• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Harvard Berkman Center - 2010 Circumvention Tool Usage Report

sharon sanders

Editor-in-Chief & President
2010 Circumvention Tool Usage Report

Published October 14, 2010


Authored by Hal Roberts, Ethan Zuckerman, Jillian York, Rob Faris, John Palfrey
DOWNLOAD PDF <hr class="clear"> Introduction
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. But every type of circumvention tool provides the same basic functionality ? proxying user connections to provide access to otherwise blocked sites. In the following report, we 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 ? notably Freegate, Ultrasurf, Tor, and Hotspot Shield ? we 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, we 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.

Key Findings

  • We estimate that no more than 3% of Internet users in countries that engage in substantial filtering use circumvention tools. The actual number is likely considerably less.
  • Many more users use simple web proxies than use either blocking-resistant tools or VPN services. Of the 11 tools with at least 250,000 unique monthly monthly users, 3 are blocking-resistant tools, 1 is a VPN service, and 7 are simple web proxies.
  • When users search for proxy and circumvention related terms in filtering countries, they overwhelmingly search for generic proxy terms like ?proxy,? and those terms overwhelmingly return either simple web proxies or sites that list simple web proxies and HTTP/SOCKS proxies, not more sophisticated tools.



http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications/2010/Circumvention_Tool_Usage
 
Back
Top Bottom