How Repressive Regimes Try to Dupe the Watching World
By Curt on Oct 2, 2007 in Filtering, Censorship
One of the ways in which representatives, official or unofficial, of repressive regimes dupe the watching world is by providing the credulous and voluble with “proof” that their leadership does not block communications technologies, therefor does not interfere with free speech.
Should a country be accused of blocking a site, the regime’s representatives might send out a graphic purporting to be a screenshot of that site taken in that country.
Here are a couple of ways in which a “clean” screenshot is created and shipped to a dupe.
In many countries with restriction on the Internet, people seeking to get around the blocks use proxies, or services that allow them to view, and in some cases, post to a banned site by viewing it through the frame of another, unrestricted site. So, to get this “screenshot,” you use a proxy, visit the blocked site and take a screenshot. You import that screenshot into a graphics program, such as Photoshop, remove any visual reference to the proxy (removing the I-frame) and voilà: clear evidence that the site is not blocked in that country.
Most countries that institute repressive online censorship measures for their people nonetheless allow regime members and favorites access to the Internet, whether by a dedicated line, a regime service provider or a special card that unlocks the Internet. This can be done as a reward but is often an element of financial necessity. These days, business is hard to conduct without the access to information that the Internet allows.
Naturally, most people in this position will not necessarily be averse to helping out the regime that treats them favorably. Of course, it might just as often be the regime members, and specifically the “intelligence” officers, of that regime doing the accessing, packaging and communicating with a credulous dupe outside the country.
Whenever you encounter “proof” that an historically repressive regime does not censor what it is said to be censoring, carefully consider the nature and credibility not only of that proof but the channel by which it is introduced into the court of public opinion.
