Evading Censorship: The Lifeblood of a Proxy-Service Provider

An urban myth exists that only criminals use proxy services. Certainly, there is a criminal facet, but according to USA statutes and United Nations' declarations, we have the right to access media on our own terms.

This environment has fostered companies to offer services that allow end users to circumvent censorship controls. As I pointed out in my previous post, a significant number of countries forbid and restrict the rights of free speech and access to media.


Without proxy-service providers, access to information is tightly controlled by restrictive governments, organizations, and companies. Proxy sites grant their customers (end users) varying degrees of anonymity, depending on end-user needs and capabilities of a proxy-service provider. For example, within an autocratic regime, an end user would need total anonymity to avoid persecution. Similarly, those living in crime-ridden regions can protect their identities and account information via a proxy account. Then, even well-meaning governments put controls in place that restrict access to information. Proxies circumvent such controls.

Living in Australia, I miss my favorite TV shows and radio stations from the USA. Digital-rights management (DRM), the annoying recording-industry associations, and the US government do their best to restrict access to my favorites because I'm outside the USA's borders. If I had access to a proxy service, I could watch and listen to those favorites because the proxy site would protect my identity. They do this by hiding my IP address and related info and forwarding one of their own IP addresses (which, in this case, would be a US IP address; thus, it would appear I was in the USA).

Proxy.org ( https://proxy.org/ ) presents a very good overview, along with details and recommendations, regarding proxy services. I highly recommend that you visit their site, particularly if you are enduring restrictions to free speach and access to media. You can find help via the information at this site.

Although recommended by Proxy.org, a service provider by the name of Proxify.com declined my request for an interview. Here are the interview questions, in the hopes that a proxy-service provider would like to step in and answer them. The answers could prove helpful to those in need or just interested about these purveyors of free speach and media access. My thanks to David Weir as I folowed his interview-question format and flow.

This interview comes on the heels of PayPal’s recent attempt to suppress the distribution of certain types of erotica. I am asking for views on the attempts to restrict access to media and what impact it would have on those offering proxy services.

1.      When did you first come up with the idea of offering proxy services, what was your motivation, and what were the results?

2.      Can you quantify your current success for us?

3.      How much feedback do you get from customers and what is your sense of who they are?

4.      Similarly, how much feedback do you get from your company's critics? What is your sense of who they are?

5.      How is your company/organization protected from pressures brought on by governments? What measures and controls are in place to prevent such an entity from gaining access to your customer list and data?

6.      Reporters without Borders compiles an annual index of countries and their positions and actions regarding free speech, access to media, and censorship controls. What are the opportunities your organization's services? What are the challenges and barriers to success?  

7.      There are governments that will imprison and/or murder their citizens who attempt to circumvent government censorship controls. What tensions and motivators must exist for someone living in such a country to subscribe to your site?

8.      Are there any differences in offerings and/or design that distinguish you from your competitors?

9.      What are the most common metrics among your customers and their circumstances?

10.   What advice do you have for those considering subscribing to a proxy service? With the ever-present fear of government intervention and retaliation, how do you get the word out about proxy services to those with restricted access to media? How successful have you been in reaching out to this market?

11.   Can you walk us through the recent crackdown attempt on access to media by Pakistan's democratically-elected government?

12.   With the plethora of works protected by digital-rights management (DRM) and country- and regional-controls, why should proxy services be protected and allowed to thrive?

13.   What does research tell you about censorship trends?

14.   Censorship is a "slippery slope." What are the ramifications for a government, institution, or company that endorses censorship and denies access to media?

15.   Pakistan's government has advertised that it wants to implement a filtering and blocking platform that can restrict access to 50 million URLs at a time. What does this capability mean for the future of proxy-service providers?

16.   What are your company's greatest challenges and how do you plan to address them?

Thank you for your time and for sharing your thoughts with my blog's readers.

With kind regards,

LC Cooper

Beyond PayPal, Censorship's Ugly Saga Continues

Over the last few weeks, the transaction process experienced intense scrutiny as a result of PayPal's misguided attempt to censor legal fiction. With the outcome favoring free speech and market economics, it's not a stretch to find other, and much greater, forces championing the implementation of stronger censorship controls. Sadly, US global market leaders are right in the thick of it.

The following post, from "Good Morning Silicon Valley," is reprinted in its entirety, with the exception of its closing statement about PayPal (which is reduntant at this point in time). The writer, Levi Sumagaysay, does a very good job of encapsulating the trending censorship problem.

Off the censor ship? Vows about Pakistan by Cisco, McAfee; PayPal revises e-books policy

- Posted by Levi Sumagaysay on March 16th, 2012 at 8:35 am

"There are reports this week that a handful of tech companies, including Cisco and McAfee, have vowed not to heed Pakistan’s call for technology to censor the Internet in that country.
Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that Pakistan had solicited bids from tech companies for the “development, deployment and operation of a national-level URL filtering and blocking system.” The $10 million project seeks a system that would have the ability to block up to 50 million URLs.  The deadline for the bids was Friday. Some have urged Pakistan to put its plans on hold, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The New York Times wrote Thursday that a group in Pakistan had urged several companies not to provide filtering technology to the government, and that some of them — Verizon and Websense, as well as the two Silicon Valley companies mentioned above — had agreed. Would-be activists take note:

As the NYT says, we’re seeing the results of advocacy groups taking the offensive and identifying companies before they have a chance to make controversial deals. In this case, it would be bad PR for companies to be associated with such a high-profile censorship project.
Cisco’s vow is notable because it has been criticized about — and sued over — supplying technology to China, which censors the Internet. (See Quoted: Cisco in China, knowledge vs. intentions and China and censorship questions for Cisco, Microsoft and Facebook.) Likewise, Intel-owned McAfee was last year identified by the Wall Street Journal as a company that provides filtering software to ISPs in countries in the Middle East that block certain websites.

Meanwhile, Andy Greenberg of Forbes reports that Sunnyvale-based Blue Coat Systems is among the companies that have “conspicuously declined to comment” about whether they are bidding for Pakistan’s business."

With governments driving censorship controls, how can free speech and market economics survive? Many use proxy services to circumvent such restrictions. One company that I've used while traveling abroad is Proxify.com. I don't endorse any particular company, but offer Proxify.com as an example only. This subscription-based service, through its processes and programming, protects the user's identity while allowing him/her access to otherwise restricted URLs and/or content. It's affordable and I've found it to be very reliable and effective. There are other proxy (and socks) services and although they offer similar functionality, not all protect a user's identity. So, buyer beware - do your homework and ensure the proxy service you select matches your needs. It only took me 15 minutes of Googling to narrow down my list to Proxify.com. 

Although the horizon for those living in restrictive countries like the People's Republic of China, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan is ominous, I encourage you to spread the word of proxy and socks services to anyone facing censorship. Word of mouth will protect free speach, as was proved in the landmark descision of PayPal to loosen its policy and definition regarding objectionable content.
                  ###