New research from our colleagues at the OpenNet Initiative and Citizen Lab demonstrates how one country’s Internet content filtering can have a significant impact on other countries. Researchers discovered an example of “upstream filtering” in which content filtering by ISPs in India is restricting content access for customers of Oman’s ISP because of ISP routing arrangements.
When ISPs restrict content, often at the behest of governments, their target is typically domestic audiences. However, as the Citizen Lab and OpenNet Initiative report suggests, content filtration can migrate across borders when ISPs engage in peering or transit agreements. Peering is when ISPs enter into an agreement to exchange traffic, allowing them to route data to places on both of their networks. If ISPs engage in peering agreements with providers who filter the connection they use to peer, then the content filtration can also be transferred.
Because both Oman and India have domestic filtration systems in place, there is a clear risk for upstream filtering. The OpenNet Initiative’s previous research shows that Oman blocks pornographic material, gay and lesbian sites, and anonymizing or proxy circumvention tool websites. In contrast, India tends to filter security and Internet tools-related content. Oman’s sole ISP, Omantel, has a number of peering agreements with ISPs in India.
How did researchers conclude that users in Oman were being subjected to Indian content filtration? The key was the different splat pages provided by Indian and Oman ISPs. Over a ten-day period in June 2012, researchers accessed the Omantel network through proxies in order to test a list of several hundred URLs suspected to be blocked. The list included URLs that are suspected of being blocked by Indian ISPs. Blocked URLs were then manually tested by users in Oman. Pages blocked by Omantel contained a message informing users that “this site has been blocked due to content that is contrary to the laws of the Sultanate.” However, a number of blocked URLs contained a different message: “This website/URL has been blocked until further notice either pursuant to Court orders or on the Direction issued by the Department of Telecommunications.” Forty one URLs from the list resulted in this message. According to ArsTechnica, “the sites affected included Indian and Pakistani entertainment sites, political blogs, file-sharing websites, and even IndyBay, a San Francisco-based online news site.”
Researchers believe this message is a result of content filtering in India partially because India’s telecommunications regulator is the Department of Telecommunications, while Oman’s regulator is called the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority. Many of the blocked URLs are music and file-sharing sites relating to Bollywood movies and music, which are often blocked in India. In one example, a request from Oman for an Indian music and movie download site hosted in the United States was blocked because the traffic passed through an Indian ISP, Bharti Airtel.
While this is not the first instance documented of upstream filtering, researchers conclude the practice “raises a number of questions, including jurisdictional issues and the lack of recourse available to users in Oman.” In essence, Omani Internet users are subject to several layers of filtering, not all of which is within their country.
Read the full Citizen Lab/Open Net Initiative report here.
China has announced changes to its online video content regulation. The changes require sites that host online videos to pre-screen user-posted content for material “that is deemed inappropriate.” China’s State Administration of Radio Film and Television (SARFT) issued an official notice of the policy change on July 9.
According to Huffington Post, these changes were made in response to the rising popularity of online videos. According to SARFT’s statement, the new rule is meant to protect the Chinese youth and promote videos of higher quality.
While SARFT cited public outcry as the rationale for the policy change, the China Media Project reports that there was a negative reaction online following the news:
A reporter for Guangzhou’s Southern Metropolis Daily newspaper steamed on [popular Chinese microblogging platform] Weibo : “You even want to concern yourself with the number of flies in the latrine! What is there that you don’t want to control? There’s not a single thing you can manage properly! And you still think the world will stop spinning if you don’t control it.”
The theme of control freaks who can control nothing adequately was a popular one. “You control everything, but manage nothing well!” said one user.
Akin to some of China’s other new censorship regulations, the burden of maintaining acceptable content online is on the websites, and not on the government censors. Computerworld explains the government’s expectation with the shift:
Authorities are requiring online video sites to better review videos for content before they go online for viewing. They also demand that online video industry groups provide better supervision and training for personnel that review videos before they are uploaded.
The impact this will have on Chinese websites is unclear. The Huffington Post says many Chinese video websites already hire pre-screeners “who examine all content uploaded to the site.” However, ZDNet explains that “many site owners will find it difficult to follow the new instructions since they suddenly have to find the resources to pre-screen everything that is uploaded.” Therefore, this new policy may impact smaller, less established video websites, favoring those who have the ability to hire people to sift through all submitted content. Further, popular international video sites, such as YouTube, are already blocked by the regime; although, as the BBC explains, “some of [China’s] citizens use VPN (virtual private network) services to overcome the ban.”
Targeting online video is not new terrain for SARFT. Chinese media research firm DANWEI details the various policy changes SARFT has made about online video content–going back as far as 2006. This includes shutting down online television programs, as well as entire video websites they deemed unfit. As has been exhibited several times over the last few months, China has begun a nuanced and calculated crackdown on online media; this is merely another example of the national campaign. While this will probably have little impact on international video platforms, this could potentially cause difficulties for many small-scale Chinese video-based websites, given their lack of resources and the new obligation to comply with this regulation.
The Russian government plans to launch a Facebook-esque social network on which users can use their personal accounts to upload content and create groups. While this decision would make Russia one of a number of countries launching state-sponsored social media platforms, it remains unclear whether such a site could rival widely available popular alternatives in Russia like VKontakte and Odnoklassniki.
The site, which was introduced as part of the Kremlin’s “Open Government” project, has not yet been launched, though authorities promised initially that it would be ready by the end of June. Russia’s Minister for Open Government Affairs Mikhail Abyzov told Russian newspaper Izvestia last month that the platform would provide users the ability to create groups like those on VK (formerly Vkontakte), a Facebook-like social network that is popular among Russians.
Users would be able to discuss various social problems using their individual accounts as well as upload content such as texts, photographs, audio or video. According to The Guardian, the site would build on an existing site called “Russia Without Idiots” that allows users to submit complaints about civil servants. The idea is that groups of citizens would use this new Kremlin-sponsored social network to appeal to their local representatives with the most pressing issues to be addressed by the federal government.
A 2010 comScore study found that Russia is one of the world’s most active social networking countries with three-fourths of its online population visiting at least one social networking site. The average time per month Russians spend on social networks is 10 hours, twice the worldwide average. According to AdAge, the most popular sites are VK with 40 million unique users in Russia and Odnoklassniki (Classmates) with 31.5 million unique users, though Facebook is gaining some ground among younger users. Social media notably played a prominent role in the organization of large-scale protests across Russia after parliamentary elections in December 2011.
Russia is not the only country to propose a state-sponsored social networking site. Last fall Uzbekistan, whose regime blocks many independent and foreign news sources but permits most social networks, launched a bilingual Russian-Uzbek version of Facebook called Muloqot as an alternative for social networking junkies. Muloqot is operated by Simple Networking Solutions with the support of the national telecommunications operator, Uzbektelecom, and has about 22, 000 users. In May 2012, an Uzbek Facebook-lookalike called Youface was launched, but its creator insists the site is not a state-sponsored venture. According to GlobalVoices, this site boasts slightly more than 1,500 users registered after two months. Vietnam, which often blocks Facebook, launched a government-sponsored alternative in 2010 that requires users to log in with their names and government-issued identity numbers. Again, it’s unclear how many users this site has attracted, given that Vietnam’s Facebook ban is often circumvented and users may balk at the prospect of sharing crucial identification information directly with the government.
Why are states trying to compete with the likes of Facebook or popular local social networks like VK? Some suggest that state-sponsored portals provide the government an avenue to control information or surveil its users. The Wall Street Journal writes that “Vietnam’s bid to create a government-friendly Web portal points to its discomfort with the speed at which the Internet is outflanking heavily censored media like television and newspapers here.” A documentary that aired Tuesday on Uzbekistan’s state-owned television station urged young people to use homegrown social networks, warning that Facebook and Odnoklassniki are being used to brainwash the youth. Critics of Uzbekistan’s Muloqot portal suggest the website will allow the ruling regime to control information over the portal. Activists fear that social networks on local .uz domains are more susceptible to government interference than those on international domains. Even privately-owned social networks can be coerced into monitoring and censorship on the government’s behalf as in China, though frequent censorship does not deter Chinese citizens from participating in the country’s local social networks, as almost half of China’s 500 million Internet users engage with social media.
Until the Kremlin’s social network goes live, it is difficult to predict who will use the network and why, though evidence from other countries suggest users are largely skeptical of using state-sponsored alternatives.
« Older posts Newer Posts »
