After hearing about one person's experience with Boston's new wireless internet access initiative, I decided to trek across the river to Government Center (Faneuil Hall, Quincy Market, City Hall), where the wifi program is being piloted, to see for myself. What follows are the results of my afternoon playing with the new, 'free' wifi.
| Table of Contents |
|---|
| Introduction |
| Methods |
| Terms of Use |
| Restrict My Search |
| Limit My Knowledge |
| Father Knows Best |
| Hypocrisy |
| Political Speech |
| Like Cellophane |
| Conclusion |
| Feedback Loop |
On April 22, I took the T to Government Center and walked to Faneuil Hall, sometimes called "The Cradle of Liberty". The area around Faneuil Hall/Quincy Market is sprinkled with little lime green circular signs on lamp posts proclaiming "FREE Wi-Fi" and "Connect to BostonWireless" and citing it as a project of the City of Boston and Mayor Menino. The access points in the area use the SSID "BostonWireless" as stated on the sign. I entered Faneuil Hall and found a nice corner next to the Red Barn Coffee Roasters to surf from (after purchasing a drink from Red Barn). I used the SSID from the sign I had seen to connect to the network and I was assigned a private IP address in 192.168.0.0/16.
Once connected, when trying to access port 80 outbound, I was redirected to a page with information about the hotspot and its Terms of Use. I agreed to these Terms of Use and began exploring.
I had brought with me a copy of the latest phrase list for use with DansGuardian, the censorware that this hotspot is believed to use (see BoingBoing article). Notices, such as the one seen on BoingBoing or visible below, would appear when a website was censored.
The Terms of Use for the BostonWireless hotspot at Faneuil Hall clearly states that the operator, Galaxy Internet Services, "supports the free flow of information and ideas over the Internet." While it may not be Galaxy's censorship of the service provided, the service clearly does not support the "free flow of information and ideas" as I will show.
Furthermore, the Terms of Use prohibit the use of the service for: spamming, invading others' privacy, violating intellectual property rights, using defamatory or abusive language, forging headers, hacking, distributing malware, facilitating a violation of the agreement, violating export controls, distributing or using obscene or indecent images or materials, perpetrating other illegal activities, or reselling the service. Under the clause governing obscene or indecent images or materials, we find that "certain content or web sites may be filtered or unavailable due to inappropriate content."
ContentsOne of the first things I noticed when I began to use the service was the restriction of my Google searches. Simple, benign searches were being blocked outright with the mysterious reason "Banned combination phrase found." I was not allowed to access things like this Google search for 'freedom trail', a historic trail through Boston with sites relevant to the American Revolution. After a study of the phrase lists I had brought with me, I realized that the reason my searches were blocked was because I was not using Google's "SafeSearch" feature and presumably this would allow me to access inappropriate content.
I pray that the absurdity of this action, restricting the use of one of the most powerful information retrieval services on the planet, is not lost on you. Because the hotspot uses keyword based filtering, one would hope that were the filtering effective at all it would block inappropriate content returned by the Google search and not the search results themselves. Saddened, I turned on strict SafeSearch filtering and proceeded.
ContentsWith strict SafeSearch turned on, I proceeded and tried to determine just what exactly the City of Boston and Galaxy Internet Services, in their great wisdom, did not want me to read, view, or learn at Faneuil Hall. I discovered that I could not search for resources about cocaine, I could not read encyclopedia entries about cocaine, and I could not read encyclopedia entries that mentioned cocaine. Furthermore, I couldn't get information about an internet software CD-ROM from the '90's because the page contained the phrases "XXX", "X-Rated", "sex", and "adult material" preceded by "no" in a keyword section at its bottom. I could not get information about breast implant procedures or racial supremacy by blacks or whites. I couldn't read Cory Doctorow's free science fiction novel Eastern Standard Tribe - a book available, unrestricted, in libraries and bookstores nationwide. I couldn't do homework for my class, 'Drugs, Politics, and Culture'.
ContentsDisturbingly, I could not access many government web sites that inform me of my rights and responsibilities as a citizen, the punishments for various crimes, or available government services. I attempted to access both the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the Drug Enforcement Agency and was denied access. I could not read about drug crime penalties or how different substances are controlled. I was denied access to information about what law enforcement officers can and cannot demand of me and what the government does to protect children from abuse.
Additionally, the phrase lists in use block many internet dating sites such as match.com, OkCupid, Yahoo Personals, and Plenty of Fish. Interestingly, eHarmony and DateHookup are not blocked.
ContentsEncyclopedia entries for lotteries, bookmakers, and parimutuel betting are restricted as are searches for "virtual casino" and "loto". The Massachusetts State Lottery, however, is not restricted.
ContentsThe phrase lists also restrict political speech about underage drinking, drug policy, the criminal justice system, and minimum sentencing guidelines.
ContentsFor all the information that the hotspot's administrators restrict, it is surprising what they do not restrict. One can still view disturbing images of brain surgery or babies born with extreme birth defects. Information about male circumcision and its effect on sexual intercourse is also available, accompanied by many figures. In fact, one can even initiate a web search for general information on the male genitalia. You can also read about "cock rings", gay night clubs in Amsterdam, and vaginal lubrication.
All of this without any tricks. If one uses any of the huge number of available, encrypted, public web proxies, no information is out of reach. Not only does the hotspot have absurd things filtered like information about my rights, it also allows anyone to easily access any content, from child pornography to how to build a bomb, without filtering.
ContentsFrom a technical standpoint, the stupidly simplistic the artificial "intelligence" algorithms used to censor content are beyond sad. After over a decade of work on spam detection, the fact that a system like this has been implemented is beyond reproach. The engineers or systems administrators who chose and implemented this system should be fired and Mayor Menino should think long and hard about his stance on free speech.
I have shown that a great number of sites are miscategorized by the filtering software and rules in place at Boston's public wi-fi pilot. This censorship is completely unacceptable and, although I am not a lawyer, I believe it constitutes illegal government control of speech or the press. I find it absolutely despicable that public funds are being used to provide this crippled service in the shadow of one of our nation's greatest landmarks representing our common ideals of liberty and justice. Furthermore, it is painfully ironic that this page will now most likely be inaccessible from the hotspot due to the presence of certain phrases such as "crack cocaine". Not only is the filtering software censoring speech in general but when one tries to speak out against the filtering software, that speech is also restricted.
Please do not take my opinion out of context, however. I think the government of the city of Boston should be applauded for researching and implementing free public wi-fi. I feel that universal, unfettered access to the internet is crucial if Boston as a city and America as a country are to remain scientific and technological powerhouses. I also do not condemn filtering outright. While I feel that information should be uncensored to the greatest extent possible, I do understand that concessions may need to be made for access to extreme sexual content, child pornography, or media involving violence or death in public places or on publically funded networks.
Oh, and when I tested the network, BoingBoing was no longer restricted.
ContentsSeth Finkelstein has some interesting comments on this censorware on his blog. One of the interesting and quite valid points he brings up is the fundamental difference between spam filtering and censorware. Seth says
I should note here that spam detection, though it may look similar, is actually a structurally different problem. A system which catches 95% of spam is very useful. But catching 95% of porn sites just means someone has to click a few more times. It's the difference between something you don't want to read, and something you do want to read.
This line of thinking makes a lot of sense if the goal of the censorware is to have absolutely no false negatives (naughty content that gets through). Of course, advocates of some shade of free speech demand no false positives (acceptable content that is blocked). With this specification, an engineer would be required to implement a 'perfect' AI. This is clearly not possible and will most likely never be possible to everyone's satisfaction (even humans can't do it).
So the question then becomes: where should the specification be relaxed? I would argue that for a government network, censorware should err on the side of false negatives and have no false positives (or very, very few). This specification requires an AI that is, in fact, nearly identical to spam detection. The idea here is not to deter people seeking 'inappropriate' content but to very laxly "protect the children" from accidental inappropriate content access. If the user is seeking inappropriate content, in my view, this is no different than using another public service to access inappropriate content.
In the end, content filtering does not belong at the network layer -- it belongs at each individual host. If parents are concerned about their children's internet habits, they should install censorware on their child's laptop. If censorware is needed at the network layer in some form for some reason, it should be minimally restrictive to productive work. This is the model of spam detection and filtering.
Currently the best way to voice your opinion about this issue is to email mayor@cityofboston.gov. I am awaiting a response from the same. Once I have determined a more appropriate address to which to email complaints, I'll post it here. If you have ideas or questions, let me know via the contact info at the bottom of this page.
ContentsLast updated: Tues Apr 24 1339h
Contact David Sheets (dsheets) at mit.edu with questions, comments, corrections, legal ramblings or information on ways to maintain American liberty.