ZeroPaid.com » china

UK PMs Internet Censorship Insinuation Receives Praise from China

Drew Wilson — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 11:00:56 +0000

You know your internet censorship plans are too strict when China praises you for it.

I'll say this right off the bat, if someone told me one month ago that I would end up writing a headline like that, I would have told them they were insane. I am simply stunned that it has come to this. Last Thursday, British Prime Minister said that he wanted to "stop people from communicating on social media" whenever that person is using it to instigate violence. A growing majority of observers are interpret this as meaning that he wants to block social media websites altogether whenever civil unrest is suspected. Blocking social media has certainly caused some debate in many places - especially in the UK. The discussions around possibly censoring the internet has received international attention. This includes China. Chinese state media website Global Times weighed in on the debate suggesting that "Western" countries are coming to realize that free speech cannot go unhindered on the internet. From the report:

The British Government’s wariness of the Internet and Blackberry Messenger – symbols of freedom of speech – is a forced reaction, which might upset the Western world. Meanwhile, the open discussion of containment of the Internet in Britain has given rise to a new opportunity for the whole world. Media in the US and Britain used to criticize developing countries for curbing freedom of speech. Britain’s new attitude will help appease the quarrels between East and West over the future management of the Internet. As for China, advocates of an unlimited development of the Internet should think twice about their original ideas. On the Internet, there is no lack of posts and articles that incite public violence. They will cause tremendous damage once they are tweeted without control. At that time, all governments will have no other choice but to close down these websites and arrest those agitators. Turbulence must lead to self-examination, otherwise it’ll lead to great peril in one’s destiny.

If you think that David Cameron is trying to censor the internet and that there is no difference between his policy and China's policy, then this will no doubt pretty much cement that opinion. If you think that David Cameron should be censoring the internet, I think, for some, this revelation will make your position a little more uncomfortable. I think that David Cameron should think very carefully how he plans on going forward on his plans to prevent rioting. On the one hand, the move to crack down on rioters will receive little resistance. On the other hand, trying to control the internet in any way is an extremely slippery slope with respect to free speech. [Via BoingBoing] Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

MPAA, RIAA Blast Google’s Pledge to Fight Net Filters

Jared Moya — Fri, 20 May 2011 14:54:02 +0000

Call the move "baffling," and a form of a "corporate imperialism." Say proposed US net filter doesn't compare to China's "Great Firewall" because China's filter isn't "bi-partisan" or "narrowly tailored."

Soon after Google’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, said the company would fight efforts to implement a US net filtering regime the MPAA and RIAA weighed in to criticize the search engine giant for opposing the plans. Schmidt set net filters would set a “disastrous precedent” for freedom of speech online, and that even if legislation was passed into law it would still fight it. “If there is a law that requires DNSs [domain name systems, the protocol that allows users to connect to websites] to do X and it’s passed by both houses of congress and signed by the president of the United States and we disagree with it then we would still fight it,” he said. The MPAA expressed astonishment at the comment and asked if Schmidt believes Google is "above the law." "Is Eric Schmidt really suggesting that if Congress passes a law and President Obama signs it, Google wouldn’t follow it? As an American company respected around the world, it’s unfortunate that, at least according to its executive chairman’s comments, Google seems to think it’s above America’s laws," said the MPAA. Plans for web filtering in the US are still in the early stages. Last week lawmakers submitted the “Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011,” or the “PROTECT IP Act.” The bill would give the Dept of Justice the power to force US based third-parties, including ISPs, payment processors, online advertising network providers, and search engines to either block access to infringing sites or cease doing business with it. Schmidt added that he thought net filtering would set a “disastrous precedent” for freedom of speech online, and compared it to the "Great Firewall" of China. The MPAA responded by claiming the two aren't the same since China's net filtering regime isn't "bi-partisan" or "narrowly tailored." "And the notion that China would use a bi-partisan, narrowly tailored bill as a pretext for censorship is laughable, as Google knows, China does what China does," it said. It's an odd criticism to make. Just because a bill is "bi-partisan" doesn't mean it's any different, and how can it say the "PROTECT IP Act" is "narrowly tailored" when it encourages voluntary filtering and sanctions against sites that third parties can arbitrarily determine are infringing? The legislation also puts the US govt in the hypocritical position of telling other countries not to filter the Internet while we ourselves do. Last March the US State Dept criticized the Australia govt over similar plans in that country. Even further damaging is a statement made by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging the private sector to "take a proactive role in challenging foreign governments’ demands for censorship and surveillance." "The private sector has a shared responsibility to help safeguard free expression. And when their business dealings threaten to undermine this freedom, they need to consider what’s right, not simply what’s a quick profit," she added. Doesn't this apply to Google even if it is right here at home? The RIAA called Google's comments "baffling" and said it couldn't believe the company doesn't care about creating a "civilized online ecosystem," but is it really all that baffling that a search engine would be concerned about govt attempts to filter its results? What's to stop every other country in the world from demanding a filtering regime of their own? Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

PSN Outage: Day 9 – Sony Threatened With Fines As World Gov’t Involvement Increases

Drew Wilson — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:52:07 +0000

Sony, Visa and a few others have been trying to reassure PSN (PlayStation Network) that users credit card information is still safe in spite of unverified reports that money is already being stolen from customers. As we enter day 9, we are learning that not only are more governments getting involved, some are even taking the extra step of threatening the embattled company with fines over the data breach.

This outage has become quite a saga for Sony. It started with a temporary outage that grew in to a massive data loss and now, it's become an international incident. With a story so large, it is becoming difficult to keep track of every development that's going on in this story. Yesterday, both the UK and US government became involved in the data breach. Meanwhile, on the same day, a supreme court ruling that suggests that it is entirely possible for companies to shield themselves from class action lawsuits. Whether or not that could hamper the current class action lawsuit has been a subject of debate. Geohot, a hacker who discovered the PS3 root keys, weighed in on this himself saying that Sony should have hired more security experts instead of lawyers. So, what's the latest developments on the most talked about story here on ZeroPaid? We begin with news from a Chinese outlet, China Post which is reporting that Taipei City has send a letter to Sony demanding answers to this fiasco. The letter says that Sony must fix the problem within ten days or face fines between NT$30,000 and NT$300,000. From the China Post:

Taipei City Government Law and Regulation Commission Chairman Yeh Ching-Yuan said Sony's leak severely compromises PSN subscriber identity which should be considered a clear breach of consumer property rights. According to the Consumer Protection Law, business operators are responsible for “facilitating the safety of the consumer life of nationals, and improving the quality of the consumer life of nationals.” Yeh said Sony Corp. must provide the number of subscribers in the Taiwan area and explain why, although the cyber attack occurred between April 17 and 19, that it did not turn off the hacked services until April 20 and did not offer an official explanation until April 26. Furthermore, Sony Corp. must detail the risks and possible impact inherent in the leaked user information and offer methods of repair as well as compensation.

That government in China isn't the only government now getting involved. Canada's privacy commissioner is also investigating the incident. There's only so much the Privacy Commissioner of Canada can do (fining a company is not something the commissioner can do). While the commissioner isn't happy that Sony did not notify them of the breach, Sony isn't technically required to do so. From Edmonton Journal:

"We are currently looking into this matter and are seeking information from Sony," Valerie Lawton said in an email. "We will determine next steps once we have a full understanding of the incident."

"It is also possible that your profile data, including purchase history and billing address, and your PlayStation Network/Qriocity password security answers may have been obtained," Sony told users on its blog Tuesday.

Australia's privacy commissioner is also getting involved. The concern for Australia's privacy commissioner was whether or not Sony notified customers of the data breach fast enough. From Smart Company:

"I am very concerned by news reports that hackers have stolen data from users of the Sony PlayStation Network," privacy commissioner Timothy Pilgrim said in a statement. "Our office is contacting Sony seeking further information about this matter and we will be opening our own investigation." While the PlayStation Network – which services over 70 million customers and over 700,000 in Australia – was brought down last week, it was only in the past few days that Sony confirmed a breach of the network had occurred.

Meanwhile, US government involvement has increased as the Department of Homeland Security is now being called in to help investigate the data breach. From Gama Sutra:

"The Department of Homeland Security is aware of the recent cyber intrusion to Sony's PlayStation Network and Qriocity music service," DHS spokesman Chris Ortman told government technology site NextGov. "DHS' U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team [CERT] is working with law enforcement, international partners and Sony to assess the situation."

So, overall, there are 5 countries involved now, the US, UK, Canada, Australia and a city government in China. If anything else, this further shows just how big this data breach really is. Sony has been in damage control mode yesterday saying that users data is safe because they did encrypt the information after all. This was amidst a handful of unconfirmed reports that users money was already disappearing from their accounts. While Sony and even Visa might be saying that they have no evidence to suggest that users credit card information hasn't been stolen, more reports are surfacing that users credit cards have been stolen. One man in Australia reported to ABC that a total of $2,000 AU in unauthorized charges had been made on his credit card. From ABC:

Sony has shut down the network while it tries to figure out how hackers were able to steal the details of so many customers. Adelaide man Rory Spreckley checked his banking details on Wednesday and got a shock. "I logged into my bank account just to check everything was OK and I found out there was some just over $2,000 in charges which I didn't personally accrue," he said.

The scary thing is, he isn't alone in these reports. Another report surfaced on Twitter saying that $1,500 was charged to another persons credit card. While it's unconfirmed that that incident was directly related to the Sony data breach, it certainly has the Twitter user on edge. In fact, one unconfirmed report suggests that these stolen credit cards are being sold in underground market places in bulk. One user is apparently saying that they obtained 2.2 million cards from the breach. From The Guardian:

Kevin Stevens, a security analyst with Trend Micro, said in a tweet that "the hackers that hacked PSN are selling off the DB [database]. They reportedly have 2.2m credit cards with CVVs" - the latter being the three-figure number required for "card not present" transactions. But Stevens added that he couldn't be sure the claim was true. The hackers were also claiming to have offered to sell the database back to Sony, but that the company declined it. Sony spokesman Patrick Seybold said that as far as he knew there was no truth in that claim. Speculation is growing that the hackers who carried out the attack could be European, based on the names being used in forums, though no further details have emerged so far. One reader of Venturebeat said he had been contacted by Sony and told that his card might have been compromised, and discovered two new charges totalling $400 he hadn't made.

Meanwhile, one report is saying that Sony is not going to be resetting users accounts. Gamepur quoted James Gallagher, SCEE Blog Manager as saying, "We’re not resetting accounts or anything like that, so when PSN is restored and you log on, everything will be as you left it." So, overall, it sounds like Sony is trying to project the image that no credit card information was stolen. As increasingly credible reports surface that users credit cards have, in fact, been stolen, that might become an increasingly difficult sell to the public. Do you think that credit cards have been stolen at this point or do you think that reports of stolen money not true? Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

China Authorities Threaten BitTorrent Sites with Prison Time

Jared Moya — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 08:43:26 +0000

Country's Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate and Ministry of Public Security jointly announce that anybody guilty of illegally distributing copyrighted material that reaches 50,000 hits will face between 3 and 7 years in prison.

Chinese authorities are stepping up their anti-P2P efforts with news of a joint declaration made by the country's Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate and Ministry of Public Security earlier this month that anybody caught sharing copyrighted material without authorization will face criminal penalties of between 3 and 7 years in prison. The threshold for the penalty is a mere 50,000 hits, a drop in the bucket in a country with a population of over 1.3bln. The new penalty has already led many P2P site operators to rethink how and what content is shared. "The regulations are getting stricter and we're not able to legally provide a similar amount of content as before," Huang Yimeng, CEO of VeryCD.com, told the Global Times. "That's why we have to change our content offering," Subpig.com and Uubird.com have also removed their downloading features. VeryCD also faces a copyright infringement lawsuit for having illegally distributed the movie Ip Man 2. The problem with the crackdown is made evident by the comments of a BitTorrent user, Zhou Yang, who points out that some of the TV shows she downloads just aren't legally available. It's a common refrain for many BitTorrent users who are affected by regional distribution policies that dictate when and what content is made available. In Australia, for example, new episodes of The Office lag far behind their US release dates, forcing people to seek out erstwhile illegal alternatives to make up for a gap in the marketplace. Online distribution affords a level of convenience that consumers want and yet, many copyright holders refuse to allow. As long as this happens people will seek out the content on BitTorrent and via other P2P programs and services. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

Software Developers Try Lower Prices to Fight Chinese Pirates

Jared Moya — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:21:17 +0000

Some finally realize it doesn't make sense to charge nearly US-style prices in a country with a paltry per capita GDP of $6,600 compared to $46,000 in the US.

The one of the more nerve wracking facets of the war on piracy has long been copyright holders' insistence on charging prices in a given country that has no bearing in economic reality. For example, Apple's iTunes is a global digital music retailer, yet charges customers the same prices regardless of where they live and what they can actually afford. The people of Malawi, which has a per capita GDP of $800, are expected to pony up just as much as the guy from the US where the per capita GDP is $46,000. It's the reason why so many people in foreign countries turn to piracy to acquire content, and makes copyright holder claims that piracy causes hundreds of billions of dollars in lost overseas profits seem all the more irrational. It isn't a "lost sale" when the choice is between the bare necessities and the latest Lady Gaga album. Pricing is the key to fighting piracy, and according to the Wall Street Journal, a number of software companies, Microsoft and Autodesk in particular, have finally figured this out. For example, the price for Autodesk's AutoCAD 2011 program begins at $3,975 in the US. The prices it used to charge in China were about 20% to 30% less, but even at $2782.50 for AutoCAD 2011 (30% off) piracy was still a far more attractive option. So this past July Autodesk decided to make them 50% less than those in the US, and its sales more than doubled. Microsoft used to think there was no way to compete with street vendors peddling copies of its popular operating systems for as little as a dollar or two, but after dropping prices for a stand-alone version of Windows 7 Home Basic to about $59, compared to $nearly $200 in the US, it "definitely" saw added sales. "When you have a lower price your margin gets squeezed," said Simon Leung, Microsoft's chief executive for greater China. "But "we have so much room to improve, so the volume will make it up." Regional pricing has been a concern for countries for some time now, especially as US copyright holders make piracy an issue year after year. Last year Brazil and Pakistan criticized the US for not realizing that each country has a different economic reality and that pricing should be adjusted accordingly. “Quite clearly, business models are not adequately addressing the pricing-cost issues involved in selling products,” said Ali Asad Gilani, first secretary of Pakistan’s delegation, at a meeting of the World Intellectual Property Organization last November. “Unreasonably, higher costs along with barriers to access, do provide some justification to the consumers to use counterfeit and pirated goods.” With almost half the world - over 3 billion people - living on less than $2.50 a day, it's hard to disagree. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

South Africa Mulls Mandatory Net, Mobile Phone Porn Filter

Jared Moya — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 09:09:45 +0000

Deputy Minister of Home Affairs Malusi Gigaba looking to institute a total ban on the digital distribution of otherwise legal pornography to "protect" the constitutional rights of women and children, citing the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and sadly Australia of what's possible if the govt approves the "Internet and Cellphone Pornography Bill."

It has to be tough for a growing number of so-called democratic govts around the globe to keep criticizing countries like China for filtering the Internet while at the same time developing plans for a filtering system of their own. I've mentioned Australia repeatedly over the years as the Minister for Communications Stephen Conroy drags that country towards a "voluntary mandatory" filtering regime. First proposed as a voluntary effort to “protect children,” the plan quickly mushroomed to include all “inappropriate content” and “offensive and illegal material.” Rather than just fight child pornography, the govt will also attempt to somehow safeguard children from things like legal pornography, gambling, online video gaming, and even P2P traffic. Now South Africa appears to be the latest country to consider filtering the Internet of pornography, both of the illegal and legal kind. Deputy Minister of Home Affairs Malusi Gigaba has asked the country's Law Reform Commission to see if its possible to ban all digital distribution of pornography, oddly comparing it to safety features like brakes or seatbelts in cars. "Cars are already provided with brakes and seatbelts, it is not an extra that consumers consumers have to pay for," he says in a press release. "There is no reason why the internet should be provided without the necessary restrictive mechanisms built into it." So where did he get the idea? Apparently from the Justice Alliance of South Africa (JASA), a self-described "coalition of corporations, individuals and churches committed to upholding and fighting for justice and the highest moral standards in South African society." The plan is called the "Internet and Cellphone Pornography Bill" and the JASA even dares to cite countries like the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, in addition to Australia, as examples of what's possible if the govt decides to act. From the Bill:

Obligations of Internet service providers and Mobile phone service providers: Any Internet service provider or Mobile phone service provider who distributes, or allows to be distributed through the Internet or through a mobile phone in the Republic of South Africa, any pornography, shall be guilty of an offence and liable, upon conviction, to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years, or to both a fine and such imprisonment.

ISPs would be required to report any person caught distributing or assisting in distributing pornography on the Internet or via mobile phone. The JASA says the legislation is constitutional because freedom of expression cannot outweigh the best interests of children whose welfare is considered more important. "The nature of much of the pornographic material broadcast on the internet also blatantly infringes the constitutional rights of women to equality, dignity and protection from hate speech," continues the Bill. "Much of it is cruel, degrading and violent towards women." China announced a similar crackdown this past January, vowing to "purify" the Internet in order to preserve “national long-term stability,” build a “harmonious socialist society,” and prevent the “poisoning of young people’s physical and mental health.” It's highly doubtful that South Africa has the technical capacity to filter the Internet of porn, but regardless it's a worrying turn of events. Anytime a govt official cites the UAE or Yemen as successful examples of cleansing the Internet one has to question whether or not the plan is in keeping with western values like freedom of expression. And by the way, Australian officials like Senator Conroy ought to realize that his country is being held up alongside repressive middle-eastern regimes as a model for others to follow. If that isn't enough reason to scale back a filtering regime I don't know what is. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

Chinese USB Wifi Crackers Make Three Strikes Laws Obsolete?

Drew Wilson — Thu, 06 May 2010 08:05:49 +0000

With many countries considering a three strikes law, it's interesting how privacy and copyright can go hand in hand online. With China's notoriety for online censorship, it's only interesting that a new product is out in the Chinese market that allows for easy Wi-Fi hacking.

There's a number of objectives set out when a country considers a "graduated response" or three strikes law if you believe proponents. One of those objectives is to simplify the ability to go after alleged file-sharers when all that is available is an IP address and a time stamp. Another objective is that it's suppose to reduce file-sharing. While, on the surface, a new product known as network-scrounging cards doesn't seem to do much for file-sharers, it really puts another dent in the robustness of a three strikes law. Networkworld describes the network-scrounging cards as a USB device that allows "a user with little technical knowledge can easily steal passwords to get online via Wi-Fi networks owned by other people." The USB item comes with two CDs - one for installing the drivers and the other being a live Linux CD for the purpose of using BackTrack. Once installed "the user can run applications that try to obtain keys for two protocols used to secure Wi-Fi networks, WEP (Wired Equivalent Privacy) and WPA (Wi-Fi Protected Access). After a successful attack by the applications, called Spoonwep and Spoonwpa, a user can restart Windows and use the revealed key to access its Wi-Fi network." The bundle, according to NetworkWorld, sells for 165 yuan ($24). In other words, it's not much more complicated then installing the drivers for a mouse or webcam. Here's why this is so significant when looking at this through the perspective of a three strikes law. The three strikes law depends on an IP address accurately identifying an individual. At best, some countries mandate that a WiFi access point be secured (protection that seems to be all but destroyed with this product). If one were to access another persons Wi-Fi, the only person that authorities could possibly track copyright infringement to is the owner of the Wi-Fi point, not the individual using it without authorization practically speaking. As for efficiency, NetworkWorld had this to say about the set-up:

One of the kits took over an hour to crack the WEP key equivalent to the password "sugar" in a test attack on a personal router set up for the purpose using 40-bit encryption.

Still, when someone is, say, living in an apartment building with 20 some access points to choose from right from your own living room, an attacker has all the time in the world to crack the passwords. How often to Wi-Fi owners, on average, change their passwords anyway? Unfortunately, such a product only exists in China currently, but who knows? It might come to other countries who are determined to pass such a flawed law in the first place. As for the developer of BackTrack, they aren't happy that their product is being used in this fashion because BackTrack was meant for penetration testing more than anything else. Still, it shows another example of why tightening copyright laws will never solve anything with regards to file-sharing. Functionally speaking, this has resemblance to the "HADOPI router" which was actually a fake ad (more recently, another company released a similar product), but this iteration seems to be more portable. Perfect for the growing use of laptops. It's easy to say that this alone makes a three strikes law obsolete because even if a hacker is tracked down, the resources spent on tracking him/her down pretty much obliterates a lot of the objectives set out by a three strikes law in the first place. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

EU Web Filtering Debate Heats Up With IT Group Denouncing It

Drew Wilson — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 08:10:50 +0000

There's already been a lot of talk about a possible web filter in the EU and now the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), a group representing a number of IT related companies, have come out against it.

There's been a lot of discussion in Europe about the possibility of an EU-wide filter. Such topics such as a mandatory blacklist have been in discussions for some time amongst EU nations and the consensus amongst those who know a thing or two about the internet for the most part has remained that such a filter would never work in the long run. Now that there is word of a potential EU-wide filter, the discussion can only escalate from here. Proponents argue that it's suppose to stop child abuse and child pornography. If websites were blocked, then access cannot be gained and therefore it would stem such illegal content. It sounds very simple, particularly if you don't know exactly how the internet works. "There is a real danger that this proposal will have unintended consequences," Ed Black, president of the CCIA said in an interview. "We oppose this idea partly because it is an inefficient way to combat online child abuse, but also because it builds on efforts by governments around the world to block what they don't like on the Net," he said. Computer World is already reporting that the European Commission has already poured €300,000 to lobby in favour of proposed laws that would put an EU-wide filter in place. Whether Black knows it or not, there are already unintended consequences happening. During a talk in Sweden, an anti-piracy organization made a very disturbing comment that "child pornography is great" while hoping to incorporate copyrighted material in to the filter. Believe it or not, there is already precedent on a mass scale filtering system. Every filter has essentially ended in disaster one way or another. For instance, and perhaps the most famous example, the Great Firewall of China. While China has been trying to crack down for some time on what is being discussed on the internet in their own country with, ironically enough, aid from technology sold by US firms, the filter has yet to be completely successful with dissenting voices still making it out of China through programs like Adopt a Blog and heavy encryption. The US government has been a vocal critic on China's human rights record. In Australia, there's been numerous attempts to filter the internet. The last time Australia's government successfully put in place a filter to filter out porn, it ended in total disaster. It sparked one of the most a very famous headline, "Teen cracks AU $84 million porn filter in 30 minutes". Since then, the idea of an Australian wide filter which would capture way more than child abuse (as advocates for the filter so often claimed) has been fiercely debated. In 2009 amidst a renewed effort to implement such a filter, the Australian blacklist leaked with definite evidence that abuse had occurred when sites as innocent as a dental clinic wound up on that blacklist. Thailand also had it's attempt to filter the internet. You'd think that a filter might be more successful in a country like Thailand considering how much governmental control there is. That sense of power came crashing down in 2008 when the entire Thailand blacklist leaked in 2008. The reasons why web filtering will never work became very apparent when it was debated in Australia. The scope, as one filtering company found, was particularly difficult. It may be possible to get some form of success on internet sites through direct keywords, but throw in any other protocol such as p2p traffic or even some messaging systems and the filter runs in to serious trouble trying to catch and block everything. Throw in a little encryption and it's pretty much game over for the filter. From a technical aspect, it's pretty much impossible to filter anything online because there will always be a way to circumvent it one way or another. The internet was initially designed to be a communication system that would survive a nuclear strike. It's unlikely, unless every ISP in the world were to shut down, to significantly change the ability to transfer data from one point to another. It's also politically bad news. If child abuse can be filtered, what about political speech? That was an issue for debate in every known web filtering case. Someone from the Electronic Frontier Australia once pointed out that even if the current government wouldn't do anything wrong with the filtering, what about the next government or the government after? Do you really trust every single subsequent government that they would be ethical with a web filtering system if it was ever possible to construct an effective one? It's the duty of the government to protect its citizens for both today and for the future - even from future potentially worse governments. It is bad for business as well. What would happen if it was possible for one business to ruin another business through the filtering? It doesn't necessarily require government interference, but rather a shady employee with a willingness to profit. It is socially unsound because it places an overwhelming amount of trust onto a set of individuals. It's impossible to really find anyone or any group that can be completely trusted. The British population in 2007 found the issue of trust to be in the spotlight when the tax arm of the British government lost the identities of nearly half the population of Britain. To say the least, there was horror and anger over that fiasco. It's impossible to find any entity that can be trusted with such a large burden of responsibility. The bottom line, in every angle you look at this, if you think carefully on it enough, such a system fails whether it's philosophically, practically or technically for instance. The only real good thing an internet filtering system is for is probably political suicide. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

China Reaffirms Plans to “Purify” the Internet

Jared Moya — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 22:19:53 +0000

Says crackdown on online pornography is part of overall effort to preserve "national long-term stability," build a "harmonious socialist society," and prevent the "poisoning of young people's physical and mental health," but most likely is all about strengthening its grip on the what could be a dangerous conduit for threatening images and ideas.

I mentioned early last month how China was ratcheting up its fight against online pornography with news that the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT) had shuttered some 414 sites and counting. China's Ministry of Public Security now says it's closed more than 9,000, arrested 5,394 people, and prosecuted 4,186, evidence the country is taking the "problem" very seriously. It says the fight will deepen in the coming year and that it would "intensify punishments for Internet operations that violate laws and regulations." For this it plans a three-pronged strategy. The first task is a crackdown on Internet pornography crimes. This means focusing on what it calls the "key targets" of people in the country who work for overseas porn websites, mobile phone porn websites, and P2P networks and sites. The second is to increase the size of its Internet security section that handles pornography-related cases so that it can not only handle and investigate more, but also served as a deterrent for those considering engaging in "criminal activities." The third is to "strengthen cooperation with relevant departments and coordination among units together to create a good network management order." It wants departments to better communicate with one another and collaborate on investigation and prosecution of illegal websites. As part of that effort it says that it intends to create a "blacklist" that will provide "timely information about foreign propaganda, radio and television, publishing and other areas for their disposal." If all of that wasn't scary enough, it also plans to "urge ISPs to put in place preventive technology" that filters pornographic material. The intensity of their war on pornography is pretty laughable until you stop to think what their ulterior motive really is - censorship and control. I mean unless the Chinese people have a serious porn addiction that is disrupting society (which I highly doubt) there is no reason for such a top to bottom mobilization by authorities. The necessity of porn is pretty hard to defend, and it makes for a much easier method of getting people and ISPs to comply (not that the govt needs it). It also softens criticisms of people overseas who regularly denounce the Great Firewall of China. The Chinese govt knows it needs to get a firm grab on the Internet if its to stay in power and anti-porn efforts are all part of that strategy. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com

Chinese Turn to Pirated DVDs After BitTorrent Closures

Jared Moya — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:05:34 +0000

Proves real problem is the lack of affordable and convenient content delivery services.

Last week I mentioned how China’s State Administration of Radio, Film and Television (SARFT) closed some 530 BitTorrent tracker sites in order to address the country’s “copyright problem.”

“”In recent years, some websites publicly spread a large number of pirated films, TV dramas and other programs,” said an unnamed SARFT official afterwards. “Some of these programs contain lewd content. Such behaviors severely harmed young people’s health and copyright owners’ interests.”

He added that it wouldn’t solve the problem entirely and that it would be a “long-term task” to ensure they comply with the country’s copyright laws.

However, the move may actually backfire as citizens merely turn to pirated DVDs, long a Chinese staple, to watch content at a cheaper price and potentially put money in the hands of criminal elements who dominate the illegal trade.

For instead of content be shared for free it’s being bought and sold.

“When they buy DVDs from me, almost everyone talks about being worried that the free movie downloads would disappear,” one bootleg DVD vendor told China Daily.

The crackdown does nothing to solve the real dilemma which is offering consumers legal, convenient content delivery services at a reasonable price, and copyright holders would be better served by focusing their resources on solving that instead.

It’s also worth mentioning the crackdown appears to be part of a larger effort to whitewash the Internet.

A few days ago the Chinese govt even decided to ban individuals from registering personal Internet domain names. According to the China Internet Network Information Center from now on individuals must present a business seal, company business license, and photo ID.

Stay tuned.

jared@zeropaid.com