interesting article on Saudi Arabia's http filtering

http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/01/12/2147220

  RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- Eyas S. Al-Hejery, PhD, may be the only computer geek in Saudi Arabia to have had the eyes of the world focus on his work. That's because he's head of the country's Internet Service Unit, which runs the country's infamous Web-censoring system that is supposed to defend Saudi citizens from "those pages of an offensive or harmful nature to the society, and which violate the tenants [sic] of the Islamic religion or societal norms."

......

And if he fails, what with the fact that sending all Internet traffic in the whole country through a single chokepoint obviously creates a single point of failure, all Net traffic in Saudi Arabia stops.

Not sure if its still the same setup, but up till 2 years ago this
consisted of 6 HTTP proxies sitting on the same class C. Best part was
they were _open_ proxies, so it was not uncommon to have a .net or .uk
attacker bounce through them on the way to attacking your site.

Oh joy...
C

Chris Brenton wrote:

i was helping get the link up into kacst (their nsf equivalent) in
ryadh back in '94, and a rather grownup friend there, Abdulaziz A.
Al Muammar, who had his phd from the states and all that, explained
it to me something like this way.

    yes, to a westerner, our ways of shielding our society seem silly,
    and sometimes even worse. but tell me, how do we liberalize and
    open the culture without becoming like the united states [0]?

not an easy problem. considering the *highly* offensive material
that arrives in my mailbox (and i do not mean clueless nanog
ravings:-), my sympathy for abdulaziz increases monotonically.

so perhaps we should ask, rather than ranting, how do we, the
self-appointed ubergeeks of the net, think we can clean up our own
back yards, before we start talking about how others maintain
theirs?

randy

There is a price to pay for freedom. I would prefer to receive (or have
to personally control) all the nastiness that appears in my inbox than
give up any of my Internet freedoms. But that is my opinion of what is
right for me.

That, however, does not answer your question. My answer is that we do not
force our version of what is right or wrong on others. The 'net is not an
entity that has ethics nor are 'ubergeeks' the right people to determine
what is and is not ethical for other users of the 'net. That is
determined for us by the respective laws of the land in which we operate.

-Steve

* Randy Bush said:

i was helping get the link up into kacst (their nsf equivalent) in
ryadh back in '94, and a rather grownup friend there, Abdulaziz A.
Al Muammar, who had his phd from the states and all that, explained
it to me something like this way.

    yes, to a westerner, our ways of shielding our society seem silly,
    and sometimes even worse. but tell me, how do we liberalize and
    open the culture without becoming like the united states [0]?

not an easy problem. considering the *highly* offensive material
that arrives in my mailbox (and i do not mean clueless nanog
ravings:-), my sympathy for abdulaziz increases monotonically.

Installing a whitelisting and challenge-response mail filer on my box
reduced amount of spam to nearly zero. I mostly get spam through the e2e
list nowadays.

The solution to "high offensiveness" is to grow up and stop behaving like
the sight of some physiological function is going to kill us. It is
offensive only because the offended party thinks that the world should be
a sterile place, and instead of concluding that the sender of the
"offensive" material is a tasteless moron and moving on decides to wage a
war against human nature.

so perhaps we should ask, rather than ranting, how do we, the
self-appointed ubergeeks of the net, think we can clean up our own
back yards, before we start talking about how others maintain
theirs?

Maybe we should stop whining when others refuse to accept mail from total
unknowns without those unknowns making a small token effort to prove their
willingness to hold a civilized conversation?

I certainly don't care what they want to read or see. Or send, for that
matter. None of my business.

[0] - which, americans need to realize is, to much of the civilized
      world, the barbarian hordes, sodom, and gomorrah rolled into
      one

To much of the civilized world (and, besides Europe and Japan, no other
places qualify, sorry) Americans look like neurotic prudes who have a
peculiar hang-up on sex and deep inferiority complex compelling them to
unceasingly seek affirmations of their "superiority".

Much of what goes for "offensive" in US won't get an eyebrow raised in
Paris or Amsterdam. In fact, the more likely reaction would be "how
boringly lame".

As for the arabian friend who seeks to control what his compatriots are
allowed to see, I'd say that his sensibilities are his own problem, and
that if he wished to impose them on _me_ I'd tell him to mind his own
business, possibly augmenting my message with appropriate degree of
violence.

--vadim

Installing a whitelisting and challenge-response mail filer on my box

[my rant about c/r elided as offtopic and beaten to death here]

The solution to "high offensiveness" is to grow up and stop behaving like
the sight of some physiological function is going to kill us. It is

You might find a series of excellent papers by Prof Jon Zittrain and Ben
Edelman of the Berkman Center at Harvard Law School quite interesting.

For example, this one, delivered at APRICOT 2003 in Taipei titled "Internet
Filtering: Technologies & Best Practices"
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/pubs/APRICOT-filtering

        --srs