Comments for Nart Villeneuve http://www.nartv.org Internet Censorship Explorer Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:14:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on The Aurora Mess by Yves http://www.nartv.org/2010/03/04/the-aurora-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-271509 Yves Sat, 06 Mar 2010 15:14:58 +0000 http://www.nartv.org/?p=1035#comment-271509 China Telecom banned 80 port of all the ADSL users: I guess these are what the DDNS are applied to. Should be a good idea for them to ban 21 and 23 port to disable the FTP and telnet service too? If so, not every boy can control the botnets. China Telecom banned 80 port of all the ADSL users: I guess these are what the DDNS are applied to. Should be a good idea for them to ban 21 and 23 port to disable the FTP and telnet service too? If so, not every boy can control the botnets.

]]> Comment on The “Kneber” Botnet, Spear Phishing Attacks and Crimeware by Ned Moran http://www.nartv.org/2010/03/01/the-kneber-botnet-spear-phishing-attacks-and-crimeware/comment-page-1/#comment-271507 Ned Moran Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:43:40 +0000 http://www.nartv.org/?p=1013#comment-271507 Nart, Terrific analysis! The trend of intermingling crimeware with espionage is indeed troubling. Thanks for publishing this. take care, Ned Nart,

Terrific analysis! The trend of intermingling crimeware with espionage is indeed troubling. Thanks for publishing this.

take care,
Ned

]]> Comment on The “Kneber” Botnet, Spear Phishing Attacks and Crimeware by uk visa lawyer http://www.nartv.org/2010/03/01/the-kneber-botnet-spear-phishing-attacks-and-crimeware/comment-page-1/#comment-271505 uk visa lawyer Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:47:06 +0000 http://www.nartv.org/?p=1013#comment-271505 Info with intel value must be a pretty good form of insurance in some criminal circles; it may not be the financial value as such more the value of being useful... Info with intel value must be a pretty good form of insurance in some criminal circles; it may not be the financial value as such more the value of being useful…

]]> Comment on Tunisia: Law Suit over Fake 404 by Google has disabled the ability for Nawaat to upload new videos « sami ben gharbia http://www.nartv.org/2008/09/12/tunisia-law-suit-over-fake-404/comment-page-1/#comment-271502 Google has disabled the ability for Nawaat to upload new videos « sami ben gharbia Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:52:11 +0000 http://www.nartv.org/?p=461#comment-271502 [...] “Meta-activists” and social media gurus! The few good exceptions that are doing their best to raise awareness and support our causes are our only allies who have been at our side in all [...] [...] “Meta-activists” and social media gurus! The few good exceptions that are doing their best to raise awareness and support our causes are our only allies who have been at our side in all [...]

]]> Comment on Google’s New Approach by Ronald Deibert | Director, The Citizen Lab, Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto http://www.nartv.org/2010/01/12/googles-new-approach/comment-page-2/#comment-271501 Ronald Deibert | Director, The Citizen Lab, Munk Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:10:11 +0000 http://www.nartv.org/?p=941#comment-271501 [...] the attacks and the wider implications in the press and elsewhere. Below are some selected sources: Citizen Lab, Psiphon and SecDev's Nart Villeneuve's reaction Globe and Mail editorial Christian Science Monitor Wall Street Journal New York Times Globe and [...] [...] the attacks and the wider implications in the press and elsewhere. Below are some selected sources: Citizen Lab, Psiphon and SecDev's Nart Villeneuve's reaction Globe and Mail editorial Christian Science Monitor Wall Street Journal New York Times Globe and [...]

]]> Comment on Search Monitor: Toward a Measure of Transparency by Internet Evolution - Robert McGarvey - Party Time for Baidu May Be Premature http://www.nartv.org/2008/06/18/search-monitor-toward-a-measure-of-transparency/comment-page-1/#comment-271500 Internet Evolution - Robert McGarvey - Party Time for Baidu May Be Premature Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:59:04 +0000 http://www.nartv.org/?p=392#comment-271500 [...] is where the problems with Baidu seem to start -- with censorship. But Baidu may be fiddling with results far more than ensuring no query about Falun Gong turns up [...] [...] is where the problems with Baidu seem to start — with censorship. But Baidu may be fiddling with results far more than ensuring no query about Falun Gong turns up [...]

]]> Comment on Google’s New Approach by Google unmuzzles itself in China » WITNESS Blog http://www.nartv.org/2010/01/12/googles-new-approach/comment-page-2/#comment-271499 Google unmuzzles itself in China » WITNESS Blog Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:20:04 +0000 http://www.nartv.org/?p=941#comment-271499 [...] the day nearer when Chinese netizens can read and debate Amnesty reports online freely.  He, like Nart Villeneuve, hopes that this will influence other companies, notably Microsoft and Yahoo, to take a stand [...] [...] the day nearer when Chinese netizens can read and debate Amnesty reports online freely.  He, like Nart Villeneuve, hopes that this will influence other companies, notably Microsoft and Yahoo, to take a stand [...]

]]> Comment on Decrypting the Google statement by XX http://www.nartv.org/2010/01/18/decrypting-the-google-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-271491 XX Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:00:28 +0000 http://www.nartv.org/?p=973#comment-271491 I feel good about the decision taken by Google to stop cencoring the search results. Afterall, how long the Chinese government wishes to play the moral guardian of majorty of the population. I think, the Chinese population for once should get a chance to grow up and decide for themsleves which search result they want and which is irrelevant to them. I feel good about the decision taken by Google to stop cencoring the search results. Afterall, how long the Chinese government wishes to play the moral guardian of majorty of the population. I think, the Chinese population for once should get a chance to grow up and decide for themsleves which search result they want and which is irrelevant to them.

]]> Comment on Decrypting the Google statement by nart http://www.nartv.org/2010/01/18/decrypting-the-google-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-271484 nart Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:29:12 +0000 http://www.nartv.org/?p=973#comment-271484 @CC Yes, there are a variety of regulations that apply to Internet content generally, the prohibited content includes: (1) violating the basic principles as they are confirmed in the Constitution; (2) jeopardizing the security of the nation, divulging state secrets, subverting of the national regime or jeopardizing the integrity of the nation's unity; (3) harming the honor or the interests of the nation; (4) inciting hatred against peoples, racism against peoples, or disrupting the solidarity of peoples; (5) disrupting national policies on religion, propagating evil cults and feudal superstitions; (6) spreading rumors, disturbing social order, or disrupting social stability; (7) spreading obscenity, pornography, gambling, violence, terror, or abetting the commission of a crime; (8) insulting or defaming third parties, infringing on the legal rights and interests of third parties; (9) inciting illegal assemblies, associations, marches, demonstrations, or gatherings that disturb social order; (10) conducting activities in the name of an illegal civil organization; and (11) any other content prohibited by law or rules. (translation at http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=24396) (also see ONI http://opennet.net/research/profiles/china) The question is when Google removes BBC news which one is it? It it a formal, written notification? Is there are court or venue in which such requests can be disputed? Is Google left to decide the exact content to censor based on the general guidance above? Is it the BBC generally or just some specific articles? If so, which ones? I mean, seriously, are you telling me that are article about Arsenal losing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/fa_cup/8468706.stm) is a threat to China's national security? What specific legal order can Google post and link to on chillingeffects.org for content removed from google.cn as they do with every other country in the world? Sorry, but a general "national security" justification without a shred of detail is insufficient for censorship just as it is for surveillance in the US http://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying @CC Yes, there are a variety of regulations that apply to Internet content generally, the prohibited content includes:

(1) violating the basic principles as they are confirmed in the Constitution;
(2) jeopardizing the security of the nation, divulging state secrets, subverting of the national regime or jeopardizing the integrity of the nation’s unity;
(3) harming the honor or the interests of the nation;
(4) inciting hatred against peoples, racism against peoples, or disrupting the solidarity of peoples;
(5) disrupting national policies on religion, propagating evil cults and feudal superstitions;
(6) spreading rumors, disturbing social order, or disrupting social stability;
(7) spreading obscenity, pornography, gambling, violence, terror, or abetting the commission of a crime;
(8) insulting or defaming third parties, infringing on the legal rights and interests of third parties;
(9) inciting illegal assemblies, associations, marches, demonstrations, or gatherings that disturb social order;
(10) conducting activities in the name of an illegal civil organization; and
(11) any other content prohibited by law or rules.

(translation at http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAcad/index.phpd?showsingle=24396)

(also see ONI http://opennet.net/research/profiles/china)

The question is when Google removes BBC news which one is it? It it a formal, written notification? Is there are court or venue in which such requests can be disputed? Is Google left to decide the exact content to censor based on the general guidance above? Is it the BBC generally or just some specific articles? If so, which ones? I mean, seriously, are you telling me that are article about Arsenal losing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/fa_cup/8468706.stm) is a threat to China’s national security? What specific legal order can Google post and link to on chillingeffects.org for content removed from google.cn as they do with every other country in the world?

Sorry, but a general “national security” justification without a shred of detail is insufficient for censorship just as it is for surveillance in the US http://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying

]]> Comment on Decrypting the Google statement by CC http://www.nartv.org/2010/01/18/decrypting-the-google-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-271483 CC Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:44:16 +0000 http://www.nartv.org/?p=973#comment-271483 Is the relevant law really that difficult to decipher? http://www.miibeian.gov.cn/chaxun/flfg1.jsp?id=8 互联网信息服务管理办法 Refer specifically to paragraph 15. Of course, you can argue whether BBC content should be uniformly classified as "damaging national interests"... but as far as this blog goes, it would be a rhetorical argument, not a legal one. If you instead want to make a legal argument, go file a case on behalf of the BBC (or Google). In the mean time, don't take advantage of the lack of Chinese literacy amongst your readers by suggesting that no possible legal basis exists. Is the relevant law really that difficult to decipher?

http://www.miibeian.gov.cn/chaxun/flfg1.jsp?id=8
互联网信息服务管理办法

Refer specifically to paragraph 15. Of course, you can argue whether BBC content should be uniformly classified as “damaging national interests”… but as far as this blog goes, it would be a rhetorical argument, not a legal one.

If you instead want to make a legal argument, go file a case on behalf of the BBC (or Google).

In the mean time, don’t take advantage of the lack of Chinese literacy amongst your readers by suggesting that no possible legal basis exists.

]]>