What Do You Think About The Policy of Blocking https?

The government has recently implemented a policy to block illegal sites that can be accessed through ‘https’. In the past, their were victims of illegal websites such as hidden cameras and retaliatory videos. As a result, the government decided to block all illegal overseas sites. But in the process of shutting them down, it hacked some of the packets of all people. Hacking personal packets allows the government to track individuals' locations, record Internet searches, and wiretap them. Simply put, to block illegal sites, the government needs to check and block all people's search records. There can be a lot of opinions about whether the government's blocking of https is necessary for victims, or if is it used as a tool to suppress freedom of expression and censor citizens' lives like in China. So ‘What do you think about the policy of blocking https?' Let's take a look at the CWNU students' responses to the question.

Agreement

* Countries that are open to pornography also block sites with hidden camera videos. I think that South Korea, which has many hidden cameras, should of course be censored.

* If there is a guarantee that hacking is used only to block https sites, I agree. Because it is to better regulate what is already illegal, regulation is reasonable.

Opposition

* Even basic authority seems to be violated. I, who am still a college student, also feel that the government censors and monitors the public. There are various opinions, but I strongly disagree with the prevention policy.

* The policy is ineffective. SNI packet inspection can be bypassed by a browser that supports encrypted SNI (Encrypted SNI, ESNI). In fact, the detour has been open to the Web site since KT blocked it, so people who use illegal sites are still using them without any restrictions.

* In the end, the subject of censorship is bound to be the people. ESNI functions are supported only by Firefox, and this can be said to be the target of SNI packet hacking, with the exception of 1.3 percent of people using Firefox browsers. Rather, ESNI users are still able to use illegal sites. The remaining 99 percent of people's access records are being collected and used for internet censorship.

* This is the beginning of Internet censorship. When the anti-terrorism bill is in effect, they oppose it, and then they are cleverly turning the frame around and trying to censor it. It's so gross!

* There are plenty of detours. The government's alleged purpose of blocking illegal sites is ineffective. The Korea Communications Commission said it would block even the bypass, but it is a dangerous policy and there is plenty of room for abuse. It claims not to be the case in this administration, but it is totally unacceptable because there is room for abuse in the next administration, and even in the next after that.

▲ Opposition or Agreement percent of 'The Policy of Blocking https.'

Seo Seong-Il, reporter  qlvmfl99@naver.com

<저작권자 © The Campus Journal, 무단 전재 및 재배포 금지>