Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Yemenis Should Be Incensed At Websense

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the not-the-worst-of-their-problems dept.

93

Slashdot regular Bennett Haselton writes "Websense, a US-based Internet-censoring software maker, claims not to sell to foreign governments that are censoring Internet access for all of their citizens. But the OpenNet Initiative reports that national ISPs in Yemen have been using Websense to filter Internet access for at least the past four years. Will Websense revoke their license? And what would happen then?" Update: 08/10 21:01 GMT by KD : Bennett adds, "After the story ran, Websense sent me this update." "Since we were informed about the potential use of our products by Yemeni ISPs based on government-imposed Internet restrictions in Yemen, we have investigated this potential non-compliance with our anti-censorship policy. Because our product operates based on a database system, we are able to block updated database downloads to locations and to end users where the use of our product would violate law or our corporate policies. We believe that we have identified the specific product subscriptions that are being used for Web filtering by ISPs in Yemen, and in accordance with our policy against government-imposed censorship, we have taken action to discontinue the database downloads to the Yemeni ISPs."

The Internet censoring software maker Websense has a published policy on their website against allowing their software to be used for government-mandated censorship:

Websense does not sell to governments or Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that are engaged in any sort of government-imposed censorship. Any government-mandated censorship projects will not be engaged by Websense. If Websense does win a business and later discovers that the government is requiring all of its national ISPs to engage in censorship of the Web and Web content, we will remove our technology and capabilities from the project.

This supposedly differentiates the company from competitors such as Smartfilter (now owned by McAfee), which according to OpenNet Initiative reports, is used to censor the Internet in several African and Middle Eastern countries including Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Sudan. Websense once enthusiastically competed for the contract to censor Internet access in Saudi Arabia, but has now apparently ceded such markets to Smartfilter.

However, according to the ONI, the two national ISPs in the country of Yemen are using Websense to censor Internet access for all users. The researchers found that some sites are blocked in Yemen that are probably not on Websense's original filtering list, such as the Yemeni Socialist Party, as well as sites that are blocked under standard Websense categories, such as pornography, sex education materials, and "anonymizing and privacy tools" (presumably, proxy sites).

Websense declined to tell me whether they have ever revoked an ISP's license to use Websense after discovering that the ISP was using it in violation of their anti-government-censorship policy. They also declined to say whether they had any ISP customers in Middle Eastern countries, apart from Yemen. (For any Middle Eastern ISP using Websense, there's a high probability that they would be doing it as a result of a government mandated filtering policy, and hence in violation of Websense's stated rules.) But regarding the use of Websense in Yemen, Websense did reply to say simply, "We will look into the matter. If our software is being used in violation of our policy, we will take appropriate action." I think that if they were serious about preventing their software from being used for government censorship, they should have red-flagged any purchase from a national ISP in a country with one of the worst press-freedom ratings in the world, but better late than never.

There are only about 200,000 Internet users in Yemen, compared to over six million in Saudi Arabia, millions more in other censored Middle Eastern countries, and 300 million in Internet-censored China. (And even the Yemenis' Internet access is not filtered all the time, since the ONI report says that the number of concurrent licenses for Websense purchased by the Yemeni ISPs is less than the number of Yemeni Internet users, and when the number of concurrent users exceeds the number of licenses, all requests go through unfiltered!) So it would be a small step towards global liberation of the Internet, but still equivalent to de-censoring Internet access for every resident of Boise if the city had 100% broadband penetration, which is enough to justify putting the squeeze on Websense.

What exactly would happen if Websense did revoke their license for the Yemeni ISPs? They couldn't force the ISPs to uninstall the software, but they could stop allowing them to download further updates to the Websense blocked-site list. Most installations of Websense are configured to download updates to the list every day, to block the latest adult websites as well as to try and stay ahead of newly released proxy sites. Once the list updates stopped, all existing blocked websites would remain blocked, but newly created adult sites and proxy sites would be accessible, and the filtering would gradually become less and less effective. So it would be a concrete victory for Yemeni Internet users, and not just a symbolic gesture.

How would we know if Websense went through with it, anyway, if they refuse to confirm or deny that they have revoked the licenses for Yemen? The ONI declined to tell me how exactly they determined that Yemeni ISPs were using Websense. (Not that I mind; they could have obtained this information with the help of people whose jobs and freedom would be at stake if they were found out, in which case ONI would not be able to share their confidential sources.) Presumably the ONI could repeat their research in the future to determine if Websense were still being used. However, even if they can see that Websense software is still being used to censor the Internet, it may not be easy to tell whether the Yemeni ISPs are still downloading updates to the blocked-site list. My suggestion: Create a new proxy site and don't publicize it anywhere, but report it to Websense for blocking. Test a few days later to verify that it's blocked by Websense, but not by Smartfilter or other popular blocking programs. Then see if it's blocked in Yemen as well. If not, then hopefully that means that Websense cut them off.

And then what? Maybe the Yemeni ISPs will just continue using Websense with a frozen copy of the blocked site list, reasoning that most of the well-known adult sites that users are going to try to visit, are probably already on that list. Maybe they'll set up a shell company in another country, posing as an ISP requesting a legitimate copy of Websense, and buy a new list subscription that way. But it will still be worth it to press Websense into revoking their license, even if it only breaks Internet censorship in Yemen for a few months or a year. At that point, perhaps they'll just take their business to Smartfilter like almost every other Middle Eastern country that censors the Internet.

After all, we shouldn't pick on Websense too much, when Smartfilter is censoring national Internet access for about 100 times that many users in total. If Websense says they don't provide software to government censors, then we should hold them to that. But the real scandal isn't that American censorware companies provide filters to censoring governments while claiming not to, it's that American companies are doing it at all.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Post for Everywhere Except Yemen (4, Funny)

syntap (242090) | more than 5 years ago | (#29011753)

They won't see this.

Re:First Post for Everywhere Except Yemen (0)

gameboyhippo (827141) | more than 5 years ago | (#29011825)

I don't think anything will happen. Aren't governments sovereign. Do they really have to follow US law?

Re:First Post for Everywhere Except Yemen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29012497)

Only until sovereignty is bombed out of them.

Re:First Post for Everywhere Except Yemen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29015139)

Tribal sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.

Re:First Post for Everywhere Except Yemen (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 5 years ago | (#29011931)

this isn't flamebait, it's funny, truthful, and probably more insightful than the mod who moderated it flamebait thinks.

Mod are morons news at 11. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29014383)

Proof in moderation.

Re:First Post for Everywhere Except Yemen (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012281)

sad, but accurate.

Websense filters are both inaccurate and shitty. However, they sell themselves off as a very US-friendly enterprise/corporate friendly filter solution, which is the only reason they are still around. Apparently people don't know about what openDNS can do for free (and safer).

Re:First Post for Everywhere Except Yemen (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012555)

Websense filters are both inaccurate and shitty. However, they sell themselves off as a very US-friendly enterprise/corporate friendly filter solution, which is the only reason they are still around.

How much of this is applicable to this entire industry? Especially selling to management who don't realise their claims are at best dubious.

Re:First Post for Everywhere Except Yemen (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012723)

I'd guess there are very few who don't, and those ones are smart enough to not have to invest in crap like websense.

Re:First Post for Everywhere Except Yemen (1)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012583)

Yea but the problem is open source in the work place is usually not going to happen. Especially not when a grubby little company like Websense gets their mits on it.

We use websense here @ where I work (I'm a network administrator for a large gov't WAN and Websense is totally terrible. Granted it blocks important sites like .gov but blocks google sometimes, but still.......

Re:First Post for Everywhere Except Yemen (1)

vitatyranni (1599277) | more than 5 years ago | (#29013105)

However, for a country where they would rather block access to content that might maybe possibly be objectionable, shitty and inaccurate filters are OK. Having lived in Saudi Arabia, they operate under the same assumption-more censorship is rarely a bad thing. And while merely going through an outside proxy is a quick and easy fix, WS is surprisingly deft at blocking access to those as well. So unless random Yemeni person knows someone who can regularly email them lists of proxies they're pretty much SOL.

Re:First Post for Everywhere Except Yemen (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#29013785)

There are mailing lists for this, and websense does not catch them.

Websense doesn't even check subdomains, they just block an entire domain and let all the possibly legitimate stuff underneath get blocked.

Example: blogspot, wordpress are blocked, instant messengers are blocked, but yahoo.com is not.

Re:First Post for Everywhere Except Yemen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29012741)

Am I the only one a little put off by our insistence that we are so right with our free speech thing? yes yes I do appreciate it but in the right conditions it can do more harm than good so maybe countries need to go their own route just like we had the chance to do, maybe they will find a path that works but if history has shown us anything they probably wont and not solely because of lack of free speech.

Re:First Post for Everywhere Except Yemen (1, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#29014643)

No; there's lots of you. Aren't you glad you are able to express your opinion? I hope, someday, that everybody's opinion on the matter will someday be able to be heard. Even the ones, like yours, that are worthy of contempt.

Re:First Post for Everywhere Except Yemen (1)

Stauken (1392809) | more than 5 years ago | (#29016605)

This has little to do with the inherent arguments for and against free speech, and a lot more to do with "Do as I say, not as I do." mentality that Websense took in saying that they will not provide Governments with censoring software and the updates to keep it doing its job. To take this in another direction, here's a nice little analogy for you. It's like Home Depot saying 'We do not sell equipment to people who torture with it" and then turning around and selling a 'waterboarding kit' for $200 to the agency head of the CIA. Not a matter of free speech. It's a matter of "Do as I say, not as I do.", and very straightforward at that.

Re:First Post for Everywhere Except Yemen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29019563)

Go after Saudi Arabia.... Websense has been used here for much longer and it's the same thing... Internet is censored for everyone!

Niggers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29011843)

Do black people have some kind of self-destruction fantasy or something? Why else do they keep producing so many bastard children, is welfare money really that enticing? I mean it is partly the fault of government for saying "hey the more bastard kids these fat sows shit out, the more welfare money we will give them" but that alone doesn't explain everything. Have you SEEN some of these women? Fatter than hell, they are good suppliers of lard. How the hell anyone could keep impregnating them is a mystery. Fuck, you'd need to roll them in flour and look for the wet spot to even have a chance. Of course both those sows and the nigger bucks who fuck them speak a form of pidgin or broken English known as ebonics so they don't really have any job prospects other than selling drugs. Not even good drugs like pot either but horrible shit like crack. What a bunch of niggers. They really want to be treated equally? How about they clean up the goddamned ghetto and quit telling their youth to worship gangstas? Amazing how far that would go towards easing race relations. Quit acting like a dangerous alien "other" and you won't be treated like a dangerous alien "other." Whodathunkit?

Re:Niggers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29012207)

thats why in africa they were tribal stone age primitives when the white man found them. they can't handle civilization beyond tribal units so they turn destructive. reminds me of that saying, if my great-granddad knew things would turn out this way he'd have picked his own cotton.

The hell they will! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29011847)

Please, when did a corporation last value principles over profits?

Anonymouse Cynical Coward

au contraire (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 5 years ago | (#29011965)

Please, when did a corporation last value principles over profits?

They are surely a corporation of principles. Yemen was just... filtering to... protect their children. Please, won't somebody please think of the children!?

Re:The hell they will! (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 5 years ago | (#29020793)

Please, when did a corporation last value principles over profits?

When they found out they could be sued [out-law.com] over it.

The capitalistic way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29011863)

Well, if you are willing to do anything for money, as people in some cultures are, then it is only matter of time. I am sure Yemen will be able to develop the skill in maybe 10 years. Why shouldnt we profit on the way?

Off topic but may be of interest... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29011869)

Now you can use BB-code in slashdot comments with this greasemonkey script http://www.asemet.com/baqueiro/#bbcode [asemet.com] .

I know it is off topic and all that. But you might find it useful.

Yeah, I am the original author and I am an avid slashdot reader. The userscript can be downloaded straightforward and as far as I know works on Firefox 3.5 (Windows XP).

BTW, sorry for the site plug... in case you don't trust unknown 3rd party site, here's the pastebin [pastebin.com] text, for one month

DO NOT SUPPORT THE SPAMMER (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29011957)

I modded you down because you are a spammer. Never ever visit the web sites of spammers for any reason. Ever. Even if the offer is legit the marketing is not. Best way to make sure you know Slashdot is not your personal fucking billboard is to make sure that you never get a positive reaction from posting your SHITTY SPAM on here. You're welcome. Now go back to Usenet where you belong. See how polluted that is, how every 4 of 5 messages is some goddamned spammer trying to advertise some shit? That's what I don't want Slashdot to become. You just took a baby step towards making it become that way. Negative reaction requested - negative reaction received.

Re:DO NOT SUPPORT THE SPAMMER (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29020399)

The funny thing is that, if you go to that webpage, there are only some projects of some guy and there are no ads or anything else...

And in case you are afraid of such site, the pastebin contains the source code of the script (which is a very basic greasemonkey script).

ISPs or the Gov't? (3, Funny)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 5 years ago | (#29011885)

So are the ISPs blocking because they have their own cultural objection to the content, or is the government requesting it? It says national ISP, so the question is how much oversight the government has, and if there are alternative ISPs.

More information, please.

Re:ISPs or the Gov't? (1)

Vu1turEMaN (1270774) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012429)

TeleYemen seems to be the main ISP, and there are a few other very small VSAT and broadband providers.

If there is gov't oversight, controlling one ISP would make things easier.

I'd guess there is, with a (dead) link to the president's website right on their main page: http://www.y.net.ye/ [y.net.ye]

Re:ISPs or the Gov't? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29013721)

Regardless of the formal arrangement, the ISPs in Yemen are government controlled.

More detail in the Global Integrity Report: Yemen
http://report.globalintegrity.org/Yemen/2008/scorecard/7 [globalintegrity.org]

Could we get some editors here? (2, Insightful)

Eevee (535658) | more than 5 years ago | (#29011889)

<Flamebait>I know that nobody reads the stories, but...Would it be too much to ask for a single link that leads to the story in the portion that shows on the front page? The brief blurb has no link, but the full story has so many (and mainly pointless) links that it's impossible to find it. Unless there isn't a story and this is just random blathering.</Flamebait>

Re:Could we get some editors here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29012557)

This isn't a normal Slashdot summary story. Bennett Haselton is posting the entire story directly to Slashdot.

Re:Could we get some editors here? (1, Redundant)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 5 years ago | (#29013207)

Would it be too much to ask for a single link that leads to the story in the portion that shows on the front page?

Click the "Read More" link.

Re:Could we get some editors here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29017915)

Would it be too much to ask for a single link that leads to the story in the portion that shows on the front page?

Click the "Read More" link.

So that you can find that:

... the full story has so many (and mainly pointless) links that it's impossible to find it.

Speaking of reading more, you might want to try it. Combined with comprehension, of course.

Why? (3, Insightful)

Lazarian (906722) | more than 5 years ago | (#29011917)

You'd think that they'd be more pissed at their government for censoring and controlling their access to the net.

Oh yeah. Websense is an American company. Damn evil Americans!

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29014945)

Websense is a bunch of noobs. They don't even qualify for 'hat'.
I interviewed with them and was desperate for it to end.
This is the case with a lot of software oriented firms in the San Diego area.

Where's the link? (5, Informative)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#29011925)

Oh, wait - it's 1/3 of the way down the voluminous post. Which has (un)surprisingly little content.

From TFA (after I found it)

"The ISP YemenNet continues to have an issue with its filtering system; ONI investigation found that the ISP uses a Blue Coat integrated cache/filter appliance to run Websense but possesses a limited number of concurrent user licenses--not nearly enough to cover all of the Internet users in the country. Thus, when the number of subscribers accessing the Internet at a given time exceeds the limited number of user licenses, the requests of all users circumvent the filtering software.

Is it possible they simply bought the Blue Coat appliances which came prepackaged with the software?

Oh, and editors, ffs, EDIT!

Re:Where's the link? (1)

bossanovalithium (1396323) | more than 5 years ago | (#29011975)

I have to agree re Editors please do your job - this is an interesting story, but christ did it need so much fluff in it? get to the point already! Just cause someone is a regular contributor doesn't mean their words are sacred!

Re:Where's the link? (2, Funny)

jittles (1613415) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012037)

"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson

They can. Haven't you ever seen Air Force One? It has been flying them all over the world since 1990.

Re:Where's the link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29013921)

"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson

They can. Haven't you ever seen Air Force One? It has been flying them all over the world since 1990.

Since when can't turkeys fly?

Re:Where's the link? (2, Informative)

hicks107 (1286642) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012255)

Not really because the WS license requires an annual renewal. So even if they accidentally bought the appliance with Websense, they would have to actively be renewing the license.

Re:Where's the link? (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012607)

"Not really because the WS license requires an annual renewal. So even if they accidentally bought the appliance with Websense, they would have to actively be renewing the license."

Legally requires, or the software stops working?

Re:Where's the link? (1)

hicks107 (1286642) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012827)

It stops working. Kinda like when you dont pay your electric bill.

Stops Working (1)

u235meltdown (940099) | more than 5 years ago | (#29029157)

After failing to download a database update for two weeks, the software will cease to function. Now that the subscription has been pulled, Yemen ISPs will have two weeks to find a different "solution" to their problem.

ONI (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 5 years ago | (#29011933)

When I first read the summary, I was thinking, what does the Office of Naval Intelligence have to do with this?

Re:ONI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29012751)

When I first read your post, I was thinking, why do they have an office for belly button intelligence?

See, we can go with this shit all day.

Acronyms. People use them. You don't know all of them. Get over it. Your post is not funny.

Yes, I know that it is spelled navel.

Proxy (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29011941)

My office uses Websense. As annoying as it is, all you have to do to get around it is set a proxy in your web browser. In this case, the proxy just needs to be located outside of Yemen.

Re:Proxy (1)

Mendoksou (1480261) | more than 5 years ago | (#29016677)

Also, many programs like ultrasurf and gtunnel work quite well, so you don't even have to search for those proxies. The problem is, your average user doesn't know that, and will not acquire the knowledge easily (websense and others like it can block most sites that link to/advertise proxies, too... you have to already have some knowledge of it).

Re:Proxy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29019305)

Boy that's a bad installation. WS should be able to read the request to the proxy and block accordingly.

Blame the country (4, Insightful)

Mendoksou (1480261) | more than 5 years ago | (#29011953)

Having operated under a rather oppressive form of websense at college for years, I have very little love for the company. But this still seems like a case of over-extending the blame. Sure, they are probably more evil than they want to pretend, but at least they bother pretending; which is more than I can say for some.

I think I'll reserve judgment until more facts are out, especially Websense's next step. If they actually do uphold their anti-censorship statement, then props to them; they'll be the least annoying filtering software in the market, which is not saying a whole lot.

There are many ways to skin a cat (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 5 years ago | (#29011969)

In US, ISPs may not be the ones filtering Internet content, but filtered it is - by lawsuits, employers who fire for facebook pages, and vigilantes jumping at any lapse of political correctness. I am sure the parties involved this the content is as offending as Yemenes consider porn.

Re:There are many ways to skin a cat (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012285)

And the difference is largely (but not solely) one of jurisdiction, influence, and workarounds, rather than any principles or the lack thereof.

What exactly would happen if Websense did revoke? (4, Insightful)

Em Emalb (452530) | more than 5 years ago | (#29011971)

"What exactly would happen if Websense did revoke their license for the Yemeni ISPs?"

Free, unfiltered, unfettered access to the rest of the world? Freedom for people to determine their own paths?

Why on earth would the Yemen(ese?) government want that for its citizens?

Control=power.

Proxy (-1, Redundant)

TehCable (1351775) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012077)

My office uses Websense. All you have to do to get around it is to set a proxy in your web browser. In this case, the proxy just needs to be outside of Yemen. Problem solved.

Re:Proxy (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012161)

Websense includes a category "anonymizing tools," that will block access to all of the proxies that they know of at the time. Apparently, your office doesn't blacklist that list, but Yemen does.

Re:Proxy (1)

TehCable (1351775) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012203)

Or they just don't know of my proxy.

Re:Proxy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29012395)

I learned long ago that Https cannot be blocked by things such as websense. And several anonymizers utilize this protocol to connect anyhow.

That and/or one of those sites with a huge proxy list could be useful.

Re:Proxy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29014023)

Was true 'long ago' is no longer true today.

Re:Proxy (1)

Vu1turEMaN (1270774) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012469)

Back in the day, merely using Opera broke it.

Why would they care? (3, Informative)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012081)

Considering that Yemeni's live on an average of $1.25 a day, most of them don't even have access to the Internet. And since it's a vary traditional Muslim country, many would applaud filtering out "harmful foreign content". The author is applying his own feelings and standards to a very different people and culture.

Re:Why would they care? (3, Insightful)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012443)

"The author is applying his own feelings and standards to a very different people and culture."

No, the author is applying his own feelings and standards to the company that make Websense.The rant has little to do with Yemeni censorship and much to do with how Websense is going against their corporate policy. Of course, they may not even be aware of the Yemeni ISP's use, since it came as part of a 3rd party appliance, but that's irrelevant.

Repeat after me:
"US Bad"
"Everywhere Else good, unless bad. In which case, Everywhere Else has some connection to US. See above.

Re:Why would they care? (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#29014727)

Yeah, the Yemeni's don't need free speech. Their culture and social heritage simply don't require western concepts such as freedom. The idea that individuals should be free is really just evil western oppression, if you think really hard about it. Different races and cultures obviously have different levels of optimal liberty.

No; wait; you're an ass.

Re:Why would they care? (2, Insightful)

Entropius (188861) | more than 5 years ago | (#29015829)

It's frightening how many people believe this -- that, just because someone is a member of some traditionalist culture that believes (for instance) women should be subservient, it's okay for their government to jail them for speaking their mind.

Restrictive traditionalist cultures *can* still exist in countries where civil liberties are (nominally) respected. The first example that comes to mind is the Amish in the US.

Re:Why would they care? (1)

octal_sio (1521925) | more than 5 years ago | (#29021401)

The author is applying his own feelings and standards to a very different people and culture.

Hear hear.

I'm not familiar with what's going on in Yemen, but what you describe is something that many, many people in the west do, which results in many many fuck-ups.

Not necessarily (1)

Zed is not Zee (996730) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012115)

when the number of concurrent users exceeds the number of licenses, all requests go through unfiltered

I think this is configurable. When all the Websense licences are in use at my office, all requests get blocked.

Re:Not necessarily (1)

Vu1turEMaN (1270774) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012481)

Right, but why would an ISP want to block internet access to its users?

Re:Not necessarily (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 5 years ago | (#29013413)

Because upgrading the upstream pipe from 14.4Kbps to 33.6Kbps would require the Yemenis ISP to take out a small loan at a 'very' high interest rape from the WTO...

But in reality, all ISP's would like to censor traffic as 'Less load + more consumers = Greater Profit'. If ISP's had their way we would all have the old netzero type ad bar on our screens while every mistyped web domain would take you to their sponsors web site all the while making sure you never exceed 1GB a month on your 100Mbit/100Mbit connection.

As far as the 'free market' 'you have a choice' idea goes... We know that just isn't true anymore... Large corporations collude with each other to insure your SOL and they rarely get caught. Even when they do it doesn't drive them out of business.. Flamebait? Damn Dirty Lies? Hey why not check out the quick 30 seconds of research below.

07-14-2009: EU issues charges in global LCD price fixing crackdown [betanews.com]
06-16-2009: AT&T and Verizon deny price-fixing accusations [cnet.com]
03-10-2009: Hitachi pleads guilty to LCD price fixing [techradar.com]
11-12-2008: LG, Sharp, Chunghwa admit to LCD price fixing [cnet.com]
03-03-2004: EU probes memory price-fixing charge [zdnet.com]
09-30-2002: States settle CD price-fixing case [usatoday.com]

This is why 'fanboys & girls' really need to be 're-educated' and not by their TV's, iPhones or PS3s... ;-|

Re:Not necessarily (1)

Vu1turEMaN (1270774) | more than 5 years ago | (#29013663)

Ummm....ok.

I was referring to the main post made that once the ISP's number of active users went over the limit of their WebSense subscription, users over that limit had fully unblocked website access.

Zed made a comment that Websense can be reconfigured so that if you go over the user limit, users over that limit have all requests blocked (as in, all internet access blocked).

I commented on the fact that it was against their interest to block internet access to their customers.

You made a silly rant, and need to take your meds :)

Re:Not necessarily (1)

Zed is not Zee (996730) | more than 5 years ago | (#29016623)

Good question. For that matter, why would a company want to block internet access to its employees? In our case I believe it was just the default setting and nobody thought to check. All I'm saying is, let's think twice before DDoS-ing Yemen's Websense servers in the name of freedom.

Too Long, Didn't Read (1)

shashark (836922) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012119)

tl;dr

Re:Too Long, Didn't Read (1)

Vu1turEMaN (1270774) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012545)

RTFA

Re:Too Long, Didn't Read (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 5 years ago | (#29013277)

"tl;dr" is actually shorthand for "too lazy; drooling retard".

Clarification of facts (4, Informative)

kaizendojo (956951) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012135)

Websense, a U.S.-based Internet censoring software maker

Websense, a U.S. based Internet filtering software maker

There. Fixed that for you. Websense doesn't *censor*, that is left up to the individual admins who purchase the product. They take great pains to make sure that the software doesn't censor by using actual real human beings to categorize their list of websites and peer review to make sure that they agree on the categories assigned. THAT IS ALL THEY DO. The purchasers decide what categories they want to turn off or on. And as the product is OEM in a number of appliances, it is quite possible they are not aware of it's use in Yemen.

Disclaimer: I appeared in a promo video for Websense when they first started out; I was a big fan of the product for use in a private school setting precisely because it *wasn't* like all the other filtering software out there and censorship was a major issue with the students there.

Re:Clarification of facts (2, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012459)

When Websense's sole and advertised use is blocking and logging access by bias, I don't think calling it "filtering software" instead of "censoring software" makes much of an improvement.
Sure, you can call cigarettes "plant fiber cylinders" too, but that doesn't make them any healthier.

Re:Clarification of facts (1)

hercubus (755805) | more than 5 years ago | (#29014123)

When Websense's sole and advertised use is blocking and logging access by bias, I don't think calling it "filtering software" instead of "censoring software" makes much of an improvement. Sure, you can call cigarettes "plant fiber cylinders" too, but that doesn't make them any healthier.

not saying filters aren't stupid/evil, cause they are. bits want to be free and all that

but the word "filter" seems to fit better than censor. the internet is still there after all, no websites were confiscated. no one was jailed for publishing. there is no armed authority forcing the removal of the bits from existence

if you're behind this filter that Websense makes you can't see what others can, like if you were behind a red light filter, there would be certain frequencies you can't see anymore. it doesn't mean that the light/data doesn't exist anymore. censors typically confiscate/destroy and Websense does neither

but to make this personal, if my employer but a red filter over all the lights, i'd probably quit - it'd be a health issue. but they put a filter over the internet and i don't care so much, not enough to quit. filtering is stupid, it hurts them more than they realize, but if i spent my time pointing out their stupid decisions, good god where would i start and where would i end...

i feel bad for the Yemeni's because they're being hurt by their government and they can't get unfiltered content at home. i still can for now. i dont' expect it to last

Re:Clarification of facts (2, Insightful)

mpe (36238) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012733)

Websense, a U.S. based Internet filtering software maker
There. Fixed that for you. Websense doesn't *censor*, that is left up to the individual admins who purchase the product.


As much as they can within the limitations of the product.

They take great pains to make sure that the software doesn't censor by using actual real human beings to categorize their list of websites and peer review to make sure that they agree on the categories assigned.

If they actually did this you might end up with something usable in one country... Except for that it would be very difficult to get a consensus if that was anything other than a "micronation".

Re:Clarification of facts (2, Interesting)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 5 years ago | (#29013897)

Let me be the first to say BULLSHIT on the peer review part.

The reason for this is that many admins simply subscribe to the Websense-provided "list" of naughty sites (in various categories). My office uses Websense, and the admins subscribe to the list. Care to explain how docs.google.com got on the block list in the "Internet Telephony" category? Cause it sure as hell wasn't our admins...

Re:Clarification of facts (2, Informative)

kaizendojo (956951) | more than 5 years ago | (#29015131)

I'll repeat it for those who didn't get it the first time; Websense doesn't censor anything; it merely categorizes. Admins are then free to check or uncheck entire categories or go as granular as a site level. If your admins are lazy and check everything, don't blame Websense, blame your HR department or CIO.

As far as docs.google.com being on the internet telephony category, did you or your admins contact Websense to find out why it was miscategorized or did you just stay silent? (BTW, it "sure as hell" could have been your admins as the software will allow you to create your own entries in any category you so choose...)

Re:Clarification of facts (1)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 5 years ago | (#29016697)

I complained to our admins about docs.google.com, they said they were unsure how it got blocked because they'd never used the site/entered it into the system, and promptly unblocked it. Unless they're lying, the "peer reviewed" lists are a bit lame. I'll come back with more examples of bizarre blocks in the future (as I run into them). And yes, I know they pick categories (or not) as they choose; I was talking about the contents of said categories.

Re:Clarification of facts (1)

u235meltdown (940099) | more than 5 years ago | (#29029429)

docs.google.com shows up currently in the category "Personal Network Storage and Backup." Seems quite accurate to me.
Requires a valid subscription to see, but https://www.websense.com/sitelookup [websense.com] does allow administrators to test categories and report categorised URLs to the human review team. It is also available in the installed product, so admins don't even have to go out of their way.

i wonder how long until... (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012339)

filtering of the intertubes is done globally to silence anyone that goes against the status quo or against any government dissent, oh well so much for that free speech thing in the bill of rights

Stopping updates (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29012473)

They couldn't force the ISPs to uninstall the software, but they could stop allowing them to download further updates to the Websense blocked-site list. Most installations of Websense are configured to download updates to the list every day, to block the latest adult websites as well as to try and stay ahead of newly released proxy sites. Once the list updates stopped, all existing blocked websites would remain blocked, but newly created adult sites and proxy sites would be accessible, and the filtering would gradually become less and less effective.

Instead of just blocking the Yemeni ISPs from the update server completely, they could redirect them to an update that removes everything from the current block list. That'd make the filter useless instantly unless the ISPs maintain backup copies of the downloaded filter list. Given that there's speculation that the filters in question are dedicated appliances, there's a good chance that the ISPs wouldn't have such backups.

No more database download (1)

CrisRuv (1133911) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012617)

Just a quick note on the way the WS install would handle the database download failures. There is a possibility that the downloads would stop. Short of a manual download and implementation, this could prove effective in disabling the filtering in a matter of weeks. Websense filtering stops to function as designed when the database becomes 'stale', or is older than 2 weeks. At that point, the logs continue to function, as they would normally, but the filtering halts. If Websense does indeed revoke the license making the downloads not work, then there is a strong possibility that the filtering will altogether stop functioning in a matter of days allowing all access.

No worries (1)

certain death (947081) | more than 5 years ago | (#29012727)

There content filtering sucks like a fucking HOOVER!!

Re:No worries (2, Funny)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 5 years ago | (#29014151)

Where?

Re:No worries (1)

certain death (947081) | more than 5 years ago | (#29016383)

My bad...I will say 100 "I Sucks" now...

In Soviet Russia! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29012797)

In Soviet Russia, Websense fil....

Umm wait, darn it, lemme figure this out. Carry on.

Re:In Soviet Russia! (3, Funny)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 5 years ago | (#29014645)

I'm sorry, the correct Slashdot meme would have been "In Soviet Russia, you filter Websense."

I'll give you a warning this time, but next time it'll be your geek card. Carry on, citizen.

Re:In Soviet Russia! (1)

z4ns4stu (1607909) | more than 5 years ago | (#29015193)

I'm sorry, the correct Slashdot meme would have been "In Soviet Russia, you filter Websense."

I'll give you a warning this time, but next time it'll be your geek card. Carry on, citizen.

That thing zinging over your head? It was the point.

I Read... (1)

denmarkw00t (892627) | more than 5 years ago | (#29015255)

"Yemenis Should Be Incested At Websense"

and I was all wtf??? But still, the choice of wording in the headline is AWESOME ;)

no more updates ? thats all ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29016323)

They should send 1 final update, removing all existing filters and replacing them by a filter that blocks the whole Yemen tld.
And if possible replace some of the "blocked" screens with goatse.

Re: (1)

clint999 (1277046) | more than 5 years ago | (#29018201)

Also, many programs like ultrasurf and gtunnel work quite well, so you don't even have to search for those proxies. The problem is, your average user doesn't know that, and will not acquire the knowledge easily (websense and others like it can block most sites that link to/advertise proxies, too... you have to already have some knowledge of it).

No websense in AU (1)

stine2469 (1349335) | more than 5 years ago | (#29018349)

I guess they've terminated of the contracts with Australian ISPs then, right?

Refund for ISP? (1)

tumutbound (549414) | more than 5 years ago | (#29019445)

Will the Yemeni ISP get a refund on their subscription now that Websense has blocked access to updates?

I think... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29077055)

...websense should perform a show of support for free speech and give Yemeni ISPs access to a database that has nothing in it. Assuming the auto-update just replaces the database and it's entirety and it's nothing like a diff or an incremental backup.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?