It's the bid that dares not (publicly) speak its name.
Friday was the deadline for companies to file their applications to win a piece of a Pakistani project that has stoked controversy stretching from to South Asia to Silicon Valley.
In late February, Pakistan's National ICT R&D Fund, which represents the government, began inviting bids to help create a "national-level URL filtering and blocking system." The system was described as a way to protect the public from "undesirable content."
Many countries have deployed web filtering and blocking systems at the Internet backbones within their countries. However, Pakistani ISPs and backbone providers have expressed their inability to block millions of undesirable web sites using current manual blocking systems. A national URL filtering and blocking system is therefore required to be deployed at national IP backbone of the country.
But critics dismiss that claim as a smokescreen for the government to tighten its control over the Internet and choke off dissent. What's really going on, they say, is a Pakistani attempt to duplicate China's sophisticated content-filtering Internet--often referred to as the "Great Firewall."
"This is essentially about government agencies wanting more and more control over public spheres," said Sana Saleem, a Pakistani journalist and blogger who also runs a Karachi-based Internet free speech organization called Bolo Bhi.
The construction of the envisioned system would empower the authorities with a switch they could use to "turn off anything and everything that they deem 'objectionable'--especially in the absence of a legislation or proper definition of the term 'objectionable' or even 'national security," according to Saleem. She said that the project's opponents have heard that Pakistan's National University of Science and Technology may be involved in building and maintaining the system. "Interesting to note that it is a military run institution & beyond ironic that it teaches science and technology," she said.
In the run-up to Friday's deadline, activists published the names of some of the companies believed to be competing for the bid. However, it's difficult to verify the list's accuracy. For instance, it was reported that Cisco had dropped out of the running. But the company maintains that wasn't true. "We don't have the products they're looking for so we didn't bid," a spokesman said. Another company, Blue Coat Systems, whose Internet blocking gear has turned up in Syria also denied its participation or interest in bidding. "Blue Coat did not bid on this opportunity," according to a representative.
So who is emailing in their bids?
"Good luck trying to find out," said an executive at a technology company which sells products to many developing nations including Pakistan. "Nobody here is going to talk about that--nobody. Forget even getting something on background. And don't you dare use our company name."
That extra sensitivity is a response to our 24 x 7 age where companies find themselves under constant scrutiny and a PR disaster is only a tweet away. That increased transparency of the 21st century Internet age is forcing companies to be more circumspect about profiting from doing business with problematic regimes. Groups like the Global Network Initiative--co-founded by Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo--and Accessnow.org have urged tech companies not to respond to Pakistan's request for proposals.
It's rare for Silicon Valley companies to take public stands on free speech issues in other countries, but that's changing. The plan to build a new system for Internet filtering and blocking in Pakistan has offered an opportunity for some to claim the high ground. McAfee earlier this week tweeted that it wasn't going to send in an RFP but a spokesman said that future decisions would be applied on a case by case basis. Websense took a stronger stance, putting out a statement on its corporate website urging other companies to "say no to government censorship of the Internet in Pakistan."
As a publicly-traded company, Websense has a financial duty to maximize shareholder value. But in an interview, interim CFO Michael Newman said the company is hoping that the positive publicity from refusing to do business with governments that censor the Internet will more than compensate for any potentially lost revenue. (The company does not disclose how much business it does regionally.)
Social responsibility hasn't traditionally figured as a money maker on the corporate agenda, but Newman said that the uptick in media interest may change opinions.
"In general, the reason why companies are reacting differently is that... folks are being called to task more often than they were several years ago," adding that pressure from organizations like GNI and the Electronic Frontier Foundation is making it harder for Silicon Valley firms to evade questions about the nature of the clients buying their products and services.
"What we hope is that this starts to put economic pressure on (other) companies to follow along," Newman said, noting that the number of companies publicly removing themselves from participation in the Pakistani project remains small-for now.
"This kind of publicity will drive, hopefully, a customer backlash to make them think differently."
Correction: An earlier version of this piece attributed a quote from Sana Saleem referring to Pakistan's ICT R&D Fund. The quote should have referred to the nation's National University of Science and Technology.
From: nsaquib <nsaquib@yahoo.com>
To: pakgrid@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 1:50 AM
Subject: [pakgrid] Re: National URL Filtering and Blocking System
To: pakgrid@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 1:50 AM
Subject: [pakgrid] Re: National URL Filtering and Blocking System
Abu Bakar and Dear all (Who are in favor of URL filtering),
What ever i do inside my house is my privacy there is no jurisprudence (even not Islamic) which apply in house. I can quote number of rulings. (Be remember we are talking about what i am doing not about if i kill some one "crime against some one")
Of course there is a thought which want us to get Angels on every cost and do not allow us free will. I don't think God had made us to be angel other wise he had enough before this world.
I think brother you are mixing two different things in your argument, crime against some one over the internet or on the street is some thing different than surfing at home on my computer. Today as well there are enough laws exist even in Pakistan to catch people who are steeling credit cards or doing any harm over the internet. We need to make a difference between Lawful Intercept and a generalize platform to make us all Angels.
du takay
Najam
--- In pakgrid@yahoogroups.com, abu bakar <abbubakers@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear All (Who oppose URL filtering),
>
> Is there any movement in any part of the world which is not checked, filtered, monitored, regulated or controlled? Whether it is the movement of people across the borders; movement of words in the form of publishing of books, journals, magazines; your speeches, your actions your relations …. Everything is monitored at some stage. Those who are impressed with the West, when you go out of your home and until you come back you are converted into digital images and recorded thousands of times; whether taking a bus or an underground in the morning, having a cup of coffee at the bakery, or shopping a can of pepsi. You are not allowed `free' movement! How many of you living abroad have raised voice against it or called it against your personal freedom or free movement, or violation of `human rights'? Try asking these governments to remove these millions of CCTVs and leave these things to parents. Is there any action in any part of the world which is not subject to some law or regulations? Can you please tell us what is so sacred, holly and divine about the Internet that you don't want it to be monitored, filtered, checked or restricted; and you don't want it to be subjected to any law or regulation?
>
> Those who think they can do anything inside their homes: can they please tell us under which religion (or moral system) or government they are allowed to do any wrong or sin or crime even in their own homes?
>
> To those who maintain that self-restraint and parental guidance is the complete solution of the problem, I congratulate them on presenting a new theory in the field of crime and punishment (moral crimes, legal crimes, war crimes, cyber crimes …). I hope the world will listen to their novel and ingenious ideas and abolish the systems of policing and jurisprudence, and leave everything to mothers and fathers; and perhaps to grand-mothers and grand-fathers also!
>
> (Note: I do not at all agree with Yasir but I love his style! As a side note, he has expressed his displeasure with three societies. I would like to ask him if he can name three societies he thinks are better than these. )
>
> Regards,
> Abu Bakar
>
What ever i do inside my house is my privacy there is no jurisprudence (even not Islamic) which apply in house. I can quote number of rulings. (Be remember we are talking about what i am doing not about if i kill some one "crime against some one")
Of course there is a thought which want us to get Angels on every cost and do not allow us free will. I don't think God had made us to be angel other wise he had enough before this world.
I think brother you are mixing two different things in your argument, crime against some one over the internet or on the street is some thing different than surfing at home on my computer. Today as well there are enough laws exist even in Pakistan to catch people who are steeling credit cards or doing any harm over the internet. We need to make a difference between Lawful Intercept and a generalize platform to make us all Angels.
du takay
Najam
--- In pakgrid@yahoogroups.com, abu bakar <abbubakers@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear All (Who oppose URL filtering),
>
> Is there any movement in any part of the world which is not checked, filtered, monitored, regulated or controlled? Whether it is the movement of people across the borders; movement of words in the form of publishing of books, journals, magazines; your speeches, your actions your relations …. Everything is monitored at some stage. Those who are impressed with the West, when you go out of your home and until you come back you are converted into digital images and recorded thousands of times; whether taking a bus or an underground in the morning, having a cup of coffee at the bakery, or shopping a can of pepsi. You are not allowed `free' movement! How many of you living abroad have raised voice against it or called it against your personal freedom or free movement, or violation of `human rights'? Try asking these governments to remove these millions of CCTVs and leave these things to parents. Is there any action in any part of the world which is not subject to some law or regulations? Can you please tell us what is so sacred, holly and divine about the Internet that you don't want it to be monitored, filtered, checked or restricted; and you don't want it to be subjected to any law or regulation?
>
> Those who think they can do anything inside their homes: can they please tell us under which religion (or moral system) or government they are allowed to do any wrong or sin or crime even in their own homes?
>
> To those who maintain that self-restraint and parental guidance is the complete solution of the problem, I congratulate them on presenting a new theory in the field of crime and punishment (moral crimes, legal crimes, war crimes, cyber crimes …). I hope the world will listen to their novel and ingenious ideas and abolish the systems of policing and jurisprudence, and leave everything to mothers and fathers; and perhaps to grand-mothers and grand-fathers also!
>
> (Note: I do not at all agree with Yasir but I love his style! As a side note, he has expressed his displeasure with three societies. I would like to ask him if he can name three societies he thinks are better than these. )
>
> Regards,
> Abu Bakar
>
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment