Loss of Privacy

In the latest analysis of Iran’s filtering of the Internet, it appears that they are getting very good at filtering at the ISP level.  Arbor Networks looked at recent data and found some interesting results.

Looking at the graphs, ShaTel and Saba Networks show similar traffic patterns:
1.an abrupt drop off after the June 12 election
2.followed by a return to near normal levels around June 16
3.and then a significant June 27 to June 19 80% drop in traffic
4.a rise in traffic on June 19
5.and then a drop in traffic again on July 21

Interestingly, Pars Online was one of the few providers to gain traffic immediately following the June 12 election (suggesting diversion of traffic from other ISPs through Pars Online filtering infrastructure).

It also appears that capacity might be playing a part in dropped traffic, as well as filtering.

“It was speculated early on that they lacked capacity,” Labovitz says. “It wasn’t that traffic was being filtered, it was that it was being dropped because they lacked capacity. Now, it looks like they are navigating 5 gig of traffic again, and I don’t think they have turned off filtering.”

Since it is difficult to get accurate results out of Iran, it is difficult to predict what is causing the drops in traffic.  However, the likely conclusion is that Iran is perfecting their Internet filtering capabilities and will, most likely, continue unabated in the future.

After a story last week caused a huge flood of criticism, the city of Bozeman, Montana has retracted its requirements that potential employees divulge extremely personal information that included internet passwords.

The city of Bozeman abruptly suspended the practice Friday, saying it “appears to have exceeded that which is acceptable to our community.”

“We appreciate the concern many citizens have expressed regarding this practice and apologize for the negative impact this issue is having on the City of Bozeman,” City Manager Chris A. Kukulski said in a release.

I’d say good for them, but I’d rather give the credit to the Montana branch of the ACLU, KBZK-TV of Bozeman, and all the people who called and wrote to protest this idiotic policy.

President Obama has given assurances that the new cyberwar will protect individual privacy, however, in practice, the Defense Department says that is a promise he cannot keep.

There is simply no way, the officials say, to effectively conduct computer operations without entering networks inside the United States, where the military is prohibited from operating, or traveling electronic paths through countries that are not themselves American targets.

The cybersecurity effort, Mr. Obama said at the White House last month, “will not — I repeat, will not — include monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic.”

The problem is, despite being prohibited from monitoring in the United States, many attacks come from within the US as part of a larger network.  The Pentagon is having a difficult time treading the fine line between privacy and defending the nation.

For example, the daily attacks on the Pentagon’s own computer systems, or probes sent from Russia, China and Eastern Europe seeking chinks in the computer systems of corporations and financial institutions, are rarely seen before their effect is felt inside the United States.

Added to this dilemma is what to do in sensitive matters, such as diplomatic concerns.  The lines between privacy and the front line will become blurred, leading many to believe that President Obama will never be able to fulfill his promise of keeping Americans’ actions online a private matter.

If you have the guts to post one of the hyperlinks on Australia’s banned list, the Australian communications regulator says they will fine you AU$11,000.  Wikileaks, whom the Australian communications regulator hates so much, has several pages of their site listed due to Australia being unhappy with them for posting Denmark’s banned sites list.

The move by the Australian Communications and Media Authority comes after it threatened the host of online broadband discussion forum Whirlpool last week with a $11,000-a-day fine over a link published in its forum to another page blacklisted by ACMA – an anti-abortion website.

Online civil liberties campaigners have seized on the move by ACMA as evidence of how casually the regulator adds to its list of blacklisted sites. It also confirmed fears that the scope of the Government’s censorship plan could easily be expanded to encompass sites that are not illegal.

“The first rule of censorship is that you cannot talk about censorship,” Wikileaks said on its website in response to the ACMA ban.

The site has also published Thailand’s internet censorship list and noted that, in both the Thai and Danish cases, the scope of the blacklist had been rapidly expanded from child porn to other material including political discussions.

Here again, we have sites being added to the blacklists that should not be and the public isn’t supposed to know what sites are blacklisted.  It is commonly known that this type of censorship is begun by claiming to be “saving the children,” but it quickly descends to stifle free speech and anything else a government doesn’t want its people to talk of or be informed about.   Australian Christian Lobby, Jim Wallace, has already stated, on the record, that he hopes the porn industry will go broke as a result of the blacklist.  This entire scheme is politically motivated and has little to do with actually protecting the citizens of Australia.

Australia, like many other countries, already have laws to combat child pornography and anything else that is illegal online.  There is no need to have this blacklist to being with.  Child porn is not so rampant that children are being bombarded with it everywhere they turn when they are online.  Child porn and illegal activities online are something that people, including children, have to seek out.  It doesn’t come knocking at your door.

Saudi Arabia already blocks tens of thousands of Internet sites. Now, it wants to place secret cameras in its cafés to ensure that government guidelines are being followed.

The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information said today that the Saudi Ministry of Interior has imposed severe restrictions on the Saudi Internet Cafes, requiring owners of Internet Cafes to install censorship secret cameras inside cyber cafes, to register users names and identity numbers, in addition to limiting the use of Internet on the Café’s phone lines, as well as other measures to impose more restrictions on Internet users, in a country known for its restrictive repressive policy and its continuous hostility towards freedom of using this important tool.

It is worth mentioning that the Interior Ministry has issued 8 basic instructions to owners of Internet Cafes on 15 April, requiring them;

1. To install censorship secret cameras.
2. To prepare electronic or manual registration of users and identities.
3. The prohibition of using prepaid Internet cards and Satellite dishes to access the Internet without authorization of the competent authorities.
4. Prohibition of using any Internet device unless indicated in the certificate issued by the service provider.
5. The supervisor in the Cyber Café must be Saudi.
6. Those under 18 must not be allowed to use the Internet.
7. The cafes opening hours must be the same as other commercial shops, therefore the Café must close at 00:00.
8. All phones to be used in the Café must be under the Café’s name, “neither the owner nor any other person.”

The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information affirmed that “These decisions do not go with the announcements of Saudi Arabia who claims it is thriving for reform, such decision is more like establishing a small prison inside each Internet café, and sadly, it indicates how the Saudi Interior Ministry perceives Internet users.”

It is to be noted that Internet users in Saudi Arabia, who actually exceed seven million users, most of them suffer from the tremendous expansion in the repressive policy adopted by the Communication and Information Technology Institution, who controls the use of the Internet In Saudi Arabia, and it now censors and blocks web sites in general, and also censors freedom of navigation, which proves that Saudi Arabia is one of the most suppressive countries with regard to freedom of Press and the Internet.