#imweekly: July 22, 2013

Southeast Asia
Tougher Internet filtering policies are being applied throughout Southeast Asia. Singapore’s government initiated new rules requiring online news websites to apply for individual licenses and put up a $50,000 bond. The move met with strong response from 150 websites that blacked out their homepages to protest in May, and from 2,000 demonstrators who took to streets in protest. Vietnam has been putting activists and dissidents in jail on specious charges. The country has detained forty-six bloggers and democracy activists so far this year – more than during the whole of 2012—amid erupting strikes and social unrest stirred by inflation, land-rights abuses, and corruption. Thailand has also clamped down on the Internet, strengthening Internet censorship: 20,978 URLs were blocked last year, compared to just 5,078 in 2011.

Gambia
The Gambia House of Representatives has enacted a new law banning criticism and derogatory content towards government officials on the Internet. The Information and Communication Bill 2013 puts stringent punishments in place for those who violate the law: up to 15 years in prison, a fine of up to three million Dalasi (about 100,000 US dollars), or both. The law targets any person found to be spreading false news or derogatory statements against the government or any public officials. The bill seeks to provide deterrent punishment of people who are engaged in  campaigns against the government both in and out of the country, according to Nana Grey-Johnson, the Gambia’s Minister of Information, Communication and Information Infrastructure. Human rights groups say the new law takes the restriction of freedom of expression in the Gambia to “a shocking new level”.

Russia
Russia has been pushing new legislation that allows copyright holders to ask courts to block access to allegedly pirated content as well as hyperlinks to such content. The anti-piracy law has stirred much controversy, for it may cause Wikipedia to be blocked in the country, since Wikipedia has millions of hyperlinks to content that may or may not be authorized. If the legislation comes into force on August 1, Russian Internet users may be denied access to the whole service of Wikipedia. Wikipedia blacked out its Russian-language website in protest of the proposed law.

#imweekly is a regular round-up of news about Internet content controls and activity around the world. To subscribe via RSS, click here.

#imweekly: July 15, 2013

China
“Put only on back pages… close the comment box.” Released last month, the Directives from the Ministry of Truth series revealed a repository of more than 2,600 messages sent from government officials to website editors in China during the last decade. The collection offers a window into the mechanisms and idiosyncrasies behind China’s censorship and information filtering systems – including addressing the government’s increasingly nuanced mechanism for how, when, and where to present sensitive information, if at all. In pouring over the archive of messages, experts concluded that one of the most fundamental aims of internet censorship and filtering in China is to prevent gatherings of unauthorized groups.

Nigeria
Are Nigerian officials positioning themselves to heighten online surveillance in the country?  Nigeria’s Minister of the Interior recently stated the government’s intentions to monitor activity online in the name of national security. Earlier this year, The Premium Times of Nigeria reported that the government brokered a $40 million contract with an Israeli software security company to allow widespread monitoring of Nigerian’s online activities. The move was met with widespread criticism from Nigerian netizens, worried about the potential of widespread surveillance without the protection of data privacy laws legal provisions for interception. Nigeria’s lower house of parliament ordered an immediate halt to the deal.

Russia
The Kremlin is taking a step back to take a step forward – ordering nearly $15,000 worth of typewriters to skirt fears of foreign government surveillance, in light of the NSA leaks. Russian officials expressed outrage after the leaks documented surveillance of Russia’s leadership at the London G20 meetings. Officials said they were able to deal with the threat.

Turkey
For protestors in Turkey – it started with police deploying tear gas and water cannons to disperse their encampments. Now, those threats are beginning to move from the physical world into the digital space, reports the EFF. Dozens of social media users have been detained since the protests began in the country, on charges ranging from false information to insulting officials. Users have also been detained for sharing images of police brutality. Meanwhile, officials are using legal controls already at their disposal to potentially tighten the flow of information in the country – one representative called on Twitter to open an office within the country, which would legally give Turkey the right to obtain user data. There is also a push to enact legislation allowing for the removal of any “fake” social media accounts.

#imweekly is a regular round-up of news about Internet content controls and activity around the world. To subscribe via RSS, click here.

‘Restore the Fourth’ Rallies Aim to Curb Digital Surveillance

Hundreds of protesters gathered in cities across the United States and Europe last week as part of the “Restore the Fourth” rallies aimed to call attention to government surveillance. The non-partisan organization Restore the Fourth coordinated protests online and in person against what they deem to be unconstitutional digital surveillance in the United States, including the NSA’s PRISM program.

Restore the Fourth Protest: Market Street, San Francisco

Restore the Fourth protestors march in San Francisco.
Image Credit: Flickr user Ari CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The grassroots movement, which initially galvanized support on Reddit, aims to end all forms of unconstitutional surveillance of digital communications in the United States. To do so, the group endorses the Electronic Frontier Foundation and StopWatching.us stance, calling for reforms to the USA Patriot Act, the creation of a special committee to report and publicly reveal the extent of domestic spying, and to hold any public officials responsible for unconstitutional surveillance accountable for their actions.

Rallies of varying sizes gathered in 100 cities across the United Sates, as well as in Munich and London. More than four hundred gathered in Washington DC and in New York. Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian posted a Vine video of the New York protest, which gathered in Union Square. A few hundred protestors gathered in San Francisco, reported The Guardian, peacefully making their way down Market Street.

Participants primarily heard about the event online, media spokesperson Douglas MacArthur told The Guardian. As live protests gathered in streets across the country and in Europe, thousands of websites held concurrent protests online. Internet Defense League members including Reddit, WordPress, and Boingboing displayed anti-NSA banner ads on their sites. On Twitter, the #Restorethe4th hashtag gained visibility for news related to the protests and to NSA surveillance more generally.

Now that the fourth of July is over, what comes next for the movement? MacArthur emphasized in an AMA (online interview) on Reddit that the movement was never about a single protest, but about galvanizing support and awareness of the organization’s goals to curb surveillance. When asked when the next protest would be held on Reddit, a New York City rally co-organizer announced August 4th (8/4) as New York’s next rally date and suggested a worldwide “1984” day, after George Orwell’s dystopian classic.

“Surveillance Camera Man” Draws Ire, Provokes Questions About Recording in Public

Imagine walking down the street. Above, you see a surveillance camera mounted on a pole. Would you worry? What if a person walked over and filmed you, no questions asked?

An anonymous man in his late 20s has posted five “Surveillance Camera Man” videos in which he films people on Seattle streets and inside cars, stores, and classrooms, to the ire of those on camera. The videos raise questions about expectations of privacy in an age where institutions and individuals can easily and legally record others. Removal of the videos on various sites also highlights free speech and copyright concerns.

The cameraman and a friend began filming others as a social experiment, but he went solo after his friend couldn’t keep a straight face, according to an email interview posted on the blog Photography Is Not a Crime. His first video included forays into classrooms at the University of Washington. He posted the video on Vimeo, but the site took it down after a complaint from the university, the cameraman said. He expressed nonchalance at people calling the police on him, saying he doesn’t care about the legality of his actions. (He appears to care about copyright, as video embeds on GeekWire, BoingBoing, and Laughing Squid are unavailable due to copyright claims.)

When people in the videos asked what he was doing, the cameraman often remained quiet or said, “I’m just taking a video.” When they asked why, he occasionally responded, “Why not?” His casual tone and terse responses quickly frustrated and angered people, some of whom hurled expletives or tried to cover the camera. Several threatened to call the police; the cameraman left only when some began dialing. He also left if people became aggressive, often telling them to calm down as he backed away.

Some articulated their feelings without resorting to profanity. “I may be in a public space, but I feel threatened by you,” said one man wearing what resembled a guard or law enforcement uniform. And while the cameraman appeared to do nothing more than hold the camera and occasionally speak, GeekWire reported that YouTube took down one video based on a policy that prohibits material meant to “harass, threaten, or bully.” YouTube appeared to reverse the decision, as the video is now accessible.

Some people mentioned they did not consent to the taping. “You didn’t ask me if you could take a picture of me sir,” one woman said. “You still have me on camera, and that’s not OK with me. That’s an invasion of my privacy and my time.” The cameraman occasionally referenced the prevalence of surveillance cameras, but he didn’t belabor the point, which was, “blurred by the fact that he sometimes invades his subjects’ personal space, making it unclear whether the discomfort they exhibit comes from having a person standing right by them, or whether it’s the camera they object to,” wrote Cory Doctorow.

The cameraman’s actions appear to be legal. People can typically record in public areas such as sidewalks and parks without consent since no general expectation of privacy exists in public, according to the Digital Media Law Project. The same usually holds for recording activity that occurs on private property but can be observed from public space. Washington’s Supreme Court has ruled that someone can visibly record conversations in public that others can hear.

While the law may not protect people from recordings in public, people clearly distinguish between who’s doing the recording. Canadian filmmaker Rob Spence, who has a bionic eye with a camera, told Reuters in 2009, “In Toronto there are 12,000 cameras. But the strange thing I discovered was that people don’t care about the surveillance cameras, they were more concerned about me and my secret camera eye because they feel that is a worse invasion of their privacy.”

This comment from Spence, who calls himself the Eyeborg, brings to mind Google Glass, which has already captured an arrest on camera. But since Glass doesn’t explicitly alert people when it shoots video, perhaps Surveillance Camera Man is inciting a much-needed conversation by forcing people to face the uncomfortable feeling they’re being recorded.

Flying Past Filters and Firewalls: Pigeons as Circumvention Tools

credit: zeevveez/Flickr

On June 14, 2013, Google announced that it would begin sending experimental balloons, loaded down with Internet hotspot equipment, into the stratosphere to help connect the estimated 4.5 billion people who do not have access to the Internet, many of whom live in rural areas. Google’s project, named “Loon,” quickly grabbed the attention and imagination of people living in countries where Internet censorship is the norm. Abdullah Hamed, CEO and founder of the popular Saudi gaming platform GameTako, reacted to Google’s announcement by posing a provoking question (or taunt) to local Emirati telecom companies and the Saudi government on Twitter.

Hamed’s question was a good one to put to the Saudi government and telecom companies who regularly block websites and ban unsanctioned communications services such as the VoIP product Viber. Hamed’s question soon got an answer, but not from the Saudi government or any other state that censors its Internet; Hamed was answered by Google. The company announced that it would be obtaining all the proper air travel permissions and radio frequency licenses, and will connect with local telecom networks as its balloons float by.

credit: purolipan/Flickr

In the late 1970s, small numbers of Iranians were permitted into Iraq to worship at the shrine of Imam Ali. After most of the pilgrims left the shrine, the exiled Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini would give impassioned anti-Shah lectures to the remaining visitors. Khomeini’s speeches were recorded onto cassette tapes, copied, and widely distributed on the streets of Tehran and other Iranian cities. The Shah’s government was aware of the tapes, and often destroyed copies it could find, but it did not manage to sufficiently disrupt the distribution network, and Khomeini’s influence in Iran grew. The CIA and the Shah’s information intelligence communities, looking in the wrong places, failed to see that the ground beneath them had shifted and were caught by surprise when the Iranian Revolution ousted the Shah’s government. In today’s increasingly connected world, we would call Khomeini’s followers members of a “sneakernet.” A sneakernet refers to the transfer of electronic information like computer files using removable media like magnetic tape, floppy disks, CDs, DVDs, USB flash drives, and external hard drives by someone wearing sneakers.  While sneakernets do still exist, many hung up their sneakers once broadband made sharing files faster and easier.

credit: Tony Marr/Flickr

Hamed’s excited tweet expressed his hope that floating balloons would connect people to the Internet and thwart government censorship policies. Instead of investing his hopes in Google Loon, Hamed might take seriously a proposal from the early days of the Internet that seems loonier than Google Loon, but might be more practical for circumventing network censorship or avoiding government scrutiny by programs like PRISM or the recently discovered snooping via the US Postal Service: IP over Avian Carriers (IPoAC). On April Fool’s Day, 1990, David Waitzman submitted a Request for Comments (RFC) to the Internet Engineering Task Force, the ad hoc body charged with developing and promoting Internet standards, on the idea of using carrier pigeons or other birds for the transmission of electronic data. Nine years later, again on April 1st, Waitzman issued another RFC suggesting improvements to his original protocol. On April 1, 2011, Brian Carpenter and Robert Hinden made their own RFC detailing how to use IPoAC with the latest revisions to the Internet Protocol IPv6.  While Waitzman, Carpenter, and Hinden clearly designed IPoAC as a joke, using birds to transfer digital media has been successfully tested. In 2004, inspired by the IPoAC idea, the Bergen Linux group sent nine pigeons, each carrying a single ping, three miles. (They only received four “responses,” meaning only four of the birds made it.)

credit: Alan Mays/Flickr

Not all the tests have ended in failure. In 2009, a South African marketing company targeted South Africa’s largest Internet Service provider, Telkom, for its slow ADSL speeds by racing a pigeon carrying a 4 GB memory stick against the upload of the same amount of data using Telkom’s service. After six minutes and 57 seconds, the pigeon arrived, easily beating Telkcom, which had only transferred 4 percent of the data in the same amount of time. In 2010, another person hoping to shame their ISP in Yorkshire, England raced a five-minute video on a memory card to a BBC correspondent 75 miles away using a carrier pigeon while simultaneously attempting to upload the same clip to YouTube. The pigeon made it in 90 minutes, well ahead of the YouTube video—which failed once during the race. In Fort Collins, Colorado, rafting photographers routinely use pigeons to carry memory sticks from their cameras to tour operators over 30 miles away, and prisoners in Brazil have been caught using pigeons to smuggle cellphones into their prison cells.

credit: Windell H. Oskay/Flickr

Suggesting that pigeons might be faster than Internet connections might seem ridiculous, but as the information density of storage media has increased, and continues to increase, many times faster than the Internet bandwidth available to move it, IPoAC might not be so far-fetched. Over the last 20 years, the available storage space of hard disks of the same physical size has increased roughly 100 percent per year, while the capacity of Internet connections has only increase by 30-40 percent each year. Sneakernets might have gone out of fashion as bandwidth speeds increased, but as storage capacity increases—along with our need to fill those capacities—pigeon-powered networks may become a practical alternative to existing networks. While no one brought up the idea of using pigeons at Google’s “How green is the Internet?” summit last month, pigeons may also be a more sustainable and environmentally friendly way to transfer data in the future.

Even if the increasing gap between storage and mobility doesn’t become a problem, Internet censorship or privacy issues might spur the development of a Pigeonet. Earlier this month Anthony Judge, who worked from the 1960s until 2007 for the UN’s Union of International Associations and is known for developing the most extensive databases on global civil society, published a detailed proposal titled “Circumventing Invasive Internet Surveillance with Carrier Pigeons.” In the proposal, Judge discusses the proven competence of carrier pigeons for delivering messages, their non-military and military messaging capacity, and the history of using pigeons to transfer digital data. Judge acknowledges that pigeon networks have their own susceptibilities (such as disease or being lured off course by an attractive decoy), but argues we should not be so quick to dismiss the idea. As governments, and compliant corporations, increasingly block or filter access to the Internet, data capacities and data production increase beyond bandwidth limitations, and we begin to realize the environmental costs of running the Internet, sneakernets and pigeonets may become increasingly attractive options for transmitting data.