91–100 of 126 posts
Last month there were some articles on the English Wikipedia about ISIS-Erdoğan (I don't care true or not). Then they have blocked all Wikipedia (all languages). Because they were unable to block those individual pages.
How do governments censor only parts of Wikipedia when the site is encrypted? How do they know which pages you are browsing if they can't see the URL?
That's just it; they can't! When you visit Wikipedia over HTTPS, the only thing actually visible in plain text is wikipedia.org, and that's only if your browser is using Server Name Identification (SNI). Since the rest of the request, including the URL is hidden, governments and other malicious agents between you and the server cannot actually see what pages you're requesting directly. They can only see that you are…
It won't last, at least for China. Their government is working on a clone of wiki, scheduled for 2018[0]. Once that's done they'll likely completely ban the original. Wikipedia publishes database dumps every couple of days[1]. So it shouldn't be that expensive for smaller governments to create and host their own censored mirror. You'd maintain a list of banned and censored articles, then pull from wikipedia once a mo…
It won't last, at least for China. Their government is working on a clone of wiki, scheduled for 2018[0]. Once that's done they'll likely completely ban the original. Wikipedia publishes database dumps every couple of days[1]. So it shouldn't be that expensive for smaller governments to create and host their own censored mirror. You'd maintain a list of banned and censored articles, then pull from wikipedia once a mo…
wut? everyone in China already use Baike instead of Wikipedia, nobody really understand why they are making another website
I just wonder what UK government has against German metal bands
Not, strictly speaking, the UK government. The Internet Watch Foundation, a non-governmental organisation, placed the article/image in question on its blacklist, a list which most major UK ISPs use (notable exceptions at the time were the UK universities' and military networks IIRC). AFAIK, whether or not the image is actually illegal under English law is somewhat unclear (the definition of "indecent" is rather wooll…
It won't last, at least for China. Their government is working on a clone of wiki, scheduled for 2018[0]. Once that's done they'll likely completely ban the original. Wikipedia publishes database dumps every couple of days[1]. So it shouldn't be that expensive for smaller governments to create and host their own censored mirror. You'd maintain a list of banned and censored articles, then pull from wikipedia once a mo…
wut? everyone in China already use Baike instead of Wikipedia, nobody really understand why they are making another website
It won't last, at least for China. Their government is working on a clone of wiki, scheduled for 2018[0]. Once that's done they'll likely completely ban the original. Wikipedia publishes database dumps every couple of days[1]. So it shouldn't be that expensive for smaller governments to create and host their own censored mirror. You'd maintain a list of banned and censored articles, then pull from wikipedia once a mo…
wut? everyone in China already use Baike instead of Wikipedia, nobody really understand why they are making another website
It won't last, at least for China. Their government is working on a clone of wiki, scheduled for 2018[0]. Once that's done they'll likely completely ban the original. Wikipedia publishes database dumps every couple of days[1]. So it shouldn't be that expensive for smaller governments to create and host their own censored mirror. You'd maintain a list of banned and censored articles, then pull from wikipedia once a mo…
Russia will follow soon. They already heavily editing Russian Wiki for "inconvenient" information.
If you see that somebody spins the Russian Wiki, you should definitely try to make it right to the extent suggested by Wikipedia norms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is feasible, assuming the government is willing to pay for the hosting.
As well as forge an SSL certificate for *.wikipedia.org. Last time I checked, Wikipedia had HSTS enabled. So trying to forge their DNS without also forging their SSL certificate would be equivalent to total censorship for anybody who has previously visited Wikipedia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely not. The response to censorship should not be to make things easier for the censor. Anyway, the idea is unworkable as the user's client could simply lie about what URI it's going to send after the encrypted connection is setup.
> Absolutely not. The response to censorship should not be to make things easier for the censor. It's not about making things easier for the censor. It's already easy. It's about making life easier for people who have to live with censorship (pretty much the entire world, I guess?). > Anyway, the idea is unworkable as the user's client could simply lie about what URI it's going to send after the encrypted connection…