GNU/Linux

Originally Published January 12, 2010; Last Updated March 10, 2010; Last Republished February 10, 2010:

Google is no longer willing to serve the China market while aiding and abetting the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) censorship of the Internet.

Discussions are ongoing, but given the CCP's recent efforts to tighten its grip on the Internet, it's likely Google will be leaving China, if temporarily.

Some in China have begun to debate whether China wants a civil society with universal characteristics or a CCP dictatorship with Chinese characteristics.

The recently increased Internet restrictions by the CCP are its initial efforts to gain an advantage and control that debate.

If the CCP thought their restrictive efforts would succeed there'd be no need to hack and attack Google or target Chinese human rights activists' accounts.

Res:

• Google, A new approach to China.

Blog:

• UPDATED 01/15/2010 ChinaScope, ChinaScope 39: Google's fight in China. Adds some context and perspective.

• UPDATED 01/14/2010 CDT, “It’s Not Google that’s Withdrawing from China; It’s China that’s Withdrawing from the World” (Updated with Photos).

  Unfortunately, the posting title maybe all too prescient. The community of nations must do everything possible to convince China that hiding behind walls is no longer an option.

Web:

• UPDATED 03/05/2010 Reuters, Beijing says working with Google to resolve dispute.

  • UPDATED 03/10/2010LAT, Google wants U.S. to include Internet freedom in trade agreements

    Google's Deputy General Counsel Nicole Wong urges (pdf) lawmakers (House Committee Foreign Affairs Hearing) to incorporate free (frictionless) Internet information flows into our trade agreements—a most excellent idea.

• UPDATED 02/26/2010 NYT, Hacking Inquiry Puts China’s Elite in New Light.

• UPDATED 02/24/2010 Reuters, China says Google hacking claims "groundless".

  Hey Qin Gang, you'll want to at least make some pretense toward investigating the allegations before informing us China does everything by the law and chefs can't write software code.

• UPDATED 02/18/2010 NYT, Two Chinese Schools Said to Be Tied to Online Attacks.

• UPDATED 02/12/2010 NYT, China Alarmed by Security Threat From Internet.

  One of the significant benefits of building and maintaining a civil society is that the nation gets methods for dealing with rumors, splits, and discord for free!

  Otherwise the nation must waste considerable resources building, maintaining, and managing the coercive, repressive, and corrupt machinery needed to control "rumors", "splits", and "discord" to impose a "harmonious" society.

  The resources are wasted because the oxymoronic and Sisyphean effort to impose harmony eventually fails, inflicting great harm in the process¹.

• UPDATED 02/04/2010 WP, Google to enlist NSA to help it ward off cyberattacks.

  It appears Google is in the process of finalizing a non-disclosure agreement with our spy agency (NSA) that will share the raw digital debris and system environment related to the recent China hacking of their system (Aurora cyber-attacks).

  The joint effort is likely aimed at developing a fingerprint of the attack, which can then be used in response to future cyber-threats.

  Needless to say the teaming arrangement raises may questions not the least of which is what digital forensic capabilities are found at the NSA that aren't better obtained elsewhere? Given Google’s dominant technical and market position it may be getting help from a competent benign partner (from Google’s perspective) than the best malignant one?

  Given Google’s hyper sensitivity to users and its motto "Don't be evil" we can expect a lot more explanation in the near future.

• UPDATED 02/03/2010 BBC, Net firms quizzed on China plans.

  Durbin sends letter to technology firms regarding Internet freedom in China.

• UPDATED 01/30/2010 USDoS, Remarks at the International Conference on Afghanistan [included a question on China-Google Internet].

  Our nation is very fortunate indeed to have this Secretary of State at this time in our short history.

  "...I [Secretary of State Hillary Clinton] raised the issue, as you would have expected I did, on the Google and internet freedom front. China has its approach. Obviously, they feel strongly that they are much more open than perhaps they’re getting credit for. We expressed – I expressed my concerns that we don’t want to create a series of actions that in any way impinges on the freedom and utility of the internet. But it was a very open, candid conversation. We agreed we will continue to discuss this matter in the context of our ongoing dialogue...."--Secretary of State Hillary Clinton--

• UPDATED 01/23/2010 Reuters, Bill Gates says Internet needs to thrive in China.

  It's difficult to determine whether Microsoft's chairman is being disingenuous, opportunistic, or just censorship apologist for China's communist party.

  Hopefully Microsoft's chairman will provide his definition of limited in the coming days—many would not refer to China’s censorship as limited.

  It should also be pointed out that it is not just censorship that is at issue but illegal cyber-attacks and exploits involving Microsoft's Internet browser (see Microsoft tackles 17-year old bug; perhaps a warning label "use at your own risk" is in order).

  Most would not disagree that China (and all nations) must have a thriving Internet—preferably with zero to minimal content censorship.

• UPDATED 01/23/2010 Reuters, China says it needs no Internet lessons from U.S..

  ...well, Mr. Min Dahong with all due respect you do need lessons on not engaging in censorship of the global Internet.

  A country by connecting to the global Internet (as opposed to non-global intranets) incurs certain minimum obligations, among them, minimum friction on information flows and freedom of expression, not engaging in or sponsoring cyber-attacks or cyber-warfare....

• UPDATED 01/21/2010 Reuters, China downplays Internet feud with United States and United States Department of State, Internet Freedom, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

  One can certainly understand China's assertion that the "Google Incident" shouldn't be linked to our bilateral relationship.

  However, the international process of acquiring intellectual property and gaining access to frictionless information flows goes to the very heart of our bilateral relationship.

  "...And censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company from anywhere. And in America, American companies need to make a principled stand. This needs to be part of our national brand. I’m confident that consumers worldwide will reward companies that follow those principles.....No nation, no group, no individual should stay buried in the rubble of oppression. We cannot stand by while people are separated from the human family by walls of censorship. And we cannot be silent about these issues simply because we cannot hear the cries...."--Secretary of State Hillary Clinton--

• UPDATED 01/20/2010 Reuters, U.S. has met with China on Internet freedom: official.
• UPDATED 01/17/2010 NYT, After Google’s Stand on China, U.S. Treads Lightly.

• UPDATED 01/16/2010 Reuters, Yahoo pulled into Google fracas, Alibaba reacts.

  Why isn't every American and democratic based company speaking out on behalf of Google—it's not like we do not know how unconstrained authoritarian-totalitarian leaning regimes end.

  Do theses companies suppose in an era of the Internet and Wikileaks they can secretly aid and abet China's authoritarian regime for gain?

• UPDATED 01/15/2010 Reuters, U.S. to send formal message [demarche] to China on Google case.

  Formally puts frictionless information flow (hacking is one form of friction), and Internet on China-U.S. track I radar.

• UPDATED 01/14/2010 Reuters, U.S. backs Google in China spat, seeks explanation.
• Reuters, Google says may pull out of China after Web attacks.

-----notes-----

1. Of course civil society leadership can also inflict great harm on a nation—witness the great harm inflicted on our nation by its previous leadership (two disastrous conflicts and an economic meltdown).

However, in a civil society leadership replacement and corrective action is relatively immediate and swift, thereby mitigating and containing the harm.

Originally Published February 25, 2010; Last Updated March 09, 2010; Last Republished March 09, 2010:

An Italian court has convicted three Google executives for privacy violations because they failed to screen an offensive video¹ before a third party posted it.

Google is no more civilly or criminally liable for the posting of videos (expressions) by a third party than a Good Samaritan is liable for helping another². Contrary to the court's analogy Google is not making the expression itself, but facilitating the expression of a third party.

It would be like holding the manufacturer of a megaphone criminally liable because somebody used the megaphone to express encouragement to those picking on a person with Down’s syndrome. Surely an appellate court will quickly reverse the lower courts wrongful and imprudent action.

Web:

• UPDATED 03/09/2010 Reuters, Cyber-bullying cases put heat on Google, Facebook.

  Of course we wish and hope that all speakers or those refraining from speaking will engage in responsible speech but there is no requirement to engage in "responsible speech" as the director of the Annenberg Program on Online Communities at the University of Southern California seems to assume in her comments.

  A moment’s reflection reveals the futility and danger in trying to define or require "responsible speech"—at the very least a society stagnates...

  Every society believes their understanding and definition of "responsible speech" at any moment is entirely correct and worthy of enforcement...consider an 1850's slave posting to their version of a Facebook Page or Google Blog:

  "...my master is an inhuman and inhumane scumbag not worthy of living—he repeatedly raped my wife and beat me and my oldest child last night...I can't go on living like this"--1850 American Slave--

  Speech Responsible or Irresponsible? Then or Now? Slavery End Sooner or Last Longer? Today Different or Same? Terrorist or Patriot? Then or Now?

• NPR, Italy Convicts 3 Google Executives In Privacy Case

-----notes-----

1. The offensive video reportedly depicted several youth picking on a peer with Down’s syndrome.

2. Some have speculated that Google may be experiencing push back because of its success, size, and market dominance. We can only hope that all of our corporations are as successful at doing good while doing well.

It's more likely that governments are simply having a very difficult time envisioning a world without censorship and adapting to it.

It may be wise for Google to help nations begin to envision and adapt to this future—a future with infinitely more promise than peril.

Originally Published April 28, 2008; Last Updated March 08, 2010; Last Republished March 08, 2010:

The Open Net Initiative (ONI) has consolidated five years of nation-state Internet censorship and surveillance research into a recently published book, Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering. Access Denied significantly advances our ongoing discussion of methods for reducing global Internet IP packet friction, particularly at national borders and their virtual gateways. Access Denied has published an excellent first approximation of relative indexes for nation-state censorship and surveillance.1

Worldcat

Access Denied focuses on the technology of IP packet impediment, but ultimately nation-state sponsored packet friction is the manifestation of symptoms for a widespread illness—the inability of the nation-state to understand, mediate, and resolve conflicts as virtual boundaries elide national boundaries—treatment begins by recognizing the symptoms.

ONI’s, Access Denied has begun the important work of documenting the developing symptoms of this serious pandemic illness—an essential read for everyone working² or planning to work treating the symptoms of nation-state Internet censorship and surveillance!

Res: The Open Net Initiative (ONI)

Web:

• UPDATED 03/08/2010 Reuters, Four in five believe Web access a fundamental right.

  What an encouraging article reporting the results of a cross-country Internet user survey: 80% thought of Internet access as a fundamental right; 90% thought it's a good place to learn; and half thought it should never be regulated by government anywhere.

-----notes-----

1. When the second edition is published its editors will help readers and improve readability by differentiating between regimes and regimens.

It will help readers distinguish the dictatorial regimes from the oppressive IP censorship and surveillance regimens they implement.

2. For example the Global Online Freedom Act of 2007, H.R. 275, has been introduced in the United States House of Representatives.

It aims to increase online freedom of expression and decrease nation-state coercion of multi-national entities.

Link: http://www.browserchoice.eu/BrowserChoice/browserchoice_en.htm

I think this is an effort to increase heterogeneity among browser users—seamonkey is not listed (probably because its a browser, mail, chat suite), but is definitely worth a look see, too.

Originally Published October 31, 2009; Last Updated March 05, 2010; Last Republished March 03, 2010:

Nations are beginning their foray into the "weaponization" or "militarization" of our open Internet and will continue unless stopped.

Some steps we can take:

• First, prohibit by international convention the weaponization or militarization of our Internet.

  The warriors can roll-out and use their own independent networks or better yet learn to stop fighting; and

• Second, begin developing a working knowledge of our Internet's infrastructure and terminology; and

• Third, begin all your Internet security discussions with a crystal clear and detailed understanding of what "asset" is proposed for protection. You will often discover a ton of security is proposed to secure zero or one gram of assets.

  If the "asset protection" discussion or analysis cannot take place transparently and in public, as our warriors will often assert, then the asset does not belong on our Internet.

• Fourth, develop a working understanding of the trade-offs between an open and secure Internet.

  Seek a minimum level of security and maximum level of openness; and

• Fifth, do not accept as inevitable the weaponization or militarization of our Internet.

  Our warriors are moving to our open Internet because it's relatively cheap warfare.

  But it does not follow that we must therefore permit them to harden, ruggedize, or close our Internet. We can boot the warriors off our Internet.

Web:

• UPDATED 03/05/2010 Wired ThreatLevel, White House Cyber Czar: ‘There Is No Cyberwar’

  White House cyber-czar Howard Schmidt calls cyber-war an unfortunate metaphor; so is cyber-czar and white house.

• UPDATED 03/03/2010 Wired ThreatLevel, U.S. Declassifies Part of Secret Cybersecurity Plan and WH, The Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative
• UPDATED 12/13/2009 NYT, In Shift, U.S. Talks to Russia on Internet Security and UPI, U.S., Russia discuss cybersecurity.

• UPDATED 12/04/2009 EPIC, EPIC Files Appeal for NSA Policy on Network Surveillance.

  Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) is seeking FOIA disclosure of National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 54, Cyber Security and Monitoring dated January 08, 2008.

  EPIC's FOIA request is in the administrative appeal stage and will likely end up on the EPIC FOIA Litigation Docket.

• UPDATED 11/18/2009 Government Information Security, Einstein 3 Privacy Concerns Voiced

Some Useful Terms to Know (from US-China Economic and Security Review Commission Report on the Capability of the People’s Republic of China to Conduct Cyber Warfare and Computer Network Exploitation (1M pdf)):

Read more »

• UPDATE 02/17/2010 Toowiki is online. The configuration has been updated—the cleanup will be done while the wiki is online.
  • TooWiki recent changes can now be obtained via RSS or Atom.
  • Those wanting to learn more about the powerful open source MediaWiki are urged to consult the online MediaWiki Manual.
• UPDATE 02/16/2010 Toowiki will be off-line for about a week for upgrading, modifications, changes, and cleanup (it attracted the attention of a mischief maker).
• UPDATE 04/10/2008 Toowiki is online.
• Toowiki will be off-line for about a week for upgrading, modifications, and changes.

How unique is the information your browser provides when connecting to a website?

Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) has provided a link called panoticlick¹ that compares the information sent by your browser with the information collected from other browsers visiting the link and assigns an overall "uniqueness" score 1:x based on the information sent by your browser.

Spoofing several User Agents produced the following:

1. Seamonkey 2 (1:632,597 - most unique)

   Characteristic	Score	Uniqueness	Information Sent
   User Agent	15.69	52708.5	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4) Gecko/20091017 SeaMonkey/2.0
   HTTP_ACCEPT Headers	14.14	18071.49	text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 gzip,deflate
   Browser Plugin Details	2.36	5.15	no javascript
   Time Zone	2.35	5.1	no javascript
   Screen Size and Color Depth	2.35	5.1	no javascript
   System Fonts	2.35	5.11	no javascript
   Are Cookies Enabled?	0.27	1.2	Yes
   Limited supercookie test	2.35	5.1	no javascript

2. Explorer 6 (1:632,564)

   Characteristic	Score	Uniqueness	Information Sent
   User Agent	8.59	385.24	Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)
   HTTP_ACCEPT Headers	14.06	17096.32	text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 gzip,deflate
   Browser Plugin Details	2.37	5.15	no javascript
   Time Zone	2.35	5.1	no javascript
   Screen Size and Color Depth	2.35	5.1	no javascript
   System Fonts	2.35	5.11	no javascript
   Are Cookies Enabled?	0.27	1.2	Yes
   Limited supercookie test	2.35	5.1	no javascript

3. Explorer 7 (1:316,268 - least unique)

   Characteristic	Score	Uniqueness	Information Sent
   User Agent	8.06	266.78	Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0)
   HTTP_ACCEPT Headers	14.1	17570.42	text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8 gzip,deflate
   Browser Plugin Details	2.36	5.15	no javascript
   Time Zone	2.35	5.1	no javascript
   Screen Size and Color Depth	2.35	5.1	no javascript
   System Fonts	2.35	5.11	no javascript
   Are Cookies Enabled?	0.27	1.2	Yes
   Limited supercookie test	2.35	5.1	no javascript

These data suggest more dynamic user control of the data elements sent by a browser is required for maximum anonymous browsing.

-----notes-----

1. The noun panopticon means a point of all area visibility.

If you need to smile, watch this Doodle 4 Google 2009 video promoting Doodle 4 Google 2010.

Here are the top ten Lunog¹ posts created in 2009, in descending order (most views too least):

1. Submarine USS Hartford SSN 768 Collides
2. Iran 2009 Election Post Khamenei Speech
3. Still Managing The Tiananmen Student Massacre Fallout
4. Virginia Class Submarine - Defense Authorization FY10
5. Memorial Day 2009
6. Kangaroo Kommission Kickoff Update-32
7. Fathers' Day 2009 - In Support of Iranians
8. China Provokes US Hosing And Formal Protest
9. Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan - Ninth Circuit
10. United States Navy Joins Air France Flight 447 Search
11. The border case²

Happy New Years!

-----notes-----

1. Lunog holds individual blogs GNU/Linux, First, Halibut, Misblog, LCB, Blogenomic, Toowiki.

2. Australian SEA 1000 Submarine Program Manager Named

Originally Published March 14, 2008; Updated December 23, 2009; Last Republished December 23, 2009:

This week the United States, as part of its National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, conducted its second National Cyber Exercise (NCE), Cyber Storm II. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will report its findings later this year. Blog: UPDATED 12/23/2009 White House, Introducing the New Cybersecurity Coordinator

Web:

• UPDATED 12/23/2009 DHS, DHS' Cyber Storm III to test U.S. national cyber response plan.

  Cyber Storm III is scheduled for September 2010.

• UPDATED 08/04/08 Cnet, DHS stays mum on new 'Cyber Security' center
• National Cyber Security Division
• CW, Opinion: Government and industry unite in cybercrime battle