Pakistan Asking For Proposals On A System That Will Let The Government Censor 50 Million Websites

from the aim-high? dept

Mon, Feb 27th 2012 8:27am — Mike Masnick

A few months back we noted that Pakistan was trying to ban encryption for surfing the internet. Now that they've tackled letting the government spy on everyone, they're tackling the other side of the equation, by very publicly putting out a request for proposal on a system to censor up to 50 million websites. Apparently, when Pakistan wants to censor the internet, it goes big.

Even more ridiculous is that this is coming from an organization who claims its mandate is "to transform Pakistan's economy into a knowledge based economy." Yeah, mass censorship of the internet is not how you do that.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: censorship, filters, internet, pakistan

43 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

:Lobo Santo (profile), 27 Feb 2012 @ 8:34am

Define Knowlege
Well, maybe they're going for a "knowledge on how to filter the internet" as their primary basis for claiming a "knowledge based economy"...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:21am
  
  Re: Define Knowlege
  I think, rather, they're going for a knowledge-on-how-to-bypass-national-filters-on-the-internet-based economy.
  
  Who knows, maybe they can sell to the Chinese afterwards...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
silverscarcat (profile), 27 Feb 2012 @ 8:37am

Oh, don't worry, I'm pretty sure that Chris Dodd, China, Russia and Iran will submit plenty of ideas to Pakistan soon enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 8:46am

So they want to filter out child porn sites and other sites that engage in illegal activity.

So what?

Are you saying you support child porn sites and other sites that engage in illegal activity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 27 Feb 2012 @ 8:49am
  
  Re:
  Yes, because everyone knows that the government wants to shut down sites that have copyright infringement on them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo (profile), 27 Feb 2012 @ 8:52am
    
    Re: Re: ...
    'Copyright infringement' here being defined as: "thoughts or ideas which might foment dissent or discussion which could, in some way, bring change or revolution to the current regime."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, because everyone knows that the government wants to shut down sites that have copyright infringement on them.
    
    So?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 27 Feb 2012 @ 1:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Kid, go outside and let the grown-ups talk, okay?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 27 Feb 2012 @ 8:51am
  
  Re:
  Well the German filters call Techdirt a child porn site which even you would admit (maybe you wouldn't) that there is no child porn here.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 12:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Wait... I knew it was filtered due to being a 'porn' site, didn't think they went so far as to call it a child porn site though.
    
    Probably for the large reason that a claim like that would certainly be investigated, and the charges found bogus, hence they'd have to remove the filter.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 27 Feb 2012 @ 8:59am
  
  Re:
  Taking a quick look (Feel free to ignore my quick research as you probably would anyways), Pakistan's age of consent laws would suggest that this has absolutely nothing to do with child porn. If it has anything to do with porn at all, it would be to block all porn.
  
  So don't be talking shit if you don't know what you're talking about.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:01am
  
  Re:
  Because claims of filtering child porn out have been historically used to get these sorts of things in place.
  Once in place then they argue they should be used in new and unique ways expanding them massively, often depriving people of access to thoughts someone objects to.
  They will make the list of sites blocked a secret, so no one will every know what is on there, until the day it is leaked and you can find content blocked that according to the rules shouldn't have been blocked. But because it is a secret list, for your own good, you can never see the list and question the reasoning.
  
  Nice way to trot out the old tired if your against this your for child molesters argument. You seem very focused on those sites, is there something you'd like to tell the class?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:06am
  
  Re:
  They are proposing to censor a priori without any due process. Such a concept has been opposed over the centruroes by the greatest minds - such as John Milton in Areopagita
  
  Are you opposed to John Milton?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    Where does it say that there will be no due process?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Fear of abuse is a valid response to systems like this. Show me one government that has implemented a filter and hasn't abused it. After this much failure, it's only normal to expect failure.
      
      If they create a filter that is truly not abused, is exclusively for illegal activities in that country, and has a proper appeal process, then good for them. They'll be the first.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, so he was talking out his ass then. Thanks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He's not talking out his ass, you are. At this point, he does not have to prove the system will be abused, you have to prove the system won't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Goyo, 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Page 3:
      
      However, Pakistani ISPs and backbone providers have expressed their inability to block millions of undesirable web sites using current manual blocking systems.
      
      Unless due process take less time than manually blocking a URL. Well, maybe...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 4:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well they're about to pass the proposal to put it in place that would allow them to censor as many sites as they need and they already have tried in the past to censor sites that seem perfectly legitimate (search 'pakistan' in the search bar'). So why don't you prove to us that it won't be abused?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 10:10am
  
  Re:
  Are you saying you support child porn sites and other sites that engage in illegal activity?
  
  More likely just sites with infringing content
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 10:11am
  
  Re:
  Are you saying you support child porn sites and other sites that engage in illegal activity?
  
  More likely just sites with infringing content
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 11:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh we know Masnick supports piracy sites.
    
    At this point it's just a sarcastic rhetorical question for the lulz.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 4:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      At this point it's just a sarcastic rhetorical question for the lulz.
      
      Sites I don't like = piracy sites that need to be destroyed
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 4:51pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Maybe you should submit techdirt to their filter since you have such a massive hard-on for trying to ruin this place.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 4:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Like Techdirt or 50 cents personal blog which had no infringing content on it?
    
    Keep grasping those straws.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 8:52am

It is rumored that Lamar Smith is suffering severe priapism after being informed of this development.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unknown, 27 Feb 2012 @ 8:54am

Allow only terrorist sites
Funny people doing funny proposals :):)

I think it is step forward to improve their man power in terror activities, because allowing sites like social networking might be wasting their resources !! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 8:58am

I don't get it.

Trying to make a "knowledge economy" doesn't require access to porn sites or such. It doesn't require access to TMZ. If things get filtered out to conform with local law, what is the issue?

For that matter, how come nobody has been making a big deal out of the middle east, where most countries had have different filters in place since almost the start of the internet?

Seems like EFF is having a senior moment here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:00am
  
  Re:
  Perhaps you've missed the part where people keep getting upset and compare filters similar to this to those that are used in the Middle East?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    So?
    
    They have their laws and we have ours.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Goyo, 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So yes, many people has been making a big deal out of the middle east, where most countries had have different filters in place since almost the start of the internet.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 10:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "They have their laws and we have ours."
      
      Interesting. So when the U.K. and Spain and several other countries have laws that say file sharing is okay, that running and operating such sites (from within said country) is legal and within the bounds of the law, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS "they have their laws and we have ours" and we should not meddle?
      
      Is that correct?
      
      Or is it "they have their laws and we have ours and when their laws don't conflict with ours in ways we don't like, it's okay", BUT when "they have their laws and we have ours and when their laws allow something that is perfectly legal in their country to happen that we DO NOT approve of/life, well then our laws trump their laws"? Does that about sum up your argument?
      
      I'm going to assume you're one of the pro-RIAA/MPAA as well as pro-SOPA and all that other nonsense people who comment regularly on here. So by all means, please adequately explain your position. I'm referring to, do our laws apply to us (the United States) and only us, which means other countries can have whatever laws they want? Or is it, other countries can have whatever laws they want til we decide ours trump theirs?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:13am
  
  Re:
  I don't get it.
  
  You can say that again!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Howard the Duck, 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:09am

One thing...
One thing though... they are asking the public for proposals. Isn't that at least a step the US should take?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Edward Teach, 27 Feb 2012 @ 10:02am
  
  Re: One thing...
  Arrr, lad, you've made the mistake that the US wants to get the lowest bidder, or even wants more than a single bidder. Shiver me sides, more than one bidder means that Taxpayer's National Security Dollar might not be spent lining a beltway "consulting firm's" pocket. As a pirate meself, I'm familiar with "consulting firm" operations!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:13am

i wonder how long it will take before there is moaning from the US because some of their 'legitimate' sites are blocked?

or, perhaps, the US will then buy the system from Pakistan and implement themselves? it obviously wont matter whether it works correctly or not, as long as it censors the 'net, it will be ok. sure Lamar Smith will be able to do a deal!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:29am

A pair of Scissors seems to be just the technology they're looking for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bengie, 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:46am

Simple
If they don't want the Internet, they should just get rid of it. Problem Solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 9:57am

Yeah, mass censorship of the internet is not how you do that.

Yes it is. That way you control it 100%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rich Kulawiec, 27 Feb 2012 @ 10:47am

I'm going to bid on it
My offering will consist of the following items:

1. Wirecutters, 1 pair, new
2. Backhoe (see http://www.23.com/backhoe/), lightly used
3. Lamar Smith, fully paid off

I'm reasonably sure that in concert these will provide a complete solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SuperiorAnonymousCoward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 1:54pm

Anywhere else (US, canada, uk) I'm against censorship of the internet but places like pakistan I honestly don't give a fuck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stephen, 27 Feb 2012 @ 3:16pm

Let's just disconnect Pakistan...
If we decided to just cut off Pakistan from the rest of the internet, would that make them happy?

Maybe we should just block all their call centers and see how they like unemployment...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Feb 2012 @ 3:59pm

Economic Mismanagement
Everybody please note carefully, this proposal to establish a censorship system is being done by the government of an impoverished third world country, which cannot afford to give its own ordinary people things like sewerage, reliable electricity, decent schools, a health system that works, etc. All censorship systems suffer from ongoing high costs caused by ordinary people fighting it, ever-increasing snooping, ever-rising enforcement costs, chilling effects, scope creep, and political arguments.

It is clear economic mismanagement. Money is fungible. If money is spent on a censorship system then the same money cannot be spent on giving the Pakistani people a decent life. This shows that the present Pakistani politicians do not have the interests of the Pakistani people at heart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]