Eric Lausten's weblog

Recent reports in the news and from the US government indicate that the Chinese government has been behind cyber-attacks against western companies and government agencies. While previous reports alleged China state support for these attacks, these new claims “mark the first time that high-level officials in either the United States or the U.K. have publicly identified the Chinese government as the source of widespread cyberattacks.”

What does this mean in the context of nascent US efforts to regulate American corporate support for Chinese Internet censorship? First, this is further evidence of China’s retaliatory response to perceived western slights and threats against its government. Though the only justification listed in the news for the attacks was industrial espionage, there have been claims that these attacks are responses to affronts such as calls for boycotts of the Beijing Olympics, President Bush meeting with the Dalai Lama, or arms sales to Taiwan. These were also likely causes for preventing a US carrier group from recently making a port call in Hong Kong. China has practiced economic retaliation the past, notably blocking the acquistion by the Carlyle Group of a major Chinese construction machinery corporation following the US blocking CNOOC’s purchase of Unocal.

US policy development to hinder Chinese internet censorship may be seen as an affront by China, and as meddling in its internal affairs. It would not be surprising if a response to this would be increased cyber attack sor cyber reconnaissance of US government agencies and corporations. While these threats likely exist regardless of US regulation of censorship supporting companies, the possibility of it aggravating Chinese cyber-attacks must be considered.

Furthermore, the growing capability of Chinese hackers indicates increasing computer skills of the government and its personnel. As these skills proliferate elsewhere in the Chinese bureaucracy, there are opportunities for China to build indigenous skills to develop hardware and software that manage and control the online information. While there are certain capabilities in the filtering and blocking realm that China has not yet developed, it is concievable that it could acquire those needs elsewhere, or domestically overtime.

These are just a few concerns and challenges that face US efforts to stymie China’s Internet censorship.

Posted by Eric at 12:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

How does one say “Where is the nearest bathroom?” in cyber? This seemingly absurd question actually has an answer.

According to a press release it issued last week, “Westminster City Council is today launching the UK’s first ever text service to help people find their nearest loo using pioneering ‘SatLav’ technology.” By sending a text message, a reply will be sent to one’s mobile phone detailing the location of the nearest public bathroom.

Though the uses of information, satellite and digital technologies are growing by leaps and bounds, this was not an application that would have immediately come to mind. Although, admittedly I rarely am so far from home, office or school that finding a bathroom has been all that much of a problem for me. Were I to be traveling abroad, or with young kids in tow, my appreciation for this service might be different.

It appears also that there may be a different culture about the loo across the pond that I’m just not familiar with. Westminster reportedly spends 3 million pounds a year maintaining toilets. A local councilman is quoted stating: “Westminster already has an unrivalled, award-winning provision of public toilets, placing us far ahead of any other local authority in the country.” Cheerio.

What does this mean? Well, though there are myriad applications for digital, mobile and information technology to improve living standards, grow economies and spur innovation, seemingly small, local needs will always be a prominent sector. Politicians can plug small programs, such as SatLav, to gain parochial favor, even if the benefit is marginal. Firms can capture markets with ‘gadgets’ and frivilous services. The balance, or digitial divide, between engineering the ‘wants’ of the North versus the ‘needs’ of the South needs examination.

Having the greater forsight and vision to apply technologies more broadly takes a different, and more selfless tact. Economics and markets alone will not solve these challenges. While there is nothing wrong with deploying a technology that helps well-to-do westerners find bathrooms, there are much more pressing needs in the world today. In the developing world, finding health care services, identifying water sources, accessing markets, creating communication links between feuding groups - these are the real challenges for ICT innovation. Let’s hope that the pursuit of western convienence does not force these more pressing needs to be, well, flushed down the toilet.

Posted by Eric at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

China has issued, and updated, general regulations for what information is not permitted on the web. According to Chase and Mulvenon’s RAND report, “You’ve got dissent: Chinese dissident use of the Internet and Beijing’s counter- strategies”, “since 1995, the Chinese government has promulgated a blizzard of rules covering nearly every aspect of the Internet market.”

Regulations issued in 1997, known as the “Computer Information Network and Internet Security, Protection and Management Regulations”, are notable as they prohibit 9 broad information categories:

1. Inciting to resist or breaking the Constitution or laws or the implementation
of administrative regulations.
2. Inciting to overthrow the government or the socialist system.
3. Inciting division of the country, harming national unification.
4. Inciting hatred or discrimination among nationalities or harming
the unity of the nationalities.
5. Making falsehoods or distorting the truth, or spreading rumors
destroying the order of society.
6. Promoting feudal superstitions, sexually suggestive material,
gambling, violence, or murder.
7. Inciting terrorism or inciting others to criminal activity; openly
insulting other people or distorting the truth to slander people.
8. Injuring the reputation of state organs.
9. Engaging in other activities against the Constitution, laws, or administrative
regulations.

September 2004 brought a re-issuance of these regulations, along with 2 new rules, which Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF) dubbed the “The 11 commandments of the Internet in China”. According to RSF, the two new rules issued are: It is forbidden to encourage illegal gatherings, strikes, etc to create public disorder; and It is forbidden to organise activities under illegal social associations or organisations.

The broadness of these regulations have been used to widely block, filter, censor information on the web, and at times, to arrest those who post such content. Specific topics or sites that have been forbidden by China include: Falun Gong; Tiannenmen Square; Taiwan; nationalist references to Mongolian, Uygher, and Tibet; democrarcy and dissedence; foreign government sites; foreign news sites; and religion. The empirical testing and analysis conducted by Zittrain and Edelman confirms that websites with this data are blocked in China. It found that also blocked are sites referencing to certain health issues, such as AIDS, sexually explicit content, and even educational sites, including US universities.

Posted by Eric at 06:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As reported earlier, legislation has been introduced in Congress to regulate corporate participation in global internet censorship. The Bush administration has also developed an interest in the issue of online freedom, and has instituted a program to address it.

In February 2006, the Secretary of State created the Global Internet Freedom Task Force. While not specifically focused on corporate involvment in Internet censorship or control, its mission is certainly related. The GIFT is to report on:

The use of technology to restrict access to political content and the impact of such censorship efforts on U.S. companies;
The use of technology to track and repress dissidents; and
Efforts to modify Internet governance structures in order to restrict the free flow of information.

As has been reported by the Open Net Initiative and others, US corporations are major providers of technology and services to the Chinese government for Internet filtering, blocking, surveillance and other activities. It likely provides similar support to other Internet-restricting nations. In the limited time remaining in the Bush administration’s term, it will be interesting to see if and how it reports on such issues when they will directly reflect on US corporate activity, and responsibility, in this arena. There is opportunity for conflict with the juxtaposition of the administration’s strong support for the business sector (and its promotion of international trade) and its advocacy for democratic governance and freedom.

The announced strategy for GIFT makes slim mention of the role of US corporations in facilitating internet censorship. This blueprint proposes to monitor global internet freedom, respond to challenges of Internet freedom and advance Internet freedom by expanding access to the Internet. While this may reflect the role of the US State Department, it is an issue that requires its attention. The only reference to the technology industry is to interact with it as a stakeholder in “developing shared principles to guide private sector activities in restrictive economies.”

The absence of any apparent consideration of regulating technology industry support for Internet restrictions or censorship is not surprising. This reflects this administration’s aversion to regulation of business. It may also be a recognition of the stark challenges of regulating the provision of technology and services that support government online regulation.

Posted by Eric at 05:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Recently, the Washington Post reported on the failure of the Chinese government’s efforts to offer 2008 Olympic tickets online. When tickets were offered on a first-come, first-served system via in person, telephone and through the Internet, “[h]igh demand caused the central computer system to crash and phone lines were jammed,” the Post reported. As a result, tickets will now be distributed through a random drawing - no doubt, a frustration to those who had hoped to secure tickets early and easily.

Considering the numbers of people who sought to get Olympic tickets this way is instructive. The WashPost report provides some insight:

[I]n the first hour of ticketing, 8 million page views on the Olympics site crashed the system. Officials said it was designed to handle 1 million hits an hour. At the same time, the ticketing hotline received 3.8 million calls, overwhelming the network. Congestion and data delays also slowed sales at the bank branches.

The failure of the Beijing Olympics e-commerce effort is seemingly in contradictation with the governments application of large-colume computing and data processing for other purposes. According to report from the Open Net Initiative, China pursues “a Herculean effort to tame the Internet activities and expression of over 100 million citizens”. With Internet use surging, from 94 million in 2005 to 137 million users in 2006, Internet censorship and control is a growing challenge for the government. Nonetheless, ONI states that its censorship and control efforts increasingly successful and effective.

Perhaps consulting with the Ministry of Information Industry and Ministry of Public Security - two of China’s leading Internet control agencies, would have aided Beijing Olympic Committee’s ticket release efforts. They appear to have a handle on managing Internet volume.

Posted by Eric at 03:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)