Filtering holiday
In preparation for the Olympics, China announces that it is thinking about weakening the Great Firewall. And that it may allow access to the BBC.
Meanwhile, the Federal Times reports that our U.S. State Dept. is planning to hand out $15 million to developers to “produce ‘Internet technology programs and protocols’ that enable ‘widespread and secure Internet use’ in countries where the Internet is now heavily censored.” As one of my colleages said today, it’s Voice of America in software form.
But - wait - it’s not all free-flow-bliss out there. There are strong rumors that a concerted effort is underway in the EU to mandate ISP filtering for (at the least) copyright issues and indecent material. (It’s always things that start with “P”: pornography, P2P file trading….) Clean Feed is on the march.
So, what is it, Western World? Are some kinds of filtering fine (like AT&T’s plans) and others labeled “censorship”?
China may be watching for clues. It will undoubtedly start its observation engines again as the air darkens over Beijing in September 2008.
If, indeed, it ever really turns them off.
State secrets
It’s common knowledge that companies that provide access to the internet cooperate with law enforcement. The telephone companies have always been closely tied to emergency responders and the police — in times of need, people reach for telephones, and this close cooperation has allowed many rescuers to reach panicked callers. But the cooperative relationship springing from law enforcement’s surveillance needs is just as close.
In the NSA spying scandal, the administration has frequently claimed that to reveal the nature of network providers’ involvement with the apparently unlawful wiretapping would reveal secrets - and therefore this relationship can’t even be discussed in court. Now the director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, is admitting that “the private sector” (the network operators) did indeed help out:
Now the second part of the issue was under the
president’s program, the terrorist surveillance program, the private
sector had assisted us. Because if you’re going to get access you’ve
got to have a partner and they were being sued. Now if you play out the
suits at the value they’re claimed, it would bankrupt these companies.
So my position was we have to provide liability protection to these
private sector entities.
And McConnell also says that people will die because we’ve been so public about our discomfort with this illegal wiretapping program.
It’s all pretty rich.
Q. So you’re saying that the reporting and the debate in Congress means that some Americans are going to die?
A. That’s what I mean. Because we have made it so public. We used to do these things very differently. . .