YouTube 'to help Thai censors'
(Agencies) - Video-sharing Web site YouTube will help Thailand block access to
pages that contain clips offensive to its revered monarch instead of blacking
out the whole site, a cabinet minister said on Friday.
Communications Minister Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom told the Reuters news agency
that the idea came during a phone call with a California-based government liason
officer of Google Inc, which owns YouTube.
The site had refused to pull out a clip insulting His Majesty the King. That
refusal led the military-backed government to entirely block access to YouTube
on Wednesday.
"He said pulling out those clips would not be an effective way to stop the
damage, since users could re-post them again," Mr Sitthichai quoted his
conversation with Google's Andrew McLaughlin, the firm's senior policy counsel.
"He said a more effective way would be to block certain pages not to be seen in
Thailand," said Mr Sitthichai. "It will be a few days before we lift the ban on
the entire site."
========================================
YouTube incident becomes Internet crusade
By BangkokPost.com
A new video slideshow attacking His Majesty the King indicates that the dispute,
fanned into worldwide front-page headlines by a Thai government ban on YouTube,
may have only just begun.
YouTube and Google wiped out the last remnants of the original offensive video
slideshow which was uploaded last Sunday to demean the monarch.
The video that triggered the government ban on YouTube disappeared from the
video-sharing website on Thursday afternoon, and the anonymous user who posted
it was banned.
Some time early Friday morning Thailand time, the last remaining photo of the
video in YouTube's search engine archive of the original video had disappeared
from view.
But within an hour of the disappearance of the first video and its uploader, a
subscriber using the name "thaifreespeech" and claiming improbably to live in
Iceland had placed an all new video on YouTube, containing even more offensive
images of His Majesty the King than the original.
"Thaifreespeech" also added an attack on Thai lese majeste laws and asked
rhetorically if "US people in the US (should) respect Thai traditions and rule
of law".
In an hour, the number of views of the video rocketed from 122 to 7,856 and
going up. Comments in the same hour early this morning Thailand time rose from
nine to 160. As before, most commenters attacked the video, often in rude terms.
The ban on YouTube by Information and Communication Technology Minister
Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom now seems to have touched off a firestorm of web-based
retaliation that could see rapid escalation of offensive references to the
monarchy on the Internet.
As of this morning, there was no record on YouTube that either the original
video, or the anonymous user "paddidda" who uploaded it, ever had existed. Both
have been completely whitewashed.
There were many text references and descriptions of the video on Google, which
owns YouTube. But Google Images shows no part of the video, and Google Video - a
separate, but aligned service with YouTube - had a record of the video but no
image.
The YouTube whitewash was the minimum demand of Mr Sitthichai to give the order
to restore direct access to YouTube by Thai Internet users.
The new video, and the likelihood that many will follow, on YouTube and on
dozens of other video services, raises the stakes hugely.
The ban on YouTube will stay, officials said on Friday.
"This group of people has found another outlet, taking another action that is
considered very offensive to the king," said Mr Sitthichai's spokesman Vissanu
Meeyoo, also of the ministry of information technology and communications.
"Thailand doesn't want to take this kind of action. We are just doing it
temporarily," he said of the ban imposed on Tuesday.
Thai officials planned to meet later Friday with an association of Internet
users to discuss ways of policing the Internet, the spokesman said.
"We need cooperation from Internet users to monitor these groups," he added.
YouTube spokeswoman Julie Supan, apparently forgetting Google and YouTube have
blocked thousands of videos, photos, web pages and entire sites on government
requests, said the Google subsidiary was "disappointed" with Thailand's ban on
YouTube.
"We have asked the government to lift the block, and we look forward to the
resumption of service to our Thai users," spokeswoman Julie Supan said. She
seemed unaware that people outside the United States might have cultural
differences with her country, pointing out that there are many videos attacking
the elected US politician, President George W. Bush.
Meanwhile, the government decision to "filter" the entire site for customers of
Thai Internet providers has drawn sharp criticism from media freedom groups, who
said it highlighted a growing trend for the military government to censor
political expression on the Internet.
"It's another example of how silly and ineffective censorship really is," said
CJ Hinke, coordinator of the group FACT - Freedom Against Censorship Thailand.
His group, which lobbies for an end to online censorship, says Thailand's
government has blocked a total of 45,000 websites.
===========================================
Govt block on YouTube website stays
ACHARA ASHAYAGACHAT and AP
The government yesterday retained a ban on the popular YouTube video website
despite the removal of a short film clip which insulted the King.
Even though the offending video was withdrawn, the site still featured at least
one still-frame from the contentious 44-second clip, said Minister of
Information and Technology Sitthichai Pookaiyaudom yesterday.
''That's not enough. We want the picture removed too before we unblock it,''
said Mr Sitthichai, who added that Thai authorities have contacted YouTube to
request it remove all traces of the video.
Thai authorities blocked YouTube on Wednesday after its owner, Google Inc,
turned down his request to remove the clip. He had not heard back from the
company about his new request to remove the still photo.
''In some countries, it's a norm to have their leaders mocked, but this is
different.
''With the King, it is offensive to the Thai public,'' he said.
When the minister approached Google to remove the video, the company told him
the site contained material which attacked US President George W. Bush far more
harshly than the Thai king had been mocked.
After the site was blocked and news of the ban circulated, the number of viewers
of the video skyrocketed, with more than 40,000 visits in about 24 hours,
according to YouTube's statistics. Total views reached 66,553 before the video
was pulled.
Although the clip raised issues about freedom of expression in Thailand, many
viewers reacted with outrage, hurling abuse at the clip's creator,
self-described as 30-year-old ''paddidda'' based in the US.
Meanwhile, a free internet-media advocacy group has expressed concern over the
blocking of YouTube and another political website,
www.saturdaynews.org, saying
expression on the internet was part of participatory democracy.
Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) co-founder C. J. Hinke said it was a
pity the video clip on YouTube caused Thai authorities to block the entire
website.
He also disagreed with the attempt to block and censor expression of the
opponents of the Sept 19 coup _ some are conducting a signature collection
campaign at
www.saturdaynews.org, to petition the King to remove Privy Council
president Prem Tinsulanonda.
Freedom of expression and people's participation were basic principles of
democracy, he said.
On Feb 9, FACT, which represents 311 petitioners and 59 international human
rights and civil liberties organisations, asked the ICT Ministry to disclose
details of its list of blocked websites. The ministry turned down its request,
saying the blocking was carried out in line with martial law. However, FACT has
determined that as of March 12, a total of 1,388 sites had been blocked.
A YouTube spokeswoman, Julie Supan, said in an e-mail statement on Wednesday
night that the company was disappointed that its site had been blocked.
''The internet is an international phenomenon and while technology can bring
great opportunity and access to information globally, it can also present new
and unique cultural challenges,'' she wrote.
YouTube was one of a number of Web sites deemed insulting to the king and
blocked by Thailand's military-installed government, Sitthichai said.
Critics have accused the current government of blocking Web sites criticizing
the September coup that overthrew former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
The interim government installed after the coup has come under increasing
criticism, and groups calling for an early restoration of democracy have
organized protests
=========================================
Censorship must not be arbitrary
Recent events have served to highlight how fragile our basic freedoms are. Some
may argue Thailand has a reasonably free media and a relatively open society,
despite all the threats and hurdles that we as a country continue to face. But
to sing proudly that we are not listed next to Turkmenistan, Burma and North
Korea on a list of the most heavily censored countries in the world, is not
exactly an achievement. We deserve more.
During this period of political reform, we should be looking closely not just at
the current laws but also at entrenched ideas and conventions that have been,
and continue to be, used to censor and stifle open discussion and
information-sharing within Thai society and with the wider world.
The diversity and independence of government-regulated television and radio
continue to be stifled and threatened. And much of the mainstream print media
continues to exercise woeful self-censorship under arcane laws and the
often-misguided sentiment of national unity.
The freedom to express ideas was under constant threat during the administration
of Thaksin Shinawatra. His ouster promised a return to "democracy" and was
supposed to undo those wrongs and re-establish a legal framework guaranteeing
our freedom of expression - the ability to freely air and exchange information
and views, which is the very foundation of a free and open society.
But it seems that we are at a risk of regressing even further. Thanks to its
accessibility and discursive nature, the internet is seen by most as a vehicle
to fight against oppression; but it is also viewed by more authoritarian
governments as a threat to their control and hegemony. It is true that the free
flow of information has a dark side in the form of pornography or fraud, but
that is a different challenge which calls for another set of reactions
altogether.
It is worth noting that the coup-makers marked their rise to power with a
temporary blockage of the websites of international news organisations including
the CNN and BBC. Over the past six months, the authorities have continued to
arbitrarily censor and shut down websites they deem inappropriate, despite
outcries by groups that support the protection of basic rights.
According to Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT), an estimated 32,500
websites are at present blocked by the police and another 13,500 by the
Information and Communications Technology Ministry, with 11% of the blocked
sites categorised as a threat to national security.
The Royal Thai Police and the so-called cyber police from the ICT Ministry
continue to arbitrarily use laws introduced after the coup to shut down websites
they deem offensive to the monarchy or a threat to national security. Recent
acts of state censorship include the blocking of YouTube and efforts to take to
task the owners of the website of the Saturday Voice group which put up an
online petition to seek the removal of Privy Council president Gen Prem
Tinsulanonda.
The internet and the policing of its content is a dilemma that governments
across the globe are facing. Thailand, as yet, does not have any specific
Internet laws. A proposed bill on cyber crime is currently under consideration
by the National Legislative Assembly but as it stands, it poses a considerable
threat to free speech and places far too much unchecked power in the hands of
the authorities, giving the government the right to shut down any website
without having to make a case to gain approval through the courts.
Unfettered censorship of the internet and the continued prevalence of entrenched
self-censorship through fear and confusion are the greatest barriers we face in
ensuring our right of access to information, research and discourse, as well as
basic press freedoms and open discussion. It is vital that such basic freedoms
of discussion and access to information are championed because without them,
none of our other rights and freedoms can ever be guaranteed.
=========================================
Getting a clearer picture of YouTube block
Knowledge is the best tool to fight censors
DON SAMBANDARAKSA
It seems interesting to note than when something as blatant as censoring YouTube
occurred, nobody seems to be responsible for it, or for finding out who did it.
The Ministry of ICT (MICT) said it was not their fault while the TOT and CAT
also denied responsibility.
But the problem was that the block was transient, continually in a state of
flux, and lasted for only a matter of hours. As one engineer at an ISP who tried
to help analyse the block said, "you can only speculate as to what happened
after the fact. What we need is information on the block when it's actually in
place."
But after this news hit a couple of weeks ago, many readers came forward to say
that the YouTube block was not unique - that strange things had been happing to
other web sites, for weeks before that.
One newspaper's web department contacted explained how they first saw something
out of the ordinary around two weeks prior to the YouTube block. Their web site
was suddenly responding slowly and some users had noted that, in the browser
window, instead of the message saying that it was waiting for the domain name in
question, it said that it was waiting for a certain numerical IP address
belonging to CSLoxinfo, which had nothing to do with them. This new site then
spewed out what was effectively a copy of their web site.
Now, to recap for a moment, the YouTube block was done by an HTTP 301 redirect.
In other words, the "server" that
http://www.youtube.com pointed to was not
really the YouTube server, but was a third party machine redirecting the user,
first to nowhere, later to the mict.go.th web site.
What was happening to that newspaper's web site, one speculates, is that the
same HTTP 301 redirect was happening, redirecting to a server which then
probably did some logging and redirected it back to the real server, which is
hosted overseas.
Worryingly, such an attack could not happen without the ISP or gateway's
cooperation. The fact that it happened at the same time by many different ISPs
suggests it happened at the Internet gateway level. For Thailand, the gateway is
run by CAT.
Now that we know how, a brief glance at the effects of this technical
gobbledygook may be in order. The damage done can be felt in a number of ways.
For most, including that newspaper's web site, it was just a slowdown in the
already obscenely slow Internet.
For YouTube viewers that Saturday, it meant a block. What few realised is that
the same double redirection mechanism can easily be used to watch what we do
online. At the very least it can log URLs opened and pair them to IPs, which
means a log of who is visiting which web site. A more sophisticated mechanism
may even be to eavesdrop on email, passwords and the like.
Hark back to the coup and one recalls that General Sonthi said that anyone
eavesdropping on telephone conversations would have their telecom licences
revoked. Of course, only geeks use email and credit cards for e-commerce. Real
army people use mobile telephones, cash and post armed guards in front of
network operations rooms to prevent someone hacking the network and installing a
piece of spyware.
Incidentally, rumours are that the MICT once commissioned a major university
years ago to build a session hijacking system, though nobody today seems to be
willing to confirm its existence.
Could it be that the disruptions of the past month was the result of three of
these hypothetical boxes being installed at the International Internet Gateway?
Could it be that the only reason that YouTube was blocked was because of the
design of the blocking box, which did not differentiate between control traffic
and end-user (re-directed, monitored) traffic?
Could it be that once they had hijacked sessions with very high traffic, such as
the YouTube site, the box crashed because it could not handle the load and
required someone to physically visit the box on Saturday morning to manually
reset it?
So what can we do? Taking to the streets in mass protests at Big Brother is one
option, but we have been there, done that and it is what led us to this mess to
begin with.
The best defence is knowledge. If we can tell when this session hijacking
technique is taking place, it will at least make Big Brother think twice.
Firefox and Mozilla users can install a plugin, live HTTP headers from
livehttpheaders.mozdev.org. This will, as its name suggests, show the actual
HTTP dialogue between the browser and server in real time. What this means is
that, if it is redirected via the HTTP 301 redirect message or communicating
with a server it should not be talking to, it will be made clear to see.
Once the IP address of the man in the middle is identified, programs such as
nmap (
http://www.insecure.org) can be used to probe and fingerprint that node.
Users should then talk about it in public fora, compare notes from the http
headers and nmap results and then, with enough information, perhaps the finger
of blame can finally be pointed at someone with proof, rather than just a couple
of bits of circumstantial evidence and a lot of speculation.
