Internet experts suggest better alternatives to 'single gateway'

[webfact]

Internet experts suggest better alternatives to 'single gateway'
ASINA PORNWASIN
THE NATION

BANGKOK: -- THE "single gateway" idea touted by the government is neither an effective tool to prevent cyber-attacks nor a good way of blocking websites that insult the monarchy, academics and Internet experts warned yesterday.

Rather, it is a "big brother" approach that would cause uproar and damage to the digital economy, they said. The authorities would be better placed, they said, to rethink the design and execution of the plan.

Bhume Bhumiratana, a cyber security specialist, said a single gateway, no matter if it is used at organisation level or national level, generally has only one purpose - to easily and quickly control Internet traffic.

Bhume said other countries' governments use more efficient and more transparent tools to control Internet traffic they consider a threat.

"The single gateway is not an efficient way to block websites that insult the monarchy. It cannot completely control the flow of information since the Internet is designed to be difficult to block," he said.

It was also an ineffective way to prevent a cyber threat from attacking the system, he said, adding that in fact, it makes it easier for such attacks to take place.

Yunyong Teng-amnuay, one of Thailand's Internet pioneers and a former lecturer at the Department of Computer Engineering at Chulalongkorn's Faculty of Engineering, said the single gateway was a policy not a technical definition. It was a logical concept of the government's management.

Currently, national security and especially the monarchy were being attacked and the government had no tools to handle this. The existing method was to ask service providers for help but some actively cooperate and others do not.

"So, the use of the single gateway [by the government] appears to go cold turkey or [is] a 'big brother' approach to handle the problem. It could lead to resistance and damage the digital economy and e-commerce plan," he said.

In his opinion, the solution was that the government could cooperate with service providers to use tools to block inappropriate websites that insult the monarchy.

To control websites that insult the monarchy, Bhume said the government need only issue a law forcing IIG service providers to block

those websites within an agreed

period of time or ask the National Broadcasting and Telecommunic-ation Commission to revoke their [iIG] licences.

The government should also be transparent, he said. It should let IIG service providers get a court order to revoke the government's block on websites if they can prove the sites did not insult the monarchy.

Tools are available to get IIG to control the sites other than using the single gateway to control mass usage, Bhume said. "The government should put the brakes on the single gateway. It should rethink it and study it carefully by inviting the public to participate," he said.

Yanyong said the government should create public confidence and sincerely explain what they are doing and what the objective is. These tools can also be applied to address other social demons like gambling and pornography, he said.

"The government and the people should compromise and listen to each others' concerns and together find a resolution to address the problem while upholding human rights," Yunyong said.

Pravit Chattalada, an IT expert, said the government should allow market forces to propel the Internet, drive competitiveness and seek innovative alternatives to mitigate public alarm in resolving complex security issues.

Currently, there are 10 IIG service providers, he said. The government should take control through cooperation with these providers with an agreement on what kind of the traffic must be controlled and assuring trust and confidence between the parties. This is the best approach.

"Changing the name [single gateway] would make no difference if the intent and function [of the move] are still unclear," Pravit said.

The government should work with the private sector on what specific kinds of traffic it wants to control. The single gateway, by way of being a single pipe, should not do since it runs counter to technologies and the nature of the digital world.

Once it thinks of a single pipe, the government should be prepared to cope with enormous investment on system reliability, safety, redundancies and maintenance, he said.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Internet-experts-suggest-better-alternatives-to-si-30270201.html


-- The Nation 2015-10-05

[Somtamnication]

You are correct. The Daily Mail has been blocked effectively for years!

[apetley]

You are correct. The Daily Mail has been blocked effectively for years!

Really? Somebody at TOT is sleeping on the job then.

Screenshot of today's online frontpage.

[bamnutsak]

Really? Somebody at TOT is sleeping on the job then.

This merely highlights the desirability of single gateway.

Given the current infrastructure, it is nearly impossible to block all content which the Military Junta finds objectionable, given all of the existing IIGs, and encrypted private tunnels through those, and the use of VPNs.

That's why they had to contact each individual service provider to block FB early on, but that left an embarrassing paper trail with little deniability. Hence the need to for total control at a single point.

[gandalf12]

You think they are telling us anything we don't already know?

[Emster23]

I think there may have been a mistranslation of old saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Came out "If it ain't broke, break it".

[bamnutsak]

To control websites that insult the monarchy, Bhume said the government need only issue a law forcing IIG service providers to block

those websites within an agreed period of time or ask the National Broadcasting and Telecommunic-ation Commission to revoke their [iIG] licences.

Don't they already have laws to enforce this? 112/LM?

What about Article 44?

Maybe they should just start blinding people who try to look at objectionable material on the interwebs?

Edited October 5, 2015 by bamnutsak

[kiwikeith]

You are correct. The Daily Mail has been blocked effectively for years!

They are blocking more and more content every day, many expats are not happy with LOS, becoming expensive, dangerous, and now your spyed upon by a red necked jaunta who dont care and are quite content to ruin LOS and turn it into Chailand.

[62strat]

I'm sure all the internet providers are already co-operating (My true-connection goes thru CAT before connecting outside of Thailand as it is) ..most probably have military minders in their buildings the same way they went into the TV stations... the Governments' only need of a single gateway is for their absolute and immediate control, without having anyone else in the process.This will undoubtably continue long after what ever passes for elections.The perfect hidden place to control information. This article is correct in that this heavy handed attempt will make Thailand less secure and greatly increase the risk of counrty wide internet failures and capital investmest flight. On the positive side it might give a big boost to direct satellite internet that will render all their efforts moot.

[dageurreotype]

To control websites that insult the monarchy, Bhume said the government need only issue a law forcing IIG service providers to block

those websites within an agreed period of time or ask the National Broadcasting and Telecommunic-ation Commission to revoke their [iIG] licences.

Don't they already have laws to enforce this? 112/LM?

What about Article 44?

Maybe they should just start blinding people who try to look at objectionable material on the interwebs?

Indeed, I counted FIVE references to 'insulting the monarchy' in the first half of this rubbish. They must have knowledge of a lot of people 'insulting the monarchy' as we sure don't. It's control and everyone's getting sick of this creeping authoritarianism. Taken to it's logical conclusion, and without wishing to sound alarmist, this country will be exactly like North Korea unless they're made to back the fck off. Gandhi had some good ideas on how to do it.

[Srikcir]

The government should also be transparent, he said. It should let IIG service providers get a court order to revoke the government's block on websites if they can prove the sites did not insult the monarchy.

This is a "guilty until proven innocent" policy. It is the same policy the Thai radio and TV broadcasters have difficulty complying with as the government guidelines are vague and broad, more like a "flavor of the month" content issue. If there is to be clear accountability and equality for internet content with regard to the monarchy, the government should be the one to get a court order to revoke an internet provider's distributed content by proving the sites did insult the monarcy. Let the courts decide whether freedom of speech should be restrained. This is the process used in the EU with Google.

[farangmick]

The British monarchy manages to stay generally popular without draconian lesse majeste laws, even though republicans can argue their case without fear, and politicians can demand that HM is moved into a council house.

[MaxLee]

One ear in, one ear out,.... Stubborn face-sanity of the ruling regime............

[facthailand]

The generals regard any mention of the monarchy as suspect. More than 100 ISPs already cooperate with MICT to block websites. In the past, during he 2006 coup period, MICT sent Thai ISPs a daily blocklist; more than a million individual webpages were blocked.

The only way that censorship would gain the trust of the public is with complete transparency. A full list of blocked URLs must be available for all along with govt’s reasons for blocking each.

The figure $2mil (that’s dollars) has been floated as the cost of reverting to a single int’l gateway. Won’t change anything, either!

[nakhonandy]

The generals regard any mention of the monarchy as suspect. More than 100 ISPs already cooperate with MICT to block websites. In the past, during he 2006 coup period, MICT sent Thai ISPs a daily blocklist; more than a million individual webpages were blocked.

The only way that censorship would gain the trust of the public is with complete transparency. A full list of blocked URLs must be available for all along with govt’s reasons for blocking each.

The figure $2mil (that’s dollars) has been floated as the cost of reverting to a single int’l gateway. Won’t change anything, either!

No idea where the 2Mil came from but that is a pittance, would get you a couple of big Cisco switches, no more.

It would cost hundreds of millions if not billions to implement this.

The entire infrastructure would have to be changed.

Plus the disruption to the internet during the proposed switchover would be enormous.

Will never work, as correctly stated cooperation with the providers is the only way, with transparency of course.