FYI:  The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) also feeds Blue Coat’s coffers.

1st
Yes, filters have many proposed valid uses: “Just keep us safe! If, we loose access to some sites or pages, that’s OK, Just keep us safe.” (This is what gave us security theatre in airports and all kinds of buildings and functions – that also doesn’t work in the same ways!) The problems are two fold: on one side they don’t work by letting a lot of bad sites thru; on the other they block a lot of important useful legitimate sites.  And who decides which sites are OK to let thru?

Also, Blue Coat could choose to not do business with or court oppressive regimes or organizations.  Or Congress and/or international bodies could make it illegal or otherwise prohibitive to do so.

2nd
So. My recent story about BlueCoat
While attending a workshop in a western National Park, the Park Service presenter tried to show us something germane to our panel discussion from a web site.  She typed an appropriate and absolutely safe search term into the ubiquitous Google search – projected for all 350+ people to see – and we were greeted by a warning banner page (I caught a photo on my phone):

“The web site you are trying to reach has been blocked per DOI/Bureau Policy.
The website w3.google… is currently categorized as: Adult;Pornography;Images
Your IP address, if requested for troubleshooting, is -nnn.nnn.nnn.nnn
This page was generated by Blue Coat on -date & time
Submit a Site for Re-Categorization by Blue Coat -link
The World Wide Web is a dynamic and fast-Changing place. If you believe the web page you are trying to reach is not categorized correctly, you may request that the site be re-categorized by Blue Coat, the vendor responsible for categorizing the web sites, by filling out the form located at the link above. The vendor will review… [blah, blah] and may update if appropriate.  [yada, yada]”

“…If you believe the web site is categorized correctly and you have a legitimate business need to access it, please submit a request for exception to your Enterprise Security Officer….”

First things that strike me are that not only is the U.S. government patronizing Blue Coat to do DOI’s web proxy/filtering/nanny dirty work – and thereby propping up their profits and ability to go after unsavory clients too – but, by submitting requests for recategorization and/or review, U.S. government employees are doing part of Blue Coat’s work for them by finding flaws and lacunae in their filters, lists and categorization algorithms.

And google is blocked?! classified as adult/porn?!  You should have heard the scoffs and scorn.

Another panel member commented on Blue Coat’s and it’s parent company’s and affiliates’ profiting from providing this same technology to oppressive regimes and organizations worldwide who use it for the purposes already stated.  By the time we got back on tack many were ready to … do something … but, what?

Finally…
What are concrete constructive things we can do about this and it’s ilk?  How can we hold investment funds and the institutions that fuel them accountable?

Do teachers and other employees have a choice or a real voice?  Most employees of companies and governments, as well as citizens behind Blue Coat’s walls certainly don’t.

U.S. tax dollars at work – how much does DOI pay Blue Coat?
DOI, with a $10 – 20 billion annual budget, over 70,000 employees…

Blue Coat claims over 75 million users across “more than 15,000 customers worldwide, including 88% of the Fortune Global 500.”

Why do we – U.S. citizens, Canadian citizens, clients of these Fortune Global 500 – let this go on?  And why does Canada?

Can the Canadian Government not forbid the use of any public monies to support such a thing? Well, they can, and we can, but it hasn’t happened yet.

BTW The real reason most investment in Blue Coat was sold is that it’s now owned by the private equity firm mentioned (Thomas Bravo) and is also, therefore, now much more opaque and much less accountable.

As long as users are fully aware of any surveillance in place, and what their expectations with regard to privacy should be, and the surveillance is imposed in a place the user isn’t constrained to being (like a workplace they get to leave at the end of the day, not like a city or country)

The issue isn’t with the technology, it’s with the use of it.

None of this excuses BlueCoat’s dealing with regimes that can reasonably be expected to use the technology coercively (if indeed they have been doing so – you can buy used ones when their original owners surplus them).  You could even argue that a company whose product has the potential to be used malicious like this has an obligation to take active measures to look for signs it is being (checks for software updates coming from Syria, etc.)

Anyway the only real reason I responed was that Rick Mercer made an awsome fake commercial for “Ethical Funds”. I’ll let someone else YouTube it…. :)

Edit: Though I believe it was on the TV show “This Hour has 22 Minutes” and not the “Mercer Report”.

I’m going to go home and shower, but all the soap in the world isn’t going to make me feel less dirty.

Horrible.

One thing we were absolutely clear on was that management or HR couldn’t just ask what a user was doing online.

Bluecoat in Syria shows up at around 0:40:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwMr8Xl7JMQ

“While legitimate for some purposes, these capabilities can also be used for mass censorship and surveillance of a country’s Internet users.”

*Can* also be used. Substantial non-infringing uses are a good excuse for p2p networks, but not for proxy servers? Are you changing sides in the coming war on general purpose computing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQpDpRE13mI