It’s not yet clear whether Beijing delayed the order because PC makers were having trouble supplying all new machines with the program or in reaction to the international outcry over it. In a letter to Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao last week, an international group of business associations that includes most of the world’s major technology companies, called upon China to abandon the plan, which it said “raises serious concerns for us and seems to run counter to China’s important goal of becoming a vibrant and dynamic information-based society.”

“According to complaints from many residents, Google’s English language search engine has spread large amounts of vulgar content that is lascivious and pornographic, seriously violating China’s relevant laws and regulations,” foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang told a regularly scheduled news conference. “I’d like to stress that google.com, as an Internet enterprise providing services in China, should earnestly abide by Chinese laws and regulations.”

The disruption of Google (GOOG) services follows a widely criticized mandate from Beijing requiring all computers sold in the country to include Green Dam, an application designed to prevent citizens from viewing “offensive” content, which in the Chinese government’s case includes all manner of material. From a report by the Open Net Initiative, an academic consortium dedicated to the study of censorship and surveillance:

The version of the Green Dam software that we tested, when operating under its default settings, is far more intrusive than any other content control software we have reviewed. Not only does it block access to a wide range of web sites based on keywords and image processing, including porn, gaming, gay content, religious sites and political themes, it actively monitors individual computer behavior, such that a wide range of programs including word processing and email can be suddenly terminated if content algorithm detects inappropriate speech. The program installs components deep into the kernel of the computer operating system in order to enable this application layer monitoring. The operation of the software is highly unpredictable and disrupts computer activity far beyond the blocking of websites.

…The deeply intrusive nature of the software opens up several possibilities for use other than filtering material harmful to minors. With minor changes introduced through the auto-update feature, the architecture could be used for monitoring personal communications and Internet browsing behavior. Log files are currently recorded locally on the machine, including events and keywords that trigger filtering. The auto-update feature can used to change the scope and targeting of filtering without any notification to users.

That’s a good question to ask in light of FBI Director Robert Mueller’s call for “omnibus” Internet surveillance. In testimony to the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives on Wednesday, Mueller suggested legislation be passed that would give the bureau the right to monitor the Internet at the backbone level.

Said Mueller: “I think legislation has to be developed that balances on one hand, the privacy rights of the individual who are receiving the information, but on the other hand, given the technology, the necessity of having some omnibus search capability utilizing filters that would identify the illegal activity as it comes through and give us the ability to preempt that illegal activity where it comes through a choke point as opposed to the point where it is diffuse on the Internet.”

Shades of Carnivore, right? The “choke point” to which Mueller alludes is presumably the National Security Agency, which has been probing the data passing through the Internet backbone like some Orwellian spinal surgeon. Which is a little frightening. Because the packets of data being passed back and forth over the Internet don’t come prelabeled. There’s no “ILLEGAL ACTIVITY” designation. It’s just activity, and Mueller would apparently like permission to survey it all.

While respecting the privacy rights of the individual, of course. Thoughtful.

Why would anyone agree to such a thing? For their personal enrichment, of course. “I don’t think you can estimate the educational benefit of these things. … A lot of this is basically letting people know that what they’re doing is not OK,” Sherman reasoned. “And for a lot of people that makes a difference in their behavior.”

A bit of stretch, even for Sherman, as Ars Technica aptly notes: “Filtering as a concept is ultimately doomed by encryption unless the ‘filters’ simply block entire protocols altogether, and talking about the consumer benefits of installing RIAA-approved filtering software is just another sign of how ludicrous the entire debate has become.”

According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry’s 2008 Digital Music Report (PDF), global digital music sales rose to $2.9 billion in 2007, up from $2.1 billion in 2006.

Now that 40% increase isn’t nearly the doubling of digital sales we saw in 2006, but it’s not insubstantial, either. Especially when one considers that digital sales grew to account for 15% of the world’s music market, up from 10% in 2006. That means that almost a sixth of music sales already come through digital channels. This despite five or so years of the recording industry’s Keystone Kops approach to the digital music revolution.

All things considered, things aren’t going too poorly–even if the growth of digital music sales hasn’t yet offset declines in physical music. That being the case, it’s difficult not to look askance at the IFPI’s calls for governments and Internet service providers to take a hard line against file-sharing.

“Copyright theft has been allowed to run rampant on [ISP] networks under the guise of technological advancement,” IFPI Chairman and CEO John Kennedy wrote in the report. “Some estimates say no less than 80% of all Internet traffic comprises copyright-infringing files on peer-to-peer networks.”–80%? Does the IFPI suffer from the same math disability as the MPAA?–”ISPs have largely stood by, allowing a massive devaluation of copyrighted music. This in turn–and despite all the positives about our digital growth–has prompted a crisis in recorded music that has wide implications for the whole digital marketplace and all those businesses to whom music is an important ingredient. … Today, however, a sea-change is happening. The whole music sector, governments and even some ISPs themselves, are beginning to accept that the carriers of digital content must play a responsible role in curbing the systemic piracy that is threatening the future of all digital commerce. After years of discussing and debating, I am convinced it is no longer a question of whether the ISPs act–the question is when and how.”

And the answer? Five bucks and a copy of the latest Britney Spears album says it’s network-level filtering.

Understandably embarassed by Wood’s achievement, the Australian government began distributing a second filter. Wood cracked that one in 40 minutes. This time the government had only rhetoric to offer in response. “Sadly, just as a seatbelt will never prevent every fatal car crash, as the government has always maintained, no filter is foolproof,” said Communications Minister Helen Coonan. “But a computer with a filter is infinitely safer than one without.”

“While filtering and monitoring technologies help parents to screen out offensive content and to monitor their child’s online activities, the use of these technologies is far from universal and may not be foolproof in keeping kids away from adult material,” Inouye said. “In that context, we must evaluate our current efforts to combat child pornography and consider what further measures may be needed to stop the spread of such illegal material over high-speed broadband connections.”

“Given the increasingly important role of the Internet in education and commerce, it differs from other media like TV and cable because parents cannot prevent their children from using the Internet altogether,” Stevens said. “The headlines continue to tell us of children who are victimized online. While the issues are difficult, I believe Congress has an important role to play to ensure that the protections available in other parts of our society find their way to the Internet.”

Indeed, with the sophisticated filtering techniques available today, it’s a simple matter for repressive regimes to, say, disrupt access to opposition media at strategic moments during and after a presidential election, or knock out YouTube. “In the early days, countries used relatively crude blocking mechanisms at the national backbone level, or imposed restrictions upon ISPs that were applied in uneven ways,” Deibert told Technology Review. “Now we see first and foremost that many countries are using commercial filtering technologies, most of which are made by U.S. companies. That’s providing them with a finer-grain level of service.”