Baby with the bathwarter
January 7, 2015 4:17 AM Subscribe
The Government of India in the last week of 2014 asked Internet service providers (ISPs) to block websites including code repository Github, video streaming sites Vimeo and Dailymotion, online archive Internet Archive, free software hosting site Sourceforge and many other websites on the basis of hosting anti-India content from the violent extremist group known as ISIS. The blanket block on many resourceful sites has been heavily criticized on social media and blogs by reviving the hashtag #GoIblocks that evolved in the past against internet censorship by the government. [...] After agreeing to remove anti-India content posted by accounts that appeared to have some association with ISIS, some were unblocked.via Global Voices
This bit me, we're visiting relatives in Kolkata and I wanted to browse Github and download a file from archive.org. Luckily it was easily bypassed by using Google's DNS servers. The joys of politics and bureaucracy in India.
posted by beowulf573 at 4:43 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by beowulf573 at 4:43 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hi my name is ISIS and I want to rule the Middle East. Please submit a pull request.
posted by oceanjesse at 4:51 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by oceanjesse at 4:51 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]
This should be fun for companies that outsourced development to India.
posted by srboisvert at 5:24 AM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by srboisvert at 5:24 AM on January 7, 2015 [8 favorites]
It seems obvious to me that the same people who would want to access GitHub would have little difficulty finding a way to do so.
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:46 AM on January 7, 2015
posted by Obscure Reference at 5:46 AM on January 7, 2015
> It seems obvious to me that the same people who would want to access GitHub would have little difficulty finding a way to do so.
You're generously assuming that everybody has full admin control of their company-issued computers and their IT has no problems whatsoever with them overriding the corporate network settings.
posted by ardgedee at 6:49 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
You're generously assuming that everybody has full admin control of their company-issued computers and their IT has no problems whatsoever with them overriding the corporate network settings.
posted by ardgedee at 6:49 AM on January 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
Blocking GitHub is a brilliant strategy for a nation backing the development of its economy on providing technology services, no?
posted by zachlipton at 7:59 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by zachlipton at 7:59 AM on January 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'm guessing this seriously impedes technology workers who must use the DNS servers of the compliant ISPs, which would include students, various stripes of white collar workers, small businesses, and (in some cases) even the technically literate.
I suppose there is some strategic advantage for nation states who can't abide criticism to block their citizenry from accessing 21st-century Internet infrastructure and all the affordances it provides.
Then again, maybe I suppose wrongly.
In ascending order: #KirbyDelauter #GoIblocks #CharlieHebdo
posted by mistersquid at 8:02 AM on January 7, 2015
I suppose there is some strategic advantage for nation states who can't abide criticism to block their citizenry from accessing 21st-century Internet infrastructure and all the affordances it provides.
Then again, maybe I suppose wrongly.
In ascending order: #KirbyDelauter #GoIblocks #CharlieHebdo
posted by mistersquid at 8:02 AM on January 7, 2015
Remember folks, run a relay if you can.
posted by Aizkolari at 8:25 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Aizkolari at 8:25 AM on January 7, 2015 [1 favorite]
> Blocking GitHub is a brilliant strategy for a nation backing the development of its economy on providing technology services, no?
That crossed my mind too. Since this went down, entrepreneurs within India must have been rushing into the breach to offer their SAASes duplicating GitHub's enterprise hosting (which would be exempt from the national firewall). While that's going to be good for enterprise clients (and hopefully a good example of using a technology crisis to increase dependence on domestic tech), it doesn't address the core of the problem: Blocking GitHub (and SourceForge, per the links) blocks access to thousands of open-source projects accessible without regard to international boundaries, including many which are considered requisite for particular software and web projects.
posted by ardgedee at 11:07 AM on January 7, 2015
That crossed my mind too. Since this went down, entrepreneurs within India must have been rushing into the breach to offer their SAASes duplicating GitHub's enterprise hosting (which would be exempt from the national firewall). While that's going to be good for enterprise clients (and hopefully a good example of using a technology crisis to increase dependence on domestic tech), it doesn't address the core of the problem: Blocking GitHub (and SourceForge, per the links) blocks access to thousands of open-source projects accessible without regard to international boundaries, including many which are considered requisite for particular software and web projects.
posted by ardgedee at 11:07 AM on January 7, 2015
Remember folks, run a relay if you can.
Now with only 80% child porn!
posted by Ogre Lawless at 1:00 PM on January 7, 2015
Now with only 80% child porn!
posted by Ogre Lawless at 1:00 PM on January 7, 2015
Now with only 80% child porn!
And/or feds looking for it.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 3:26 PM on January 7, 2015
And/or feds looking for it.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 3:26 PM on January 7, 2015
Github and archive.org are back up this morning.
posted by beowulf573 at 6:13 PM on January 8, 2015
posted by beowulf573 at 6:13 PM on January 8, 2015
I saw that 80% figure talk at 31c3 : absolutely abysmal experimental method and statistics.
There are initial and deeper replies by the Tor project, but imho the smoking gun is :
Law enforcement agencies scan abuse related hidden services regularly, which inflates the number of requests since scanning scripts that fire up their own Tor would not cache lookups.
I consider Dr Owen's suggestion of censoring abuse related hidden services willfully naive because any attempt to block abuse related hidden services shall merely make it harder for law enforcement to catch them, while not making the sites harder to run.
Criminals are caught through their op sec failures, which law enforcement discovers through observation. At what time of day is site updated? When is the site down and for how long? What software does the site use? What version numbers of that software? Both silk road operators were caught in part through such monitoring of the site.
There is never an obligation to make your hidden service identify it's contents without authentication, instead use ordinary login tools or stealth hidden services. Any attempt to blocklist abuse sites would merely make it tougher to catch the operators by you're preventing them from even starting an insecure site.
There are imho two reasons to still support a blocklists for abuse sites after you've really considered the political realities : You want Tor, I2P, Freenet, etc. shut down, preventing political dissident and investigative journalism all over the world. Or you want the abuse sites to get away with it.
Could Dr Owen's backers, temporary Tor replay supplier, etc. really be interested in shutting down Tor and/or even in protecting abuse sites? A priori not likely, but GCHQ sure doesn't like Tor. And :
"Marsh told VICE that Britain's new #WeProtect internet filter, meant to keep child porn off the web, is also making research into [abuse sites] difficult for her counterparts in England."
Indirectly via the deleted thread on #OpDeathEaters.
Ain't that surprising for Britain to be a haven for powerful abusers of people because it's already a haven for powerful abusers of financial systems. Ain't beyond the pale to imagine that at least the filters were created in part with the support of political factions who were aware of that abuse and wanted to hide it from the public.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:16 PM on January 19, 2015
There are initial and deeper replies by the Tor project, but imho the smoking gun is :
Law enforcement agencies scan abuse related hidden services regularly, which inflates the number of requests since scanning scripts that fire up their own Tor would not cache lookups.
I consider Dr Owen's suggestion of censoring abuse related hidden services willfully naive because any attempt to block abuse related hidden services shall merely make it harder for law enforcement to catch them, while not making the sites harder to run.
Criminals are caught through their op sec failures, which law enforcement discovers through observation. At what time of day is site updated? When is the site down and for how long? What software does the site use? What version numbers of that software? Both silk road operators were caught in part through such monitoring of the site.
There is never an obligation to make your hidden service identify it's contents without authentication, instead use ordinary login tools or stealth hidden services. Any attempt to blocklist abuse sites would merely make it tougher to catch the operators by you're preventing them from even starting an insecure site.
There are imho two reasons to still support a blocklists for abuse sites after you've really considered the political realities : You want Tor, I2P, Freenet, etc. shut down, preventing political dissident and investigative journalism all over the world. Or you want the abuse sites to get away with it.
Could Dr Owen's backers, temporary Tor replay supplier, etc. really be interested in shutting down Tor and/or even in protecting abuse sites? A priori not likely, but GCHQ sure doesn't like Tor. And :
"Marsh told VICE that Britain's new #WeProtect internet filter, meant to keep child porn off the web, is also making research into [abuse sites] difficult for her counterparts in England."
Indirectly via the deleted thread on #OpDeathEaters.
Ain't that surprising for Britain to be a haven for powerful abusers of people because it's already a haven for powerful abusers of financial systems. Ain't beyond the pale to imagine that at least the filters were created in part with the support of political factions who were aware of that abuse and wanted to hide it from the public.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:16 PM on January 19, 2015
No, Department of Justice, 80 Percent of Tor Traffic Is Not Child Porn
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:30 PM on January 28, 2015
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 2:30 PM on January 28, 2015
« Older Lucy, in the sky, with 1x 10^12 diamonds | Guys In Pajamas Looking at Viewscreens and Sitting... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by infini at 4:21 AM on January 7, 2015 [2 favorites]