China

I've seen a couple of pointers to information about China's ambitious
attempt to build their own censorable net, but not a lot of discussion. 
The Chineese net strikes me as a very signifiant (and very negative)
development.  

In a worst case scenario, I could see them shopping their net around the
world as an alternative to the Internet.  China's size might make it
possible for them to put together something that might be in the
Internet's ballpark as an information resource, especially for technical
and commercial applications.  This would make it attractive to other
countries -- Islamic, for example -- who want to use networking to stay 
competitive economically with the West, but who are unwilling to allow 
information to flow freely.

A split between a Western net and a Chineese net would have important 
political, cultural, and economic reprecussions;  it could be the 
cyberspatial version of the old iron curtain, with information policy 
rather than economic policy as a dividing line.

I know that the Chineese net won't have bullet proof security, and the
crypto anarchy model tells us that the attempt is doomed to failure over
the long run.  That's probably true, but there is a chance that it might
not be.  No one, including the Chineese, is going to expect perfect
security.  But everyone ought to expect a real and substantial chilling
effect on the free flow of ideas.  It doesn't seem at all unlikely that
they'll be able to have the same sort of success controlling ideas online
as they have with printed material. 

We ought to speak out against this Chineese net, and start asking
questions about Western companies that are collaborating in its
construction.  

All of this, incidently, puts a new spin on the exportability of crypto. 
We've always assumed that exporting crypto meant that individuals and
businesses would be able to have control over their own tools.  But what's
our posisition if RSA wants to sell tools to the Chineese government that
will be used to affix signatures, perform validation, and generally
control the flow of ideas?

We ought to allow the free export of any crypto tools to any country for
any reason.  But if there are going to be any restrictions at all, it 
ought to be on tools used for anti-democratic controls.

--
Alex Strasheim, alex@proust.suba.com

On Thu, 8 Feb 1996, Alex Strasheim wrote:

> I've seen a couple of pointers to information about China's ambitious
> attempt to build their own censorable net, but not a lot of discussion. 

Agreed, and not just about China. The Internet community is supposedly 
international, yet can be remarkably parochial. 

> The Chineese net strikes me as a very signifiant (and very negative)
> development.  

I'm sure it surprises nobody that the perpetrators of Tiananmen will 
not let the Internet slip through, without an attempt at censorship. 
However, on this subject, I stand by the conclusion of my "Radio Free 
Usenet" July 95 Byte commentary, that if ever they attempt a Tiananmen 
Square in cyberspace, the students will deploy the more powerful tanks. 
Running an ISP isn't easy, and if you are an authoritarian, it is even 
harder. Once they set up the infrastructure, the genie will be out of the 
bottle. Remember that starting this year, satellites of Iridium and other 
LEO satellite projects will start to go up, spreading bandwidth around 
the world. How will the Chinese government build a firewall against 
satellites? Say, for instance orbiting anonymous remailers with pgp? Will 
happen some day.

However, that is not a reason for complacency. I think your warning is 
timely, and discussion, perhaps even action, may be called for. If people 
can mirror a web site so that Germans get access to it (an action I 
entirely support) what is being done about the large numbers of 
newsgroups that India and China have no access to? 

A lot of noise is made about how Compuserve users do not have access to
the sexusenet. Guess what -- in India, now China, we've *never* had such
access. Why is that any more acceptable? 

Arun Mehta, B-69 Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-24, India. Phone 6841172,6849103
amehta@doe.ernet.in a.mehta@axcess.net.in amehta@cerf.net
http://mahavir.doe.ernet.in/~pinaward/arun.htm
"I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be 
stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house 
as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any."--Gandhi

Arun Mehta writes:
> A lot of noise is made about how Compuserve users do not have access to
> the sexusenet. Guess what -- in India, now China, we've *never* had such
> access. Why is that any more acceptable? 

I have always assumed that people on the net in India, China, etc. can use
the same free net.resources as everyone else to access locally blocked
material. For newsgroups, use something like 
	http://dana.ucc.nau.edu/~jwa/open-sites.html 

If the Indian or Chinese govt. forces all ISPs in its country to block
all known open NNTP servers, then that's a more serious situation. But I
haven't read anything indicating that.

The CompuServe incident caused a big ruckus because it involved a conflict
between the German govt. and many U.S. users, and (like it or not) users 
in the U.S. seem to be the most vocal group on the net.

-Lewis	"You're always disappointed, nothing seems to keep you high -- drive 
	your bargains, push your papers, win your medals, fuck your strangers;
	don't it leave you on the empty side ?"  (Joni Mitchell, 1972)

> However, that is not a reason for complacency. I think your warning is 
> timely, and discussion, perhaps even action, may be called for. If people 
> can mirror a web site so that Germans get access to it (an action I 
> entirely support) what is being done about the large numbers of 
> newsgroups that India and China have no access to? 

I recieved a few emails from people who tried to explain to me why the 
Chineese scheme isn't going to work.  I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm 
unconcered, but one point was sort of reassuring and probably ought to be 
brought out on the list.

The West isn't the Chineese government's main problem -- it's the 
Chineese people they have to worry about.  A firewall can't provide 
internal security -- all it can do, at best, is keep outsiders out.  Even 
assuming that they can pull that off -- and it's extremely unlikely that 
they can -- anything that lets Chineese people talk to each other and 
facilitates discussion is going to end up being far more subversive than 
any information we in the West can send into China.

(This point was made by Perry -- it probably lost something in the
translation.)

As for India and China -- what should be done?  We tend to focus on things
that are within our field of vision.  CompuServe is an American company,
and when they cut out usenet groups in response to events in Germany, it
brought that country to our attention.

I would like to think that privacy activists and civil libertarians in
other countries would find allies and support in the US and European
countries like Finland and the Netherlands.  (We here in the states may
begin leaning on Dutch servers soon if the recently passed decency act is
enforced.)  If you need space on a web server, nntp access, a show of
solidarity -- let us know, and we'll try to deliver what you need.

[...]
> bottle. Remember that starting this year, satellites of Iridium and other 
> LEO satellite projects will start to go up, spreading bandwidth around 
> the world. How will the Chinese government build a firewall against 
> satellites? Say, for instance orbiting anonymous remailers with pgp? Will 
> happen some day.

Radio *reception* of non goverment approved frequences is illegal in a
number of countries, China included. Possesion of the equipment needed
to received these frequencies is also illegal in a number of countries
(including Australia). Sale of that equipment is illegal in still more
countries, including the USA.

-- 
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
|Julian Assange                    | "if you think the United  States has    |
|FAX: +61-3-9819-9066              |  stood still, who built the largest     |
|EMAIL: proff@suburbia.net         |  shopping centre in the world?" - Nixon |
+----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+

Julian Assange <proff@suburbia.net> writes:
> [...]
> > bottle. Remember that starting this year, satellites of Iridium and other
> > LEO satellite projects will start to go up, spreading bandwidth around
> > the world. How will the Chinese government build a firewall against
> > satellites? Say, for instance orbiting anonymous remailers with pgp? Will
> > happen some day.
>
> Radio *reception* of non goverment approved frequences is illegal in a
> number of countries, China included. Possesion of the equipment needed
> to received these frequencies is also illegal in a number of countries
> (including Australia). Sale of that equipment is illegal in still more
> countries, including the USA.

Governments and organized religions sought to regulate book printing
almost since the time in was invented.

In the last few decades, oppressive governments controlled the possession of
short-wave radio receivers (confiscated by several sides during WWII to prevent
citizens from listening to enemy propaganda); xerocopiers and computer
printers; even typewriters (I read that in today's Iraq every typewriter must
be registered and the government must be supplied with type samples).

It's not difficult to imagine that governments will seek to regulate the
possession of modems again. Some may recall that in the U.S. it used to be
technically illegal to connect a modem to the phone jack without a permission
from AT&T.

---

Dr. Dimitri Vulis
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps