Over the last month there have been a number of noteworthy topics in the new regarding China, but one topic seems to have come to dominate the big Western media: The controversy over "Green Dam Youth Escort" Internet-filtering software.

To cut a long story short, "Green Dam Youth Escort" is a software package that Beijing recently mandated should be included with every new PC sold on the Chinese Mainland. Inclusion is mandatory, but usage is not. Except for in schools and other public sites. Which will have to run the software.

Green Dam?

On the face of it Green Dam is nothing new: It is a so-called net nanny package designed by Zhengzhou Jinhui Computer System Engineering Ltd to prevent Mainlanders from accessing pornographic content on the Internet.

It works in three ways:

1) It prevents preventing users from accessing website containing key terms associated with pornography (and in some cases form using these terms in other software packages)
2) It uses a combination of skin tone recognition and facial recognition to prevent users from viewing images containing nudity
3) It runs a blacklist that prevents users from accessing URLs known to contain pornography

However, as with many things involving Beijing, things aren't quite that simple.

Green Dam has been attacked by critics on several fronts. Technical and legal, not to mention moral. Unsurprisingly concern have also been raised regarding the software's potential for blocking freedom of speech.

On the technical front concerns have been raised over the efficiency of Green Dam's image recognition software, with multiple sources stating that it is over-sensitive in many areas but not sensitive enough in others.

For example, Green dam will routinely block images of pigs because because their flesh tones are similar to those of white people, yet it commonly fails to recognize naked black people because of their darker skin tones. Thus preventing a Chinese child from accessing images regarding farming, yet allowing them to view pornographic images of African-Americans.

Concerns have also been raised about coding issues in Green Dam that could leave users vulnerable to hackers. According to US academics Green Dam opens up an unguarded back door into the host computer every time it updates. A back door that a malicious third party to insert their own code onto the host computer. According to the same sources, this task is made simpler by the fact that Green Dam uses unencrypted data streams, making it much easier for the third party to impersonate a Green Dam update server.

Similar concerns have been raised over the use of poor coding for routines that manage internet address filtering. Poor coding could allow malicious third parties to execute their own code on a host computer by pushing data onto a host computer that creates a "buffer overrun": In layman's terms, sending data that it longer than the software was expecting, causing it to spill out of the end of areas of a computers memory that is being safely controlled and into an area where it can do damage.

Both exploits could be used by a malicious third part to steal information such as passwords and banking details from a host computer, or to install software that could be used to remote control the host computer. Forcing it to, for example, send out spam emails, to attack other computers using viruses, or to report back on whatever it is that the host is doing.

Legal Concerns?

According to researchers based in the University of Michigan, Green Dam's internet address filtering capabilities are based on code/content stolen from US base Solid Oak Software Inc. The researchers state that the code/content originates from Solid Oak's own net-nanny software "CyberSitter".

Solid Oak's own researchers reached an identical conclusion, and stated that there is no indication that the codes inclusion was anything other than a deliberate theft is intellectual property.


It was also discovered that Green Dam uses to recognize faces in images utilizes code originally developed by Intel. Although the code has been publicly released through the 'Open Source' movement, Green Dam did not initially comply with all of the Open Source usage requirements, and so was is using the code illegally.

Later versions include additional documentation aimed at reaching compliance, though it is not yet clear if this is sufficient.

Censorship?

As every China watcher knows, almost every crackdown that Beijing has ever undertaken on internet pornography has also cracked down on freedom of speech and freedom of expression, as well. And Green Dam would appear to be no exception.

Upon scrutiny Green Dam was found to contain a list of approximately 2,700 keywords blocked keywords relating to pornography. But also to contain a further 6,500 blocked keywords that refer to blacklisted political and social topics, such as the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, and the outlawed FLG spiritual movement.


Some reports also indicate that Green Dam was also found to contain code that prevented the host computer form running “Freegate” a popular censorship avoidance tool.

Catch 22?

For foreign PC suppliers that operate on the Mainland the mandatory inclusion of Green Dam represents a very situation.

On a legal front, Solid Oak have already sent out several cessation demands to  US based PC manufacturers that distribute in China, instructing themnot to distribute Green Dam with their hardware. According to the BBC, a Solid Oak also intends to file a complaint with the FBI.


This puts foreign manufacturers in an the awkward position of having to choose between violating Chinese law by refusing to ship the software with their Mainland PCs,  potentially violating US law by including it, or suspending PC sales in China. All of which could have a serious effect on the company in terms of reputation and market share.

Green Dam is also forcing the same said companies to choose between complying with the Mainland's local laws and following the laws and/or moral imperatives of their own back home.

At present, this choice is largely up to the companies concerned. Companies are free to choose between operating according to their morals at a cost to their business, or operating according to Chinese law at the cost of their morals and their reputation at home

Several moves have been made to hold companies accountable for obeying restrictive local laws, and in 2006 a number of companies were even called before a government panel and asked to explain their actions in relation to Chinese state censorship.


However, the situation prove controversial and Washington was forced to back down from taking any firm action on the grounds that:

1)Forcing the situation would put US companies at a competitive disadvantage to their less regulated foreign counterparts in potentially lucrative Chinese markets
2)Regulations which would effect US companies operating in China would also impact on their operations in places such as Europe and Israel, which also have tough censorship laws

The World, Viewed from Elsewhere?

Although Green Dam has made headlines recently, and although Beijing is well known as suppressor of online freedoms many countries also have covert blocking programs in place and/or laws restricting online freedom of speech. Including many Western democracies.

In some cases the blocking programs are stricter or more advanced than China's, yet they do not receive nearly so much international attention because they often deal with topics that it is not politically correct to defend, or which are not considered sufficiently commercially viable for big business to lobby in favor of.

Amongst the best known examples of online censorship by Western states are France and Germany.

Both countries have strict laws prohibiting the distribution of artefacts related several controversial WWII organizations: Including the Nazi and Waffen SS. As well as laws which forbid the publication or distribution of media that covers these organizations and the wartime actions from any standpoint other than the official state approved standpoint.

Although Paris and Berlin have repeatedly refused to accept the parallels, China watchers note that the national laws are near identical to Mainland policies which prohibit the sale/distribution of media and artifacts relating to the Dali Lama or the FLG spiritual movement, or the discussion of Tiananmen Square Massacre and Taiwanese independence from any perspective other than that approved by the state.

As in China, foreign and domestic companies are required to follow these laws when operating in France/Germany. Even if it means directly violating international conventions on free speech or the domestic free speech laws in the company's country of origin.

Two prominent examples this conflict of interests are the cases of Yahoo France and eBay. Yahoo and eBay have, historically, concluded that the financial benefits of doing business in France/Germany has outweighed the moral costs of dealing with regimes that restrict the freedom of their citizens. Though their official stance has been that they have censored their users 'out of respect for local law'.


In order to comply with local laws Yahoo France instituted a total ban on the sale of Nazi related memorabilia on its French auction sites. A similar ban was also put in place prohibiting the discussion/debate of the Nazi outside of state sanctioned boundaries. Items that were placed for sale were removed and discussions that diverged from the official state line were removed. Users who placed items up for sale, or who engaged in debates beyond state sanctioned lines risked being reported to the security forces and even imprisonment.

However, despite its French wing complying with local censorship laws in 2000 Yahoo France's international parent was taken to court in France by vested interest groups seeking to force it to institute a global censorship plan that would make it impossible for French citizens to access locally prohibited content even if it were located outside of France's legal jurisdiction, and even if the content was legal in the country where it was posted.

In order to avoid a similar lawsuit eBay went further and put in place geo-locating censorship software that prevents users in France/Germany from searching for Nazi artefacts or media that are being auctioned anywhere in the world. Meaning that when a French/German citizen searched for content that are banned under local law on an international branch of its website the search return no matching results regardless of how many items actually have been placed up for sale.

Both companies have also, historically, applied the same logic to China. With the unofficial line being that it is better for business to provide a censored service in a state restricted market than it is for them to step aside on moral grounds and risk 'allowing competitors to get a foot in the door'.

Ironically, France and Germany's bans on memorabilia sales have hampered efforts by domestic Jewish and anti-Nazi groups to buy up Nazi related artifacts in order to destroy them. Forcing members of such groups to go underground where they risk exposure, and where they have to pay greatly inflated prices. Thus making the eradication of controversial artifacts much more difficult, and putting much more money on the pockets of the sellers.

An equally questionable, and equally less well publisized, example of state censorship by a Western democracy is the internet blacklist held by the British "Internet Watch Foundation", and the "Cleanfeed" and "WebMinder" censorship system used by UK ISPs.

IWF Blacklist?

The IWF Blacklist is a list of website which are considered to be used "potentially illegal" under UK law. Unlike China's Green Dam software which Beijing wants to be loaded onto individual home computers, the IWF Blacklist is managed at the ISP level. With Internet Service providers loading it into their systems and blocking all website on the list. Making it the UK equivalent of the China's 'Great Firewall'.

To date, 95% of all UK ISPs use the list, making it impossible for UK citizens to access blocked websites unless they have specialist technical knowledge or unless they use systems similar to those used by Mainlanders to get round Chinese state blocking.

Initially the IWF blacklist was set up to block access to child pornography. However its remit has since been expanded to cover multiple areas. Such as adult pornography (though to a lesser extent than China's blocking) and material that is deemed to be racist.

Controversially, the iwf blacklist is not made available to the public, and blacklisted websites are not notified that they have been blacklisted. Internet users are also not notified if the sites that they are attempting to visit contain blocked content, or what said content may be. Instead they receive a default error 404 warning was originally intended to be used to notify internet users that a page could not be located because it had either been deleted or because the address entered by the user was incorrect.  The Great firewall Blacklist and the Green Dam blacklist operate behind a similar veil of secrecy.

As with Beijing's baned topics, the IWF operates a policy of arbitrary blocking with little or no little scrutiny or oversight of the by publicly accountable bodies. Content is added to the list based on "potential illegality" rather than actual illegality. Meaning that, as with China, something is blocked based on the IWF's own internal determination without any legal ruling from the court system, and without right of appeal. Something that is made worse by the lack of notification. Leading some website to be blocked because of a single violation decided upon by the IWF's own internal committee which might otherwise be deemed to be legal by the UK's court system.

Additionally, as with China's blocking system, the list applies domestic law to foreign owned website regardless of the local laws under which they are governed. Meaning that content that is illegal in the domestically, but which is legal in the country of origin, will be blocked without notification.

Unlike in China, adoption of the blacklist by ISPs is not mandatory, though several vested interest/lobby groups are attempting to get the law changed to enforce its use.

However, due to the list's original stated purpose of blocking child pornography most UK ISPs feel compelled to use the list out of fear of being branded 'supporters of paedophilia' by vested interest groups.

Cleanfeed and WebMinder?

Cleanfeed and WebMinder are two advanced internet censorship packaged used for ISP level censorship by UK ISPs. They allows for more advanced/more accurate blocking than the DNS poisoning techniques commonly used by Chinese ISPs, including the ability to precisely censor individual content items on a website without effecting the rest of the site or domain on which they are based. To date between 80 and 90% of all UK internet traffic passes through ISPs equipped with Cleanfeed or WebMinder.

Controversially, neither cleanfeed nor WebMinder provide user notification. Thus preventing UK based internet users from distinguishing between high level censorship and technical errors on a website. Effectively allowing implementers to follow the same 'what the public cannot see does not exist' principle as their Chinese counterparts.

At present Cleanfeed and WebMinder are used voluntarily, and are mostly used in conjunction with the IWF blacklist. Though plans have been put forward to enact legislation that would force UK based ISPs to use Cleanfeed and WebMinder both to enforce the blocking of child pornography and to apply several of the more controversial clauses of the UK's 2006 anti terrorism act.

If enacted such legislation would give London greater censorship powers, and greater control of the internet, than Beijing. Allowing London to arbitrarily shut down sections of the internet deemed 'harmful' with a high level of efficiency and without public consultation.

The application of anti-terror legislation would also allow British authorities to place so-called 'gagging orders' on Cleanfeed and WebMinder administrators. Effectively forbidding UK ISPs from publicly acknowledging what has been blocked, or why it has been blocked, in much the same way that Beijing currently does.

Other Examples

Another prominent example of a democratic country with strong anti internet freedom of speech laws is South Korea. Though an entirely different approach is taken.

Unlike China, France/Germany and the UK which seek to block websites based on their content, South Korea attempts to enforce self censorship on internet users by removing their anonymity.

In 2008, South Korea put in place a series of strict measures requiring internet users to identify themselves using their national ID card number before they could post information on the internet. In most cases this is implemented through a pre registration system in which web users must create an online account containing their identification number before they can post to internet forums or create websites. Ensuring that if they post information that contravenes domestic laws, or which disagrees with the state line on society, history or culture, their content can be traced directly back to them. Causing people to censor themselves and to restrict what they might otherwise say for fear of official reprisal.

South Korea's controversial law was brought in shortly before national elections, and just after a brief crackdown that say several websites sympathetic to the opposition and to North Korea being taken off line for disagreeing with the official state line on several topics.

Several Western companies have complied with Korea's domestic laws. However, Youtube responded by blocking all uploads from Korea. User still had unrestricted viewing rights, but were unable to post new videos.

Although the US has minimal online censorship on its own soil, US troops serving overseas face heavy restrictions and monitoring. Some of these measures have been put in place to prevent soldiers from (either deliberately or accidentally) revealing information such as troop movements to the enemy. However, censorship measures also include the routine blocking of several prominent big media and alternative media web portals, as well as the blocking of website that contradict the state line on US domestic and foreign policy. Website detailing US troop deaths/injuries are also routinely blocked.

 ACB must confess that when they first heard about Sichuan Tengzhong's attempt to purchase the beleaguered Hummer brand ACB's first thought was "Is Washington going to block this". After all, Washington has stepped in several times before to prevent foreign companies from purchasing assets that it sees as being strategically or psychologically important to the US.

However, serious questions are now being asked as to whether Beijing, not Washington, will be the one to block the deal. With Mainland media sources quoting 'unnamed government sources' as saying that Chinese regulators plan to shoot the deal down on regulatory grounds, and after balking Hummer's appalling environmental credentials.

Care of the BBC:

Of course, ACB is ethically opposed to the whole SUV concept and would be quite happy to see the Hummer brand consigned to the pages of history, along with the other symbols of Ameirca's unsustainable and outmoded belief that bigger is better and consumerism is a sign of success.

ACB also cannot help but think that it would be ironic to see US troops driving around in military Hummers that were "made in China". Though, of course, this isn't really the way that things would go in real life.

When you get right down to it, ACB is not a big fan of the Western system of justice. At best it has a tendency towards being sloppy and procedure obsessed, and towards paying more attention to the rights of the accused than to those their victims. And at worst it has proven to be utterly incapable of dealing with psychopaths and serial offender, and has thus allowed some of the vilest rapists, pedophiles and murderers walk free and commit offense after offense when any sane government would have lined them up against a wall and shot them.

However, in one particular case ACB is please to say that justice has been done, and that the system has worked. This being the case of Martin Jahnke: better known as "The phantom shoe thrower", whom was, this week, cleared of all charges laid against him by a British Magistrates court.

Jahnke?

Jahnke, a 27 year old biomedical research student, rose to international fame in February 2009 when he threw his shoes at Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during a speech by the latter at Britain's prestigious Cambridge University, in emulation of Iraqi journalist Muntazer al-Zaidi who infamously threw his shoes at former US President George W Bush.



Jahnke also accused Premier Wen of being a dictator, and Cambridge University of being complicit by allowing him to speak unopposed.

The event, which was captured on film by several Western media companies, proved to be a substantial humiliation to both Wen and to the Chinese government as it occurred before an invited audience that was supposed to have been screened of all troublemakers, and because it served to further dispel the Beijing circulated myth that foreigners support Wen.

As a result, Jahnke was removed from the locale and was arrested for "Public Order Offenses".

Charges?

Jahnke was initially detained by UK security forces on charges of "breach of the peace" and "attempted assault" under claims of "Harassment" and causing "Alarm and Distress" to Premier Wen. On 9 February, UK prosecutors announced that Jahnke was to be tried on one count of "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior with intent to cause fear of or to provoke violence" under section four: Articles 1 and 4 of the 1986 Public Order Act.

Such charges carry a maximum of six months of criminal confinement and a fine of up to £5,000.

The seriousness of the charges laid against Jahnke raised concern with China Watchers and Western Human organizations whom decried them as being as being disproportionate to Jahnke's actions. Particularly given that the shoe thrown by Jahnke did not come close to striking him, and because it would not have caused injury had it done so.

Accusations were also made that the charges laid against Jahnke were a thinly veiled attempt to stifle criticism of China, in direct contravention the the European convention on Human rights, which guarantees EU citizens the right to criticize both their own governments and the governments of foreign states.

Trial?

Jahnke's trial was originally scheduled for trial on 2 Jun 2009. However, proceedings were deemed likely to overlap with the politically sensitive 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre and so were moved forwards by one day to avoid potential embarrassment to the Chinese government.

According to State prosecutors having Jahnke's verdict on the same day as the Massacre anniversary would have been 'concerning' and and could potentially create “security issues". Little further explanation was given. In the end the final verdict was given on 3 June 2009 rather than 4 june 2009.

Verdict?

On 3 June 2009, Jahnke was cleared of all charges, with Magistrate Ken Sheraton concluding that Wen had not suffered "alarm and distress" during the incident and that a single incident of political speech could not be constituted as "harassment". Magistrate Sheraton also concluded that Jahnke's actions did not constitute an act of violence, or an attempt to provoke "the fear of violence".

The verdict was welcomed by Jahnke and their legal team, as well as by China watchers who have voiced that it should however have been brought ot trial in the first place.

Interference?

Although political protests are not uncommon at Cambridge University, it is rare for a student to be charged either a criminal or civil offense.

Usually incidents are considered to be an internal matter to be dealt with by the Universities own authorities, and are not referred to the court system. Leading to claims that Jahnke's prosecution was politically motivated, and that it was the result of pressure from Beijing.

Tom Wainwright for the defense noted that over the past few years a number of senior UK politicians had been subject to more serious incidents that were never brought to trial. In 2001 Deputy Prime Minster John Prescott was struck by a raw egg thrown by a protester, and in 2009 Peter Mandelson the infamously gay Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was sprayed with green liquid by an environmental protester.

In the former case the egg thrower: Craig Evans was not charges, with the CPS considering that a prosecution "would serve no useful purpose". In the latter case the protester, Leila Deen, was cautioned and released without trial.

Although authorities deny that Beijing played any part in the prosecution China watchers note that all of the witnesses who testified to Jahnke causing "harassment, alarm and distress" to Wen were Chinese student who had come forward to give evidence only after having first been contacted by law firm acting on behalf of the Mainland embassy in London. A fact confirmed by America's Time Magazine.

Questions have also been asked regarding the way that Jahnke's case was 'fast tracked' through the legal system.

Usually cases such as Jahnke's are referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS): a state office that assesses the importance of a case, the likelihood of a prosecution succeeding given the evidence, and whether there is an actual need to prosecute.

Under normal circumstances it would be the CPS whom decides whether Jahnke would have been prosecuted. However, Jahnke's case was referred directly to a Magistrate court, bypassing the CPS all together. Again leading to claims that Jahnke's trial was politically motivated, with state authorities skipping sections of the legal system which would likely have dismissed the charges placed against him without contest.


When questioned CPS representatives were 'unable to explain' why the decision had been made to bypass them.

Cambridge?

For their part, authorities at Cambridge have confirmed that they consider Jahnke's protest to be a 'harmless expression of free speech', and that they will not be seeking to discipline him over it.

In June 1989 the Mainland Chinese government sent in tanks and troops to crush peaceful demonstrators who had gathered in Tiananmen Square, Beijing. And every years since it has done it's level best to prevent the Chinese people from discussing and/or debating the issue. It has censored the media, locked people up for speaking out or for calling on the government to correctly address the issue, and in recent years it has knocked various websites off of the air on the Mainland in the days and months leading up to the anniversary of the massacre.

And every years, just as Beijing tries to crack down on free speech so people speak up all the louder, striving to be heard. Well, here, as every year, is ACB's contribution. It's blocked in much of the Mainland so you may need to point a proxy to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXHvL6TKOYY in order to view it.

Never forget, and never give in.