Sinobyte: China and technology

Does posting censorship workarounds help the censors? That's the question I've been mulling for the last few days. I asked for your comments, and the verdict is in: Almost no one thinks we should keep these tricks to ourselves. I agree.

I started grappling with this question after I posted a now-defunct workaround for Mainlanders to access the still-blocked Chinese language Wikipedia. After a commenter posted the link on Sinobyte, I featured the link in the post. Then the commenter, Ted Chien, wrote me concerned that having the workaround posted would lead to the authorities blocking it. I took down the link temporarily and resolved to seek other opinions about whether workarounds should be publicized.

Ted, who is Secretary of Wikimedia Taiwan but emphasizes that he does not speak for the organization, told me that soon after he had made the comment he heard from friends in Guangzhou, Xiamen, and Shanghai that the hole had been plugged. Soon after that, access ceased from my connections in Beijing. He said he doesn't know if the block is related to the link appearing on Sinobyte, but he would regret alerting the authorities if that were the case.

This particular debate may be both moot and a cautionary tale. After all, me posting the link (which I have restored just now) may have been part of the cause for the block. On the other hand, it's likely the link appears on other sites and it could have been detected directly by authorities even before it was published.

In the end, however, commenters and colleagues in various branches of the China technology world unanimously responded to my call for comments with support for publishing workarounds. I articulate my argument for posting them at length in my previous post, but for me it comes down to this: As a journalist and member of the online community, I feel it would be unacceptably selfish to keep to myself the means to open information. If I heard about it, it wouldn't be hard for authorities to hear about it. And if they fight back against our workarounds, we'll find more.

I am sympathetic to concerns of those like Ted Chien, but barring any danger to individuals, I think it's more important to share tools to assist in global discussions than to protect them against government detection. This argument holds an embedded assumption that makes me a little uncomfortable: that is, that my U.S.-born affection for absolute freedom of speech is more right than the belief that the government should keep an eye on public discourse.

Why does this make me uncomfortable? As much as I believe the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been positive for the United States, a large portion of Chinese citizens do indeed believe that some censorship is necessary, and that the government should do it. Deborah Fallows found in a major public opinion poll that 80 percent of respondents said the internet should not be totally open. Depending on how you ask the question -- say, do you include child porn -- you may get similar numbers from the United States. But data doesn't support the common assumption that Chinese people all want a wide open internet.

I'm going to keep posting workarounds and tell myself that it's for the benefit of people who share my desire to read things from China, not for the sake of promoting my sense that the internet ought to be wide open.

This blog is often faced with the question of whether to post methods of accessing sites that are inaccessible from China because of government controls. I want to turn the question to readers, who I hope will have some opinions. Help me decide whether to reinstate a workaround for Chinese Wikipedia.

The argument for posting: I tend to believe it would be selfish to keep circumvention methods to myself when others who are less habitually engaged with technology news would also appreciate a way around the blocks. For instance, before the BBC News site was unblocked, I posted information on a URL that would let users through because of a quirk in the addressing on the BBC site--namely, the newsvote.bbc.co.uk mirror of news.bbc.co.uk was not blocked. I believed readers of Sinobyte would like to be able to use BBC News, and I got positive feedback in private.

The argument against posting: People who argue against posting workarounds hold that publicizing circumvention increases the likelihood of detection, and following that, more thorough blocks. It's a simple and persuasive point. If the authorities responsible for implementing blocks want something inaccessible, they might keep track of how people are beating their blocks and try to fight back.

Dealing with disagreements: Back when I posted the BBC URL, someone dashed off a comment criticizing my journalistic responsibility. I disagreed on that point and responded as follows: "I appreciate your concern, but in my experience merely posting something like this doesn't get a block in place. Moreover, on the journalistic responsibility point, this post doesn't put anyone in jeopardy, and most Internet users around here know how to get to what they need anyway. Guides on higher-profile sites than mine telling users how to access censored sites haven't led to simple blocks of several proxies. I think this URL an easy and valuable thing for some readers, and I know I'd appreciate seeing it in my RSS."

Indeed, especially on the journalistic ethics argument, I feel a particularly strong inclination to post the information. I was educated (or was it indoctrinated?) in a particular U.S. sense of proper press behavior. The main document of journalistic ethics in the United States is the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics. It's a long list of "don'ts" phrased as "dos." In my reading, the code gives arguments both for and against posting.

• For: under the heading "Seek Truth and Report it," the code asks us to:
  -- Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
  --Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
• Against: meanwhile, under "Minimize Harm," we see:
  --Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
  --Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.

SPJ's code is by no means my personal code, but it is a useful starting point from a perspective of professionalism. In essence, this 20th century formulation of journalistic ethics asks us to weigh the value of free information with any harm that information may have.

My argument for posting: As I've mentioned above, I tend to lean toward publishing workarounds. It's not only because I tend to believe making this information more widespread is good for free information; it's because I see the potential harm as minimal. In the BBC example, far from causing an overall block, having the workaround posted happened to precede the full unblocking of BBC News' English site (and in one city, the Chinese version). Likewise, with the recent question of whether to keep the Wikipedia workaround online, this comes at a time when the English version is already available and the Chinese one still subject to a block. Celebrate as I may that I can read two major sites without a proxy, the censorship (the "harm," if you like) is still in place for Chinese users unable to read English well.

The Internet blocking regime in China, in my experience, is full of holes. It's popular to speculate that authorities know they cannot affect a total block but are working instead to deter users not committed to accessing restricted information and perhaps to encourage self-censorship. Especially in English, vocal critics of internet censorship remain unblocked. Rebecca MacKinnon, a former reporter who teaches at Hong Kong University, blogs vocally about freedom issues. Ted Chien, who asked me to take down the URL, a decision I'm taking under consideration now, blogs about some of the same issues in English and Chinese on Blogspot, which is now unblocked.

Even before a recent opening that may be connected to the Olympics in August, government blocks were far from complete. Determined individuals can get through the blocks, and the government does little to eliminate proxies, even as it blocks a large amount of information through site-wide blocks or keyword filtering. And when one workaround fails, another inevitably arises. Though I haven't actually had any of my several free proxies blocked while working from Beijing over the last nine months or so, friends who have seen theirs go have simply switched. My ultimate question, then, is what's the value of a workaround if we don't tell people about it?

I'd love to hear from others on this issue. Please comment here or e-mail me directly at sinobyte /[at]/ gwbstr.com.

Commenter htchien points out that Chinese users can now reach the Chinese-language Wikipedia through the site's SSL-encrypted gateway.

The standard site, zh.wikipedia.org, is still blocked. (The URL I thought led there, cn.wikipedia.org, sent me to Yahoo China last time I tried.) But for now at least, the secure URL is functional and could open the big wiki to more participation from China.

Htchein is Ted (Hsiang-Tai) Chien, who lists a position as Secretary of Wikimedia Taiwan.

UPDATE: At Ted Chien's request, I have (at least temporarily) removed the secure URL from this post. His concern is that posting the URL might tip off Chinese authorities and cause that portal to be blocked as well. I have posted a call for comments as to whether bloggers should post workarounds to online censorship. -Graham

UPDATE II: After asking for comments, I've decided that my inclination to post workarounds is the right idea. Here's the link I temporarily removed: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/zh/wiki.

I just got done mentioning how hard it is for me to fully participate in Wikipedia from China. But English-language Wikipedia is suddenly accessible tonight from Beijing.

Obviously, Chinese officials read this blog and care very much about my opinions. (Blogspot's available too, but I didn' t ask for that. So whatever.)

I can't say I discovered this on my own. Danwei's "Net Nanny" post tipped me off.

I can confirm that both Wikipedia and Blogspot work from my connection and that this will make my life easier.

But as Danwei, the Chinese media and culture site, reports, Wikipedia's Chinese-language site is still blocked. Thus unfortunately, the argument that I made previously--that Wikipedia still lacks very important participation from this part of the world--will continue to stand.

The iconic Olympic sites in Beijing

(Credit: Graham Webster)

An Associated Press article coinciding with the change notes that Olympic officials are grappling with how to keep up appearances with foreigners as they arrive in Beijing. The usual estimate is that 500,000 people will come for the games. In the article, an official was quoted as saying he hoped the Internet would be open for media during the games:

Kevan Gosper, vice chairman of the IOC coordinating commission, said blocking the Internet during the games "would reflect very poorly" on the host nation.

"Even this morning we discussed and insisted again," Gosper said. "Our concern is that the press is able to operate as it has at previous games--at games time."

Gosper said the Chinese had an obligation under the so-called "host city agreement" to open Internet access to 30,000 accredited and non-accredited journalists expected to attend.

"There was some criticism that the Internet closed down during events relating to Tibet in previous weeks, but this is not games time," Gosper said.

Danwei calls this an "explanation," but I think it's more ambiguous. This change is similar to the unblocking of the English BBC News site in recent days: the Chinese counterpart is still blocked. The strategy of allowing open access in English and other non-Chinese languages while restricting Chinese-language sites feels like a P.R. move. Journalists from other countries will stop complaining so much about not being able to screw around online and comment on their friends' blogs, and the Chinese authorities still get to control content for the majority of Chinese Net users.

The two changes may also reflect a technical similarity, and possibly new infrastructure. The Chinese and English Wikipedia sites are differentiated using subdomains: cn.wikipedia.org vs. en.wikipedia.org. Similarly, the URLs for English and Chinese news on BBC are easily differentiable. This may mean a shift from IP filtering to URL filtering. Either way, offending requests still appear to be met with "connection resets."

That's right, Wikipedia now has 10 million articles. But participation in this global brain-share is restricted in China.

Wikipedia being blocked is news to no one in China, but there's a bit of a catch-22 even for those who use proxies to get around the restrictions: many proxy URLs and anonymizers are banned from editing Wikipedia to reduce vandalism.

When I want to see an article on Wikipedia, I pop it into the Anonymouse Web site, and the content comes right up. But if I see a mistake in an article, I'm unable to make my contribution.

Vandalism on Wikipedia is a serious issue. People turn entire pages into insults directed at their subject. Others insert more insidious misinformation that's hard to detect. The community is generally very good at catching these things, but banning open proxies was seen as a good way to reduce the number of people doing these things with impunity. If you don't want your own IP to get banned for vandalism, maybe you'd use a service that hid your identity.

Tor is perhaps the best known relatively robust anonymizing tool online. The Global Voices Online project promotes it in its guide to anonymous blogging. (It's in English, but not blocked in China.) But Tor nodes, too, are usually blocked for editing.

This means that people in China would have to display exceptional ingenuity to participate in the great compilation of information going on at Wikipedia. Some time ago, I wrote a review of now-Harvard Law School Professor Cass Sunstein's book Infotopia. Sunstein focuses his book on the great potential, and potentially great downfalls, of online information gathering by massive communities.

To his reservations, I add one. By no means am I the first to point this out, but when Wikipedia excludes most Internet users from the most populous country on Earth, it's got a long way to go before its relative robustness in English is matched in Chinese. Of course, the billions of individuals not online around the world are also missing their say.

Here's to 10 million nodes in this emerging body of knowledge, but idealists should be careful to note the limits of the project. I just hope the franchise extends more and more. If nothing else, I have a lot to learn from people who aren't yet participating.