Index On Censorship: Evasion Tactics

The journal Index on Censorship has published an article I wrote. In it I argue that there is a failure to recognise Internet censorship and surveillance as a growing global concern. There is a tendency instead to criticise the most infamous offenders-notably China and Iran-and to overlook repressive practices elsewhere. There is, however, a growing resistance to Internet censorship and surveillance, although it is often characterised as a struggle confined to dissidents in a few select authoritarian regimes.

Battles are being fought all over the globe, while the development and use of technologies that protect privacy and make it possible to circumvent censorship are rapidly increasing. The same tools helping dissidents to evade censorship in repressive countries are also being used by citizens in democratic countries-to protect themselves from unwarranted Internet surveillance. Focusing on the global character of both the practice of Internet censorship and surveillance, as well as the resistance to it, provides for both a better understanding of this important trend as well as for the possibility of creating global alliances to combat its spread.

The full article is available below.

Rogers & Content Substitition

The Canadian ISP, Rogers, is inserting content into the web pages of its customers. In effect, Rogers is, probably, illegally intercepting the content destined for a user and modifying it to display information some of which looks like an advertisement. In the case that's been cited the most, the webpage that was hijacked was Google, although it could be any webpage. Google is "concerned".

The Toronto Star reports:

Some bloggers noted the Rogers notice on Google's search page seemed more like free advertising than a customer-service bulletin, since it suggested the user "upgrade to another level of service which provides higher usage limits and speeds by visiting rogers.com."

Critics say Rogers' move, though perhaps well-intentioned, could set a dangerous precedent that says it's okay for the companies that pipe the Internet into people's homes and offices to exercise control over their subscribers' activity online.

Lauren Weinstein posted a screen shot as well as the code used to insert the content and suggests that the technology used is developed by PerfTech:

While Rogers' current planned use for this Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) and modification system (reportedly manufactured by "In-Browser Marketing" firm "PerfTech") is for account status messages, it's obvious that commercial ISP content and ads (beyond the ISP logos already displayed) would be trivial to introduce through this mechanism.

This is a truly unfortunate development. Not just because it's probably illegal. The Telecommunications Act states:

Except where the Commission approves otherwise, a Canadian carrier shall not control the content or influence the meaning or purpose of telecommunications carried by it for the public.

I fear that "mission creep" is occurring. Many Canadian ISP's are engaging in significant interference with the delivery of content -- for a variety of reasons -- including filtering of child abuse images (and in the case of Telus the a website set up by members of their Union during a labour dispute), the traffic shaping by Rogers and Sympatico to restrict Bittorrent and now the outright interception, modification, and distortion of content. These practices are being implemented with little transparency or accountability and are becoming the industry standard.

Canadian "DMCA" On Hold

Jim Prentice (Conservative), Minister of Industry, has delayed the introduction of amendments to the Copyright Act that are being called a Canadian "DMCA".

The issue has caught fire in personal and consumer blogs on the Internet, led by Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa.

The Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group now has over 17,000 members and the opposition is growing. The public is concerned that the balance that copyright legislation is supposed to maintain between the interests of creators and the interests of the general public is being distorted. The new amendments reportedly introduce "anti-circumvention" measures which prevent Canadians from using legally purchased media and technology in the ways they want. Also, it includes no flexible fair dealing and exceptions for parody, time shifting and device shifting or expanded backup provision. Finally Canadians are pissed off, that's a technical term, because the public was never consulted while industry lobby groups were.