When in Vienna speaking about Internet Freedoms in Azerbaijan

I thought, after a very long silence and absence I share with you my talking points from a conference I just attended in Vienna organized by the OSCE Austria Chairmanship, Council of Europe and the Chairmanship of the Czech Republic in the Council of Europe. 

Lights, camera, action minus the action and camera with an exception of live stream camera and few photographers. 

On the panel "Determining the unlawful nature of third-party content – what does it mean in practice?" I tried to bring in the country-specific example since other panelists included a Facebook rep [who was pretty good]; two academics [one of them was the amazing Ben Wagner who was our moderator] and a lawyer. 

Surely Azerbaijan representation to the OSCE did not like that Azerbaijan was as she said "singled out" and requested that delegation is told ahead of time when their country is going to be singled out on a panel. 

She [it is actually pretty cool to see that the rep. of our mission or at least the person who attends most of these OSCE events is a woman, so yay to that, though nay to what she was saying] also responded to a statement made by the EU rep who mentioned Azerbaijan as a country of concern for the EU where internet freedoms are on a sliding scale.

I was also disputed, of course, by two male reps from Azerbaijan [one of whom claimed we were "friends on Twitter" before trashing my intervention in the plenary]. In fact, it was the first time that I was accused of working "in Armenia" and therefore "not in a position to provide an account of what is happening in Azerbaijan". 

Hmm... I have been accused of being Armenian, of working for Armenia, and with Armenia and so on but being told I work from Armenia was pretty new to me. 

I guess, all I can say to that gentleman is that check your facts. Although I am pretty sure he knew perfectly well where I live. Oh well. It is what it is.

So, now that I have shared juicy highlights from our government mouthpiece reps, I can now proceed to share with you some of the juicy highlights from my talk. 

There were a few overarching questions that I tried to address: 

- Are intermediaries in Azerbaijan equipped to balance fundamental human rights, and freedoms and relevant social interests at stake? 

- What does it mean for the separation of powers?

- With such an extensive power over various areas of content regulation, what are the consequences for internet freedom and in the governance of Internet? 

* Azerbaijan is certainly a case where intermediaries are not equipped to balance fundamental rights and freedoms, there is a weak separation of powers and as a result, the consequences for internet freedom have been rather grim. And if we are to look at a rate and scale of rights abuse inside the country, there is clear evidence of the real intentions and something tells me, freedoms online or offline are not in the picture. As a result, just as other forms of freedoms, internet freedom has been on the decline in Azerbaijan. 

* Independence of the intermediaries is jeopardized if we look at the ownership, transparency, and accountability of both the government and the internet intermediaries. 

* The recently renamed and restructured Ministry of communications and high technologies holds significant shares in a handful of leading internet service providers and the government is authorized to instruct companies to cut internet service under very broadly defined circumstances, including war, emergency situations, and national disasters. 

* Wholesale access to international gateways is maintained by companies with close ties to the government. Only two operators in the country, AzerTelecom, and DeltaTelecom, are licensed to connect international IP traffic. DeltaTelecom also owns the internet backbone and is the main distributor of traffic to other ISPs in the country. It's monopoly also extends over data storage where its stores national information resources. 

* The consequences of holding such a monopoly of country’s internet traffic was reflected in November 2015, when the country experienced its first internet blackout, that was caused by the fire at Delta Telecom data center. Another blackout took place in 2016 although not as bad as the previous year. One of the explanations provided for the last year’s blackout was related to internet providers being unable to cover their debt to Delta Telecom. 

What about some basic infrastructure data you might just as well ask? 

Internet penetration in Azerbaijan according to recent ITU report is around 77%. However, the quality and monopolized telecom infrastructure remain the main obstacle for better internet access across the country. 

Mobile internet is doing slightly better [the key here is "slightly"]. While the average costs have dropped for internet service significantly since 2011, there is still income discrepancy when it comes to affordability. A World Bank report in 2015 concluded that the average household in Azerbaijan lower income bracket which makes 40% of the total population income, would need 21% of their monthly disposable income to afford the cheapest mobile broadband package and 28% of the cheapest fixed broadband package. 

Now bear in mind, these calculations were done before the two currency devaluations in Azerbaijan we saw last year. 

There are over 50 ISPs in the country, a little over half of the market (56%) controlled by the three state-owned companies. 

One state provider AzTelekomnet has ownership ties to the Ministry of Communication and High Technologies while one of its shareholders, include Azerfon, which has links to the president’s daughters. 

The country’s leading mobile service has been found to have connections with President Aliyev’s daughters too. 

The problem with the rest of the ISPs is that they are still controlled by the Ministry of Communication and High Technologies. The biggest concern is the authority national security services hold over telecom companies, requiring them to make available their equipment and special facilities. 

Mobile companies are known to surrender the content of users’ phone conversations without a court order. 

In 2014, Citizen Lab reported that Azerbaijan along with 20 other governments was suspected of using RCS (remote control system) spyware sold by the intelligence technology and surveillance company Hacking Team. This spyware allowed anyone with access to active a computer’s webcam, and microphone, and steal videos, documents, contact lists, emails and any other form of documentation on the computers. 

In August of 2015, the ministry of communication said it will require some social media and instant messaging services as a Facebook messenger, WhatsApp, skype, and Viber to obtain a licence in order to operate in Azerbaijan. For now, this has not been done although, discussions are already worrying. this year, one parliament member suggested users of popular social media networks in Azerbaijan register with IDs before posting any comment online to prevent “online harassment”. 

So whats next?

In 2014, UNESCO study on internet intermediaries’ relation to digital rights showed that the levels of transparency of ISPs on matters related to privacy and surveillance are very low. And in countries with questionable ownership, this relation becomes even riskier if not raises questions and alarm. 

In Azerbaijan, we are yet to see full transparency in this regard both from internet intermediaries and government. 

We are also yet to see introduction and adoption of specific regulations to ensure net neutrality. Most importantly, we are yet to see the government take necessary steps to end all forms of impunity for violence against online activists, journalists, and bloggers. 

Instead, what we are seeing is further shrinking space in a monopolized system. 

In March of this year, amendments were introduced to the law on “Information, informatization, and protection of information” (shortly law of information) and on “telecommunication”. Authorities said these were necessary amendments in order to ensure regulation of the internet. One parliament member said, “We are talking about banning the propaganda of violence, religious extremism, incitement to national, religious and racial hatred, the disclosure of state secrets, abuse and slander, breach of privacy and family life”. 

The changes call on the owners of the websites, to immediately remove the illegal content after receiving a warning from a relevant state institution. In case of content is not removed within 8 hours, the website owners can be taken to court. And in case the content is a threat to state and society, the site can be closed without a court order. These amendments were adopted pretty much as soon as they were introduced. 

And already in May we saw blocked access to some of the independent and opposition news platforms as well as opposition online TV channels based on a court order [as I was corrected by the Azerbaijan delegation rep. to the OSCE]. What the official delegate forgot to mention was that their owners were not given any notice. Nor were they provided with any court orders. 

So what does all of this talk mean? Well for once, it means, we should be worried. We should be worried about the extension of Azerbaijani government intervention on the Internet and things it can and willing to do to get in the way of any kind of dissent. 

You see, up until this year [2017], the government refrained from engaging in extensive blocking or filtering of online content, often relying on legal, economic and social pressures to discourage critical media coverage or political activism online and offline. 

In November of last year, we saw how a number of opposition and independent websites (which are currently blocked for access) reported access and loading speed issues. These websites included azadliq.info (website for an opposition newspaper); Voice of America, Meydan TV (Berlin-based dissident media platform); Azadliq Radio (Azerbaijan Service for Radio Free Europe) - all of these platforms experienced some form of artificially engineered bandwidth throttling and at least 6 cases of network congestion as well as deep packet inspection mechanisms in all incoming connections into the country. 

Also in November of last year, Azerbaijani parliament adopted two new legislative amendments which increase penalties for online defamation and insult. According to article 148 posting slander or insult on an internet information resource while using fake names, profiles, or accounts are punishable by imprisonment for up to one year. According to article 323 smearing or humiliating honor and dignity of the president in public statements, publicly shown products, or mass media is punishable by up to three years imprisonment or fines as high as 750EUR (1500AZN). 

In 2013, a local court ruled that social media was subject to libel laws as a form of mass media when a former bank employee was sentenced to one year of corrective labor for critiquing his former employer on Facebook. 

Defamation committed online falls under the criminal code, punishable by up to six months in prison. While the prosecutor and the ministry of the interior can initiate an investigation based on content posted on Facebook. 

This year [2017], during the hosting of the Islamic Solidarity Games, users in Azerbaijan reported problems using WhatsApp, Facebook messenger, and Skype. Authorities at first did not respond to reports, however, later explained the measures were taken by them, for the reasons of national security. 

This year we also saw blocking of international websites- since September 2017 access to OCCRP’s website remains blocked. Few words - Azerbaijan Laundromat, slush fund, corruption, bribery - might serve as explainers to reasons why this is happening. 

Recent legislative amendments and continued harassment of netizens offline for their activities online raises the stakes of possible throttling with more online platforms and internet as a whole. Not to forget that these legal changes come atop of reports of arrested, imprisoned and persecuted journalists and bloggers in Azerbaijan. 

In February of this year, a court in Baku sentenced blogger Mehman Huseynov on defamation charges making him first citizen journalist to be prosecuted openly for defamation. 

In a country where freedoms and all forms of dissent (online and offline) are heavily cracked down and punishable by bogus charges, hefty fines, and long jail times, it is difficult to talk about any kind of independence let alone independence of internet intermediaries.

Applause*

Thank you*

#netfreedom17

Internet Governance Forum meets again [updated]

It is that time of the year, when the annual Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meets again. This year, the event is hosted by Indonesian government and we are in Bali. I won't lie, concentrating in a beautiful place like this, surrounded by stunning beach hasn't been easy (especially when you are the only person dressed in business causal outfit while the rest of the guests walk around in their bikinis and other summer attire).  

This year's general theme is Enhancing Multistakeholder Cooperation for Growth and Sustainable Development. As it has been in the past years, the guests of the conference represent a diverse group- government representatives, civil society institutions, media, academia, human rights defenders, freedom of press advocates, activists, journalists, and bloggers.

I have only been to two IGFs but its enough to compare. Whether it was the internet, the venue or any other logistical matter, IGF2013 was by far, better organized than IGF2012 in Baku. There were shuttle buses waiting for guests at the airport not to mention a registration table set up at the arrival terminal. Of course, visas were issued upon arrival with no difficulties (this is not to say that there weren't visa issues- many participants, especially those traveling from Africa had difficulties to either obtain visa, or missed the forum, because they were managed to get it on time). 

The registration on the first day of the forum was also very quick. Perhaps it was because our delegation arrived early but still it did seem all throughout the day, that the registration line moved more or less quick.

Last year I attended IGF as an independent, this year however,  I am here as part of a kick ass Freedom House delegation and its been a privilege to be here with them (in fact, check out the Freedom on the Net reports published by the Freedom House this year).

Some highlights

Registration: The registration process was very efficient as I mentioned earlier.  One strange encounter was when I received my badge, it had my picture from last year IGF. I don't remember signing any papers letting IGF Secretariat keep my photo. As it turned out later during the day I wasn't the only one. Few more people who attended IGF last year in Azerbaijan were issued badges with photos from last year (as I discovered later, it wasn't only the photos from last year but also USB sticks too). 

Another bizarre experience was meeting Miss Internet Bali 2013- indeed, you didn't misread that. There was Miss Internet, who was the pageant winner (if you are fluent in Indonesian you can learn more about it here). According to an article in Jakarta post I found online the winner is the 19 year old Dewa Ayu Windu Sari Devi. She is a student at the Udayana University's School of Economics. Her extensive knowledge on Internet usage and services in Indonesia got her the prize. Devi is going to be the symbol of using the Internet "smartly and wisely" reported Jakarta post.

Wifi: the internet connection which was terrible last year (not to mention completely inaccessible during some of the sessions which focused on the human rights or freedom of expression issues in particular) was working just fine here (some participants had some difficulties connecting); each meeting room had a giant stand set up with a list of names of each sessions scheduled to take place in these rooms. The leaflet distributed upon registration with the IGF program provided the map of the venue with room names and numbers. 

I think the main reason why it was different this year was because for Azerbaijani government it wasn't so much about the quality of organizing but about simply having an event like this in order to add it to its list of "trophies" (there is an Azerbaijan booth here proudly distributing a report from last year's IGF, but proudly failing to mention anything about the human rights discussions or press freedom related criticism raised during the meetings). As an alternative you can read this report titled "False Freedom" that just came out. 

Issues discussed: Throughout the week some very interesting and important discussions were made-highlighting safety of bloggers, protecting rights of online activists, the role of governments in ensuring safety of users and free access of information and more (for the list of workshops and sessions see here). Surely there were sessions when internet policies of repressive governments was questioned and the lack of accountability measures- of holding governments responsible- highlighted. But whether there is going to be a solution to this any time soon is yet to be seen.

Wrapping up this one week long event, I am looking back and thinking of ways of taking back with me the knowledge (especially on online security) and contacts and hoping that meetings like IGF have more impact on certain governments and issues. But also get their control mechanism in order- because it is no doubt interesting that IGF is hosted in countries where human rights and freedom of the press records are not necessarily at their best. 

Defamation against one evil cat- the Internet

Turns out, there exists one very evil cat- the Internet. And its punishment is a new priority for Azerbaijani authorities. According [AZ] to the Director of social- political committee Ali Hasanov "Up until now, Internet has been like a homeless cat, overstepping every boundary, trespassing and no one could face it? Why?!"

"How is it possible that a journalist writing for a paper with a readership of some 10,000 people [probably referring to opposition papers, though I am pretty sure most of our pro- state papers don't have more readership either] is responsible for an article he/she writes but nobody is responsible for the information read on the Internet by 3million or 10million people. This cannot be possible, this is really "lawlesness" ["bespredel"]". 

Interesting- I wonder if Ali Hasanov intends to monitor and control most if not all of the cyberspace. Who knows?! What we do know is Azerbaijan's current population stands at approximately 9.4million. The total percentage of those even with an access varies depending on which source you look at- state vs. independent. The State Fund for the Development of IT under the Ministry of Communication and Information Technologies (MCIT) reports 48% of computer use and 65% of Internet use in the country in 2011. Now these are pretty high indicators when compared to the data provided by the Caucasus Research Resource Center's (CRRC) Caucasus Barometer. In their calculations, the center reports the following (for the year of 2012):

• - 59% of Azerbaijanis never used Internet;
• - 12% of Azerbaijanis didn't know what Internet was [as a result of lack of education and information there are few directions in the understanding of what Internet is, ranging from open access to online port and unethical behavior to unnecessary tool, to the evil of all evils and etc.- I should mention that the "innovative" understanding of Internet becomes worse in regions of the country];
• - 19% of Azerbaijanis used Internet once a week or more;
• - 7% of Azerbaijanis used Internet once a month or less;

Now back to Mr. Hasanov. So if we take these statistics into account, either Mr. Hasanov thinks Azerbaijan has bigger population, or knows something what we don't know at all. Which would explain the sudden and wide gap between the 3million and 10million people reference. And well, the access to and use of Internet is a whole different thing. Oh and then there is the gender factor- majority of Internet users in Azerbaijan are men. It is considered an act of shame to walk into an Internet cafe somewhere in a village as a girl- who will marry her then?! Because that is a bigger and more important question...

So, beware the dangerous, bad cat, Ali Hasanov is after you!

To read more about the Defamation Law, visit here.

 

Azerbaijan's syndrome of "positive developments" vs. negative reality

"Lets also look at the positive developments. Not everything is so bad in Azerbaijan". I have been hearing these words over and over again and especially more so lately. For obvious reasons, proponents of the Azerbaijani government dislike anyone who voices criticism when it comes to the situation with the human rights, freedom of press, social services, and pretty much everything that concerns average Azerbaijani citizens. And these are the magic words of "wisdom".

But lets be real here. What I am about to say kind of goes back to the post I wrote yesterday about what Roland Kobia, the head of the EU delegation to Azerbaijan said about the President and the upcoming elections- "he has done a good job". Yea, well, I hate to disappoint but he hasn't really. And here is why. 

Yesterday, I spoke at the European Parliament, on the present day of Azerbaijani political plurality, freedom of expression, women rights and more. While much of my focus was on the situation from a perspective of a blogger, and I chose to cover only some of the pressing issues at home. But it was really a question from the audience that prompted me to write this post and address this issue of "positive development". 

Lets start by looking at some numbers and indicators:

Internet 

- 73% of daily Internet users in Azerbaijan are male;

- 72% of Facebook users are male;

- 17% of women ever used the Internet

Women

- 16% of parliament members are women (all of them members of the ruling party; there are no opposition representatives in the parliament as of last parliamentary elections);

- 0% of women head ministries (minus the Committee for Family Women and Children Issues);

- 14% of judges are female;

- 26% are members of the local governments

And this is in a country that likes to bring up the facts about its history and the place of women. Like a right to vote that was granted to women in Azerbaijan in 1918.

Economy and social condition (see this report for further statistical data by the European Commission)

- 151.9AZN is average pension;

- much of economic growth is generated through oil and gas sector;

- the share of agriculture went from 15.9% in 2000 to 6.4% in 2009;

- indicators for manufacturing, and non- oil activities all dropped in the last several years;

- increased public expenditure is not directed toward human development especially if you look at heatlh and social care services not to mention education (and the rate of corruption, especially in education);

- if in 2003, expenses for social security stood at 18.2%, according to available statistics of 2009, it dropped to 9.7%;

- similarly education expenses dropped from 23.7% to 11.6% in 2009 and etc.;

- while in absolute terms, social expenses have increased, in relative terms they have decreased;

- the employment rate is low for age groups 15- 19; 20- 24; 

I wont link to the international reports about the situation with regard to the human rights and the freedom of press, or Azerbaijan's yet another "amazing" performance on the corruption index of the Transparency International. This was just to put things into a context especially for those who say things in Azerbaijan are not that bad and there is progress and development.

When are you people going to understand that your audience 90% of the time knows the real facts and that its completely inappropriate (not to say inadequate, unrealistic, and delusional) to speak of 2003 elections as democratic and that such remarks only make you look like fools. 

 

And so, when I am told or asked to speak of the positive as well, my only response is that only once we resolve and deal with some of our pressing issues as we should be I will speak about the positive. We, an Azerbaijani nation, of some 9.2 million inhabitants, deserve a future that is not mocked or criticized. Our government is accountable for acting within the principles of our constitution and our laws. Our political leaders who consider themselves mighty Gods need to look beyond their noses and narrow- minded vision. The future is not about Shakiras, Rhiannas, Flame Towers, Eurovision concert halls and what not. The future is what we do today. And you, and your cronies around you have done nothing positive for the people.

So lets cut to the chaise, and instead of talking positive, deal with the negative...

IGF2012 through Storify

Internet Governance Forum without Internet

Yes, perhaps this is the first thing that comes to mind when I look back at the last few days of IGF2012 held in Baku, Azerbaijan. You would think this of all things would be organized and provided but no. Frankly, not surprised, after hearing from local staff that "we didn't consider Azerbaijani translation for the opening session" (yes, the OPENING session of the conference) or "there wont be any internet today" when I inquired about not working WiFi. 

But thats just logistical impressions. Putting aside all the incredible people I have met not to mention old faces that I have missed while being away, there has been some other highlights that I would love to share here. Like what was said by a representative from the GONGO Azer Hesret "not everything is bad in Azerbaijan, not everything is black in Azerbaijan" during a Joint Open Forum: EBU, CoE, UNESCO, OSCE: Safety of online media actors after Eynulla Fatullayev made a short speech listing many issues in Azerbaijan that do not necessarily make it look good. The strange thing is, pretty much all statements made during the forum by someone from the government or pro- government institution all focused on making counter statements rather than ask questions and address issues with all the representatives. I guess, no one (from the government, pro- government) really understood the point of this forum apart from proving something to the international audience who is already well aware of the reality on the ground.

And then there were some great quotes from work sessions I attended:

Freedom first before we start talking about regulation, Lee Hebberd 

We recognize the power of the Internet, its the oxygen for many people, Lee Hebberd

There is Democracy 2.0 but there is also Autocracy 2.0, Emin Milli

Governments have to make changes themselves, they know the rules, but often they don't respect them

Freedom of speech should be as normal as eating and drinking, EU Parliament representative

Whatever rights exist and guaranteed offline, should be guaranteed online, Lionel Veer

So these are my impressions so far in brief. Will write more once I have more time to reflect. 

"Azerbaijan: in the shadow of dictatorship"

Came across this report by accident when searching for news on Azerbaijan online. Excellent job capturing Azerbaijan and its present. 

You can access the original report here.

Azerbaijan: in the shadow of dictatorship

'From Facebook to the streets of Baku'

The following is an excerpt from my recent article written for Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso. 

Are the winds of the "Arab Spring" reaching Baku after all? A number of peaceful protests directly calling for the authorities to resign have stared in Azerbaijan, with the Internet playing a key role. The demonstrations have so far been met with repression, intimidation and new arrests. 

Earlier in March, a group of young and internet- savvy activists created a Facebook event page calling it "March 11th- Great People's Dat". In a short time, the group managed to gather thousands of supporters (more than 4,000) not only among independent activists and students but also among opposition party members. The Facebook page called on the Azerbaijani people to unite in demanding a change in the current regime. It was a loosely- organized structure with no leaders guiding the campaign and it did not have any clearly- defined set of actions. It served as a platform for young and independent activists, students, and opposition members, to discuss and share their ideas. It was the first nonviolent form of resistance in recent years that directly called on the authorities to resign[...]

You can read the rest of the article here.

And the winner is ...

On November 27 2010, Vugar Salamli, received an inaugural USOSCE Ambassadorial Award for Freedom of Expression over the Internet. It was presented by USOSCE Ambassador Ian Kelly. The video below tells the story. Congratulations Vugar!

To a year full of freedom of expression!

http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/
f/freedom_of_expression_gifts.asp

Inspired by an article I read a while back but bookmarked and re- read again I thought to write this post wishing everyone who blogs, tweets, talks, writes, to have a censorship free year when a word said or written is accepted, listened to, or acknowledged rather than dismissed, silenced or never given the chance to be spoken. 

The author, Bernard Kouchner writes of the power of the Internet and what it means especially in authoritarian and oppressive countries where Internet becomes a useful tool in the hands of people who shed light on everything that goes on in their respective countries.

And so this is more of a dedication post to all those out there who write fearless of what might happen to them for actually writing or saying things they say and write. Keep up the work and don't give up! 

It is not much, but I thought I share some very inspirational quotes I came across while reading up on what has been said about freedom of expression by many different thinkers, scholars, writers over the course of our history. 

We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard.  Voltaire,Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.  If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth:  if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.  John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

A free press can be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom a press will never be anything but bad.  Albert Camus

What progress we are making.  In the Middle Ages they would have burned me.  Now they are content with burning my books.  Sigmund Freud, 1933

http://www.nycgovparks.org/
sub_things_to_do/
attractions/public_art/
exhibits/freedom_expression.html

Happy New Year everyone! Maybe one day will have a monument like this one (picture on the right) erected in Baku dedicated to something more than just a highest flag pole (while someone else will erect a replica 6 months or a year later, few meters higher), fanciest fountains (when there are still places across the country that don't have running water) and other multiple "money waste" projects. Or maybe it will be suggested by someone from one of the  regional executive committees for the President's next year birthdays instead of a cake? Who knows... Azerbaijan is a country full of surprises!

New Circumvention Tool Usage Report

Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University just launched a new report on the usage of tools to circumvent internet filtering. The research center, representing a network of fellows, entrepreneurs,  lawyers and students, works to "identify and engage with the challenges and opportunities of cyberspace".

Below is a brief summary of the report:

Circumvention tools allow users to bypass Internet filtering to access content otherwise blocked by governments, workplaces, schools, or even the blocked sites themselves. There are a number of different types of these tools: blocking-resistant tools, simple web proxies, virtual private network (VPN) services, and open HTTP/SOCKS proxies.

In this report, the authors use a variety of methods to evaluate the usage of the first three of these four types of tools to test two hypotheses. First, even though much of the media attention on circumvention tools has been given to a handful of tools, they find that these tools represent only a small portion of overall circumvention usage and that the attention paid to these tools has been disproportionate to their usage, especially when compared to the more widely used simple web proxies. Second, even when including the more widely-used simple web proxies, the authors find that overall usage of circumvention tools is still very small in proportion to the number of Internet users in countries with substantial national Internet filtering.

A must read for all those interested.