. And as the Scientologists have discovered, there are enough cyberpunks around the world who regard such blockage as a challenge to ensure immediate and widespread dissemination of the blocked material.
A Plague of Freedom; James J. Xie beats the Chinese Firewall
Imagine the effect if every web site now added an "anonymizer" form (like the software at http://www.anonymizer.com/) on one of their pages. The person browsing would simply type into this form a URL that they wished to access by proxy. The form script would retrieve that URL and pass along the contents. Considering that the Soviet Union was brought down by dissidents with fax machines, can you *imagine* what Chinese dissidents can do with modems? I wonder how many Chinese have satellite TV receivers and VCRs capable of picking up U.S. newsfeeds.
Those countries of the Middle East that are doing their best to return to the Middle Ages have discovered the only way to censor the internet: cut themselves off entirely from the rest of the world. In view of the proliferation of satellite receivers and laptop computers, they may yet discover that they have to cut themsleves off from electricity. Here is a post about Burma's attempt to control the Internet without cutting themselves off entirely.
From: George Sadowsky [email protected]
Subject: Re: Burma Bans modems
Here is the text of the web page referenced below:
RANGOON, BURMA, 1996 SEP 27 (NB) -- Burma has made owning, using,
importing or borrowing a modem or fax machine without government
permission a crime, punishable by up to 15 years in jail, according
to a report by United Press International.
Burma's military government has imposed what's called "The Computer
Science Development Law" which empowers the Ministry of
Communications, Posts and Telegraphs to specify what exactly can be
restricted, UPI reports.
UPI quotes the government-run newspaper New Light of Myanmar as
saying the same punishment is prescribed for anyone who sets up a
link with a computer network without the prior permission of the
ministry, or who uses computer network and information technology
"for undermining state security, law and order, national unity,
national economy and national culture, or who obtains or transmits
state secrets."
UPI reports that in July a diplomat, Leo Nichols, died in prison
after he was sentenced to a lengthy term for illegal possession of
fax machines.
It's clear from this action that the SLORC, i.e. the "State Law and
Order Restoration Committee" (sic!) understands full well the
benefits and importance of the Internet and other forms of
electronic communication to open societies, and is determined to
deny these benefits to its citizens. Given its recent history and
the quasi-imprisonment of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, this new action is
perfectly consistent with the government's previous abysmal
record.
Countries who would deny open Internet access to its citizens might
well pause to consider if they wish to be associated with the
current government of Myanmar in doing so.
George Sadowsky, Director Voice: +1.212.998.3040
Academic Computing Facility Fax: +1.212.995.4120
New York University
251 Mercer Street [email protected]
New York, New York 10012-1185 http://www.nyu.edu/acf/staff/sadowsky/
CENSORSHIP IN CYBERSPACE
Monday, October 21 1996; Page A18
The Washington Post
WHEN IT COMES to communication and censorship, the issues don't change
much from one medium to the next. The latest reminder comes with a
mini-gust of consternation that hit the World Wide Web a few days ago
when, after prolonged outcry, the proprietor of a Sweden-based web
site called the Gallery Grotesque closed it down. The site had been
displaying gruesome images for two years and had attracted alarm most
recently by posting several grisly photographs of a murder scene.
Those who attempted to visit the web site after it was closed were
greeted with a message from the owner that included all the classic
reasons for allowing speech even when it's violent or disturbing. The
"gallery," the message explained, had been designed to display true
images of "a debauched, self-indulgent society"; it had gotten several
million "hits," or visitors, over its life; "myriad external
pressures" had been brought to bear, and it was now closing "at a time
of my own choosing" because "the concept has been fully explored."
Finally, to those "repulsed or angered" by the images, it added,
"Consider this: The insanity still continues; only the messenger has
been quelled."
Whatever you make of the issues of judgment or perhaps
self-dramatization involved here, the arguments closely resemble the
familiar ones about information and its responsible use that have been
going on for centuries. Meanwhile, the Internet experiences of such
countries as China and Singapore offer a more sobering demonstration
that the new technology may not change the landscape of freedom of
speech vs. censorship as much as many had hoped. When the Internet
with its global reach first became accessible in countries with
otherwise tight information control, human rights and pro-democracy
activists foresaw a virtual end to isolation for their colleagues in
closed societies, just as fax machines had buoyed Chinese student
protesters a decade ago. Some talked of a global "archive of banned
books" that could be accessed from any point in the world, thus
rendering book-banning by individual nations pointless.
Unfortunately, governments interested in maintaining censorship
quickly have found ways to use the technology to their benefit. Though
decentralized and ungovernable, the Internet is also highly
transparent: No one can be sure who is watching, and most messages
leave tracks. The governments of China, Burma and Singapore have been
cited as making use of this characteristic of the medium, announcing
heavy penalties on those who access unauthorized sites, and, in Iran
particularly, constructing elaborate technological fire walls to allow
their citizens to tap some but not all of the Web's information.
The fire walls may prove rickety, and, even with the restrictions,
activists may discover over time that access to e-mail and the Web
brings more advantage than danger. Even so, the lesson remains:
Technology may alter the dimensions of the problem of censorship, but
it doesn't take the problems away.
###
------------------------------------------------------------------------
fight-censorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fight-censorship/