Dr Shafizan, a communication lecturer, noted that Malaysia’s decision to implement DNS redirection as a way of blocking access to certain websites is part of the country’s goal to exert its “internet sovereignty.” This term describes how governments are attempting to challenge the Western ideals of a free and open internet by imposing specific rules and regulations that align with their cultural and societal values. She highlighted that DNS redirection could be seen as a less obvious form of censorship, as users would receive a loading error instead of a censorship notice when trying to access blocked websites, infringing on their freedom of speech and information.
In Indonesia, a similar method is employed to block websites, particularly those related to political dissent or deemed inappropriate. By intercepting user queries and redirecting them to a block notification page or returning no result, the content becomes inaccessible. This disruption in access to information is a common goal shared by many countries, despite slight variations in technical methods used. DNS rerouting, along with other techniques, can lead to widespread disruption of legitimate online services, such as blocking major platforms like YouTube and GitHub in Indonesia and India. This interception of DNS queries can also raise privacy concerns as ISPs and governments may log users’ browsing activity and websites they attempt to access, posing security risks from potential exposure to malicious sites.
Some internet users in Malaysia, like Mr Khairi Zulfadhli, expressed disappointment in the government’s handling of the DNS redirection plan, viewing it as a hasty decision lacking proper guidelines, stakeholder engagement, and discussion. The move, abandoned after facing backlash and disruptions, was criticized as another “short cut policy.” Mr Khairi’s observations were based on attending an MCMC engagement session held on Sep 9 to address perceptions and gather expert feedback on the DNS issue following the policy U-turn. This lack of transparency and communication in decision-making processes eroded trust in the government’s efforts to make the internet safer, with attempts to blame ISPs for implementation issues adding to frustrations.
While various countries may employ different methods, the goal remains the same – to control and restrict access to information online. Governments utilize DNS redirection and other techniques to filter and block content, managing the information available to citizens and shaping public opinion. This can be seen as a violation of freedom of speech and information from a liberal democratic perspective, as the government dictates what the public can or cannot access. The integrity of DNS can be compromised through redirection, leading to privacy concerns and security risks from exposure to malicious sites designed to steal personal data or spread malware. This breakdown in trust between users and the internet infrastructure highlights the importance of transparency and communication in implementing policies affecting online freedom and security.
In light of the challenges faced in implementing DNS redirection and similar measures, the government stance on internet sovereignty and control continues to be a topic of debate and criticism. Dr Shafizan emphasized the impact on freedom of speech and information rights, while Mr Numan highlighted the privacy and security risks associated with DNS tampering. The reliance on ISPs to carry out government orders without clear guidelines or stakeholder engagement only adds to the distrust and frustration among internet users and experts. Moving forward, there is a need for more transparency, dialogue, and consideration of public concerns in shaping internet policies and regulations to strike a balance between security, privacy, access to information, and freedom of expression.
