See more Internet censorship articles on AOD.

Powered by
TTSReader
Share this page on
Article provided by Wikipedia


( => ( => ( => Internet censorship [pageid] => 11056386 ) =>

Internet censorship is the "control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the "Internet enacted by regulators, or on their own initiative. Individuals and organizations may engage in "self-censorship for moral, religious, or business reasons, to conform to societal norms, due to intimidation, or out of fear of legal or other consequences.[1]

The extent of Internet censorship varies on a country-to-country basis. While most democratic countries have moderate Internet censorship, other countries go as far as to limit the access of information such as news and suppress discussion among citizens.[1] Internet censorship also occurs in response to or in anticipation of events such as elections, protests, and riots. An example is the increased censorship due to the events of the "Arab Spring. Other areas of censorship include copyrights, defamation, harassment, and obscene material.

Support for and opposition to Internet censorship also varies. In a 2012 Internet Society survey 71% of respondents agreed that "censorship should exist in some form on the Internet". In the same survey 83% agreed that "access to the Internet should be considered a basic human right" and 86% agreed that ""freedom of expression should be guaranteed on the Internet". According to "GlobalWebIndex, over 400 million people use "virtual private networks to circumvent censorship or for increased level of privacy.[2]

Contents

Overview[edit]

Many of the changes associated with Internet censorship are similar to those for offline censorship of more traditional media such as newspapers, magazines, books, music, radio, television, and film. One difference is that national borders are more permeable online: residents of a country that bans certain information can find it on websites hosted outside the country. Thus censors must work to prevent access to information even though they lack physical or legal control over the websites themselves. This in turn requires the use of technical censorship methods that are unique to the Internet, such as site blocking and content filtering.[3]

Views about the feasibility and effectiveness of Internet censorship have evolved in parallel with the development of the Internet and censorship technologies:

Blocking and filtering can be based on relatively static "blacklists or be determined more dynamically based on a real-time examination of the information being exchanged. Blacklists may be produced manually or automatically and are often not available to non-customers of the blocking software. Blocking or filtering can be done at a centralized national level, at a decentralized sub-national level, or at an institutional level, for example in libraries, universities or "Internet cafes.[1] Blocking and filtering may also vary within a country across different ISPs.[8] Countries may filter sensitive content on an ongoing basis and/or introduce temporary filtering during key time periods such as elections. In some cases the censoring authorities may surreptitiously block content to mislead the public into believing that censorship has not been applied. This is achieved by returning a fake ""Not Found" error message when an attempt is made to access a blocked website.[9]

Unless the censor has total control over all Internet-connected computers, such as in "North Korea (who employ an "intranet that only privileged citizens can access), or "Cuba, total censorship of information is very difficult or impossible to achieve due to the underlying distributed technology of the Internet. "Pseudonymity and "data havens (such as "Freenet) protect "free speech using technologies that guarantee material cannot be removed and prevents the identification of authors. Technologically savvy users can often find ways to access blocked content. Nevertheless, blocking remains an effective means of limiting access to sensitive information for most users when censors, such as those in "China, are able to devote significant resources to building and maintaining a comprehensive censorship system.[3]

The term ""splinternet" is sometimes used to describe the effects of national "firewalls. The verb ""rivercrab" colloquially refers to censorship of the Internet, particularly in Asia.[10]

Content suppression methods[edit]

Technical censorship[edit]

Approaches[edit]

Internet content is subject to technical censorship methods, including:[1][3]

Over- and under-blocking[edit]

Technical censorship techniques are subject to both over- and under-blocking since it is often impossible to always block exactly the targeted content without blocking other permissible material or allowing some access to targeted material and so providing more or less protection than desired.[3] An example is that automatic censorship against sexual words in matter for children, set to block the word ""cunt", has been known to block the "Lincolnshire placename "Scunthorpe.[19] Another example is blocking an IP-address of a server that hosts multiple websites, which prevents access to all of the websites rather than just those that contain content deemed offensive.[20]

According to a report produced in 1997 by the gay rights group "GLAAD, many 1990s-era Internet censorship software products prevent access to non-pornographic "LGBT-related material.[21]

Use of commercial filtering software[edit]

""
""
Screenshot of "Websense blocking Facebook in an organisation where it has been configured to block a category named "Personals and Dating"

Writing in 2009 "Ronald Deibert, professor of political science at the "University of Toronto and co-founder and one of the principal investigators of the "OpenNet Initiative, and, writing in 2011, Evgeny Morzov, a visiting scholar at "Stanford University and an Op-Ed contributor to the "New York Times, explain that companies in the United States, Finland, France, Germany, Britain, Canada, and South Africa are in part responsible for the increasing sophistication of online content filtering worldwide. While the off-the-shelf "filtering software sold by Internet security companies are primarily marketed to businesses and individuals seeking to protect themselves and their employees and families, they are also used by governments to block what they consider sensitive content.[22][23]

Among the most popular filtering software programs is "SmartFilter by "Secure Computing in California, which was bought by "McAfee in 2008. SmartFilter has been used by "Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, "Sudan, the "UAE, Kuwait, "Bahrain, Iran, and "Oman, as well as the United States and the UK.[24] "Myanmar and "Yemen have used filtering software from "Websense. The "Canadian-made commercial filter Netsweeper[25] is used in "Qatar, the "UAE, and "Yemen.[26]

On 12 March 2013 in a Special report on Internet Surveillance, Reporters Without Borders named five "Corporate Enemies of the Internet": "Amesys (France), "Blue Coat Systems (U.S.), "Gamma (UK and Germany), "Hacking Team (Italy), and Trovicor (Germany). The companies sell products that are liable to be used by governments to violate human rights and freedom of information. RWB said that the list is not exhaustive and will be expanded in the coming months.[27]

In a U.S. lawsuit filed in May 2011, "Cisco Systems is accused of helping the "Chinese Government build a firewall, known widely as the "Golden Shield, to censor the Internet and keep tabs on dissidents. Cisco said it had made nothing special for China. Cisco is also accused of aiding the Chinese government in monitoring and apprehending members of the banned "Falun Gong group.[28]

Many filtering programs allow blocking to be configured based on dozens of categories and sub-categories such as these from Websense: "abortion" (pro-life, pro-choice), "adult material" (adult content, lingerie and swimsuit, nudity, sex, sex education), "advocacy groups" (sites that promote change or reform in public policy, public opinion, social practice, economic activities, and relationships), "drugs" (abused drugs, marijuana, prescribed medications, supplements and unregulated compounds), "religion" (non-traditional religions occult and folklore, traditional religions), ....[26] The blocking categories used by the filtering programs may contain errors leading to the unintended blocking of websites.[22] The blocking of "DailyMotion in early 2007 by Tunisian authorities was, according to the "OpenNet Initiative, due to Secure Computing wrongly categorizing DailyMotion as pornography for its SmartFilter filtering software. It was initially thought that Tunisia had blocked DailyMotion due to satirical videos about human rights violations in Tunisia, but after Secure Computing corrected the mistake access to DailyMotion was gradually restored in Tunisia.[29]

Organizations such as the "Global Network Initiative, the "Electronic Frontier Foundation, "Amnesty International, and the "American Civil Liberties Union have successfully lobbied some vendors such as "Websense to make changes to their software, to refrain from doing business with repressive governments, and to educate schools who have inadvertently reconfigured their filtering software too strictly.[30][31][32] Nevertheless, regulations and accountability related to the use of commercial filters and services are often non-existent, and there is relatively little oversight from civil society or other independent groups. Vendors often consider information about what sites and content is blocked valuable intellectual property that is not made available outside the company, sometimes not even to the organizations purchasing the filters. Thus by relying upon out-of-the-box filtering systems, the detailed task of deciding what is or is not acceptable speech may be outsourced to the commercial vendors.[26]

Non-technical censorship[edit]

Internet content is also subject to censorship methods similar to those used with more traditional media. For example:[3]

Major web portal official statements on site and content removal[edit]

Most major web service operators reserve to themselves broad rights to remove or pre-screen content, sometimes without giving a specific list or only a vague general list of the reasons allowing the removal. The phrases "at our sole discretion", "without prior notice", and "for other reasons" are common in Terms of Service agreements.

Circumvention[edit]

Internet censorship circumvention is the processes used by technologically savvy Internet users to bypass the technical aspects of Internet filtering and gain access to otherwise censored material. Circumvention is an inherent problem for those wishing to censor the Internet because filtering and blocking do not remove content from the Internet, but instead block access to it. Therefore, as long as there is at least one publicly accessible uncensored system, it will often be possible to gain access to otherwise censored material. However circumvention may not be possible by non tech-savvy users, so blocking and filtering remain effective means of censoring the Internet access of large numbers of users.[3]

Different techniques and resources are used to bypass Internet censorship, including "proxy websites, "virtual private networks, "sneakernets, and circumvention software tools. Solutions have differing ease of use, speed, security, and risks. Most, however, rely on gaining access to an Internet connection that is not subject to filtering, often in a different jurisdiction not subject to the same censorship laws. According to "GlobalWebIndex, over 400 million people use virtual private networks to circumvent censorship or for increased level of privacy.[2] The majority of circumvention techniques are not suitable for day to day use.[43]

There are risks to using circumvention software or other methods to bypass Internet censorship. In some countries individuals that gain access to otherwise restricted content may be violating the law and if caught can be expelled, fired, jailed, or subject to other punishments and loss of access.[1][44]

In June 2011 the New York Times reported that the U.S. is engaged in a "global effort to deploy 'shadow' Internet and mobile phone systems that dissidents can use to undermine repressive governments that seek to silence them by censoring or shutting down telecommunications networks."[45]

Common targets[edit]

There are several motives or rationales for Internet filtering: politics and power, social norms and morals, and security concerns. Protecting existing economic interests is an additional emergent motive for Internet filtering. In addition, networking tools and applications that allow the sharing of information related to these motives are themselves subjected to filtering and blocking. And while there is considerable variation from country to country, the blocking of web sites in a local language is roughly twice that of web sites available only in English or other international languages.[9]

Politics and power[edit]

Censorship directed at political opposition to the ruling government is common in authoritarian and repressive regimes. Some countries block web sites related to religion and minority groups, often when these movements represent a threat to the ruling regimes.[9]

Examples include:

Social norms and morals[edit]

Social filtering is censorship of topics that are held to be antithetical to accepted societal norms.[9] In particular censorship of "child pornography and to "protect children enjoys very widespread public support and such content is subject to censorship and other restrictions in most countries.

Examples include:

The internet is a resource that exposes sexuality and sexual behaviors. In Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Minors from Sex (2002), Judith Levine argues that censoring women and children from the Internet doesn't benefit them in any way but instead results in ignorance.[50]

Security concerns[edit]

Many organizations implement filtering as part of a "defense in depth strategy to protect their environments from "malware,[51] and to protect their reputations in the event of their networks being used, for example, to carry out sexual harassment.

Internet filtering related to threats to "national security that targets the Web sites of "insurgents, "extremists, and terrorists often enjoys wide public support.[9]

Examples include:

Protection of existing economic interests and copyright[edit]

The protection of existing economic interests is sometimes the motivation for blocking new Internet services such as low-cost telephone services that use "Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). These services can reduce the customer base of telecommunications companies, many of which enjoy entrenched monopoly positions and some of which are government sponsored or controlled.[9]

"Anti-copyright activists "Christian Engström, "Rick Falkvinge and "Oscar Swartz have alleged that censorship of child pornography is being used as a pretext by copyright lobby organizations to get politicians to implement similar site blocking legislation against copyright-related piracy.[55][56]

Examples include:

According to "Google chairman "Eric Schmidt, "government plans to block access to illicit filesharing websites could set a "disastrous precedent" for freedom of speech" and also expressed that Google would "fight attempts to restrict access to sites such as the Pirate Bay."[57]

Network tools[edit]

Blocking the intermediate tools and applications of the Internet that can be used to assist users in accessing and sharing sensitive material is common in many countries.[9]

Examples include:

Information about individuals[edit]

The right to be forgotten is a concept that has been discussed and put into practice in the "European Union. In May 2014, the "European Court of Justice ruled against "Google in "Costeja, a case brought by a Spanish man who requested the removal of a link to a digitized 1998 article in La Vanguardia newspaper about an auction for his foreclosed home, for a debt that he had subsequently paid.[64] He initially attempted to have the article removed by complaining to Spain's data protection agency—Agencia Española de Protección de Datos—which rejected the claim on the grounds that it was lawful and accurate, but accepted a complaint against Google and asked Google to remove the results.[65] Google sued in Spain and the lawsuit was transferred to the European Court of Justice. The court ruled in Costeja that search engines are responsible for the content they point to and thus, Google was required to comply with EU "data privacy laws.[66][67] It began compliance on 30 May 2014 during which it received 12,000 requests to have personal details removed from its search engine.[68]

"Index on Censorship claimed that ""Costeja ruling ... allows individuals to complain to search engines about information they do not like with no legal oversight. This is akin to marching into a library and forcing it to pulp books. Although the ruling is intended for private individuals it opens the door to anyone who wants to whitewash their personal history....The Court’s decision is a retrograde move that misunderstands the role and responsibility of search engines and the wider internet. It should send chills down the spine of everyone in the European Union who believes in the crucial importance of free expression and freedom of information."[69]

Around the world[edit]

""
""
"Internet censorship and surveillance by country (2014)[70][71][72][73]

As more people in more places begin using the Internet for important activities, there is an increase in online censorship, using increasingly sophisticated techniques. The motives, scope, and effectiveness of Internet censorship vary widely from country to country. The countries engaged in state-mandated filtering are clustered in three main regions of the world: east Asia, central Asia, and the "Middle East/North Africa.

Countries in other regions also practice certain forms of filtering. In the "United States state-mandated Internet filtering occurs on some computers in libraries and "K-12 schools. Content related to "Nazism or "Holocaust denial is blocked in "France and "Germany. "Child pornography and "hate speech are blocked in many countries throughout the world.[74] In fact, many countries throughout the world, including some democracies with long traditions of strong support for "freedom of expression and "freedom of the press, are engaged in some amount of online censorship, often with substantial public support.[75]

Internet censorship in "China is among the most stringent in the world. The government blocks Web sites that discuss the "Dalai Lama, the 1989 crackdown on "Tiananmen Square protesters, the banned spiritual practice "Falun Gong, as well as many general Internet sites.[76] The government requires Internet search firms and state media to censor issues deemed officially “sensitive,” and blocks access to foreign websites including "Facebook, "Twitter, and "YouTube.[77] According to a recent study,[78] censorship in China is used to muzzle those outside government who attempt to spur the creation of crowds for any reason—in opposition to, in support of, or unrelated to the government. The government allows the Chinese people to say whatever they like about the state, its leaders, or their policies, because talk about any subject unconnected to collective action is not censored. The value that Chinese leaders find in allowing and then measuring criticism by hundreds of millions of Chinese people creates actionable information for them and, as a result, also for academic scholars and public policy analysts.

There are international bodies that oppose internet censorship, for example "Internet censorship is open to challenge at the World Trade Organization (WTO) as it can restrict trade in online services, a forthcoming study argues".[79]

Reports, ratings, and trends[edit]

""
""
World map showing the status of YouTube blocking

Detailed country by country information on Internet censorship is provided by the "OpenNet Initiative, "Reporters Without Borders, "Freedom House, and in the "U.S. State Department "Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor's Human Rights Reports.[80] The ratings produced by several of these organizations are summarized in the "Internet censorship by country and the "Censorship by country articles.

OpenNet Initiative reports[edit]

Through 2010 the OpenNet Initiative had documented Internet filtering by governments in over forty countries worldwide.[26] The level of filtering in 26 countries in 2007 and in 25 countries in 2009 was classified in the political, social, and security areas. Of the 41 separate countries classified, seven were found to show no evidence of filtering in all three areas ("Egypt, "France, "Germany, "India, "Ukraine, "United Kingdom, and "United States), while one was found to engage in pervasive filtering in all three areas ("China), 13 were found to engage in pervasive filtering in one or more areas, and 34 were found to engage in some level of filtering in one or more areas. Of the 10 countries classified in both 2007 and 2009, one reduced its level of filtering ("Pakistan), five increased their level of filtering ("Azerbaijan, "Belarus, "Kazakhstan, "South Korea, and "Uzbekistan), and four maintained the same level of filtering ("China, "Iran, "Myanmar, and "Tajikistan).[3][71]

Freedom on the Net reports[edit]

In the 2011 edition of Freedom House's report Freedom on the Net, of the 37 countries surveyed, 8 were rated as "free" (22%), 18 as "partly free" (49%), and 11 as "not free" (30%).[81] In their 2009 report, of the 15 countries surveyed, 4 were rated as "free" (27%), 7 as "partly free" (47%), and 4 as "not free" (27%).[82] And of the 15 countries surveyed in both 2009 and 2011, 5 were seen to be moving in the direction of more network freedom (33%), 9 moved toward less freedom (60%), and one was unchanged (7%).

The 2014 report assessed 65 countries and reported that 36 countries experienced a negative trajectory in Internet freedom since the previous year, with the most significant declines in "Russia, "Turkey and "Ukraine. According to the report, few countries demonstrated any gains in Internet freedom, and the improvements that were recorded reflected less vigorous application of existing controls rather than new steps taken by governments to actively increase Internet freedom. The year's largest improvement was recorded in "India, where restrictions to content and access were relaxed from what had been imposed in 2013 to stifle rioting in the northeastern states. Notable improvement was also recorded in "Brazil, where lawmakers approved the bill "Marco Civil da Internet, which contains significant provisions governing net neutrality and safeguarding privacy protection.[83]

Reporters Without Borders (RWB)[edit]

RWB "Internet enemies" and "countries under surveillance" lists[edit]

In 2006, Reporters without Borders (Reporters sans frontières, RSF), a Paris-based international "non-governmental organization that advocates "freedom of the press, started publishing a list of "Enemies of the Internet".[84] The organization classifies a country as an enemy of the internet because "all of these countries mark themselves out not just for their capacity to censor news and information online but also for their almost systematic repression of Internet users."[85] In 2007 a second list of countries "Under Surveillance" (originally "Under Watch") was added.[86]

When the "Enemies of the Internet" list was introduced in 2006, it listed 13 countries. From 2006 to 2012 the number of countries listed fell to 10 and then rose to 12. The list was not updated in 2013. In 2014 the list grew to 19 with an increased emphasis on "surveillance in addition to censorship. The list was not updated in 2015.

When the "Countries under surveillance" list was introduced in 2008, it listed 10 countries. Between 2008 and 2012 the number of countries listed grew to 16 and then fell to 11. The list was not updated in 2013, 2014, or 2015.

RWB Special report on Internet Surveillance[edit]

On 12 March 2013, Reporters Without Borders published a Special report on Internet Surveillance.[27] The report includes two new lists:

The five "State Enemies of the Internet" named in March 2013 are: "Bahrain, "China, "Iran, "Syria, and "Vietnam.[27]

The five "Corporate Enemies of the Internet" named in March 2013 are: "Amesys (France), "Blue Coat Systems (U.S.), "Gamma International (UK and Germany), "Hacking Team (Italy), and Trovicor (Germany).[27]

BBC World Service global public opinion poll[edit]

A poll of 27,973 adults in 26 countries, including 14,306 Internet users,[87] was conducted for the "BBC World Service by the international polling firm "GlobeScan using telephone and in-person interviews between 30 November 2009 and 7 February 2010. GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller felt, overall, that the poll showed that:

Despite worries about privacy and fraud, people around the world see access to the internet as their fundamental right. They think the web is a force for good, and most don’t want governments to regulate it.[88]

Findings from the poll include:[88]

Internet Society's Global Internet User Survey[edit]

In July and August 2012 the "Internet Society conducted online interviews of more than 10,000 Internet users in 20 countries. Some of the results relevant to Internet censorship are summarized below.[90]

Question No. of Responses Responses[91]
Access to the Internet should be considered a basic human right. 10,789 83% somewhat or strongly agree,
14% somewhat or strongly disagree,
  3% don't know
Freedom of expression should be guaranteed on the Internet. 10,789 86% somewhat or strongly agree,
11% somewhat or strongly disagree,
  2% don't know
The Internet should be governed in some form to protect the community from harm. 10,789 82% somewhat or strongly agree,
15% somewhat or strongly disagree,
  3% don't know / not applicable
Censorship should exist in some form on the Internet. 10,789 71% somewhat or strongly agree,
24% somewhat or strongly disagree,
  5% don't know / not applicable
Each individual country has the right to govern the Internet the way they see fit. 10,789 67% somewhat or strongly agree,
29% somewhat or strongly disagree,
  4% don't know /not applicable
The Internet does more to help society than it does to hurt it. 10,789 83% somewhat or strongly agree,
13% somewhat or strongly disagree,
  4% don't know / not applicable
How often do you read the privacy policies of websites or services that you share personal information with? 10,789 16% all the time,
31% most of the time,
41% sometimes,
12% never
When you are logged in to a service or application do you use privacy protections? 10,789 27% all the time,
36% most of the time,
29% sometimes,
  9% never
Do you use “anonymization” services, for example, the “anonymize” feature in your web browser, specialized software like Tor, third - party redirection services like duckduckgo.com? 10,789 16% yes,
38% no,
43% don't know / not aware of these types of services,
  3% would like to use them but I am not able to
Increased government control of the Internet would put limits on the content I can access. 9,717 77% somewhat or strongly agree,
18% somewhat or strongly disagree,
  4% don't know / not applicable
Increased government control of the Internet would limit my freedom of expression. 9,717 74% somewhat or strongly agree,
23% somewhat or strongly disagree,
  4% don't know / not applicable
Increased government control of the Internet would improve the content on the Internet. 9,717 49% somewhat or strongly agree,
44% somewhat or strongly disagree,
  7% don't know / not applicable
Increased government control of the Internet would make the Internet safe for everyone to use. 9,717 58% somewhat or strongly agree,
35% somewhat or strongly disagree,
  7% don't know / not applicable
Increased government control of the Internet would have no effect. 9,717 31% somewhat or strongly agree,
56% somewhat or strongly disagree,
14% don't know / not applicable
To what degree would you accept increased control or monitoring of the Internet if you gained increased safety? 10,789 61% a lot or somewhat,
23% not very much or not at all

Transparency of filtering or blocking activities[edit]

Among the countries that filter or block online content, few openly admit to or fully disclose their filtering and blocking activities. States are frequently opaque and/or deceptive about the blocking of access to political information.[8] For example:

Arab Spring[edit]

See also: "Internet Censorship in the Arab Spring, "2011 Egyptian Internet shutdown, and "Free speech in the media during the Libyan civil war

During the "Arab Spring of 2011, media "jihad (media struggle) was extensive. Internet and mobile technologies, particularly social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, played and are playing important new and unique roles in organizing and spreading the protests and making them visible to the rest of the world. An activist in Egypt tweeted, “we use Facebook to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world”.[93]

This successful use of digital media in turn led to increased censorship including the complete loss of Internet access for periods of time in Egypt[13][14][94] and "Libya in 2011.[16][95] In Syria, the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA), an organization that operates with at least tacit support of the government, claims responsibility for defacing or otherwise compromising scores of websites that it contends spread news hostile to the Syrian government. SEA disseminates denial of service (DoS) software designed to target media websites including those of "Al Jazeera, "BBC News, Syrian satellite broadcaster "Orient TV, and Dubai-based "Al Arabiya TV.[96]

In response to the greater freedom of expression brought about by the Arab Spring revolutions in countries that were previously subject to very strict censorship, in March 2011, Reporters Without Borders moved "Tunisia and "Egypt from its "Internet enemies" list to its list of countries "under surveillance"[97] and in 2012 dropped "Libya from the list entirely.[73] At the same time, there were warnings that Internet censorship might increase in other countries following the events of the Arab Spring.[98][99] However, in 2013, Libyan communication company "LTT blocked the pornographic websites.[100] It even blocked the family-filtered videos of ordinary websites like "Dailymotion.["citation needed]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

""Cc.logo.circle.svg This article incorporates licensed material from the "OpenNet Initiative web site.[101]

  1. ^ a b c d e "Schmidt, Eric E.; "Cohen, Jared (11 March 2014). "The Future of Internet Freedom". "New York Times. Retrieved 11 March 2014. 
  2. ^ a b Marcello Mari. How Facebook's Tor service could encourage a more open web. "The Guardian. Friday 5 December 2014.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Freedom of connection, freedom of expression: the changing legal and regulatory ecology shaping the Internet, Dutton, March 2003
  4. ^ "First Nation in Cyberspace", Philip Elmer-Dewitt, Time, 6 December 1993, No.49
  5. ^ "Cerf sees government control of Internet failing", Pedro Fonseca, Reuters, 14 November 2007
  6. ^ 2007 Circumvention Landscape Report: Methods, Uses, and Tools, Hal Roberts, Ethan Zuckerman, and John Palfrey, Beckman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, March 2009
  7. ^ "Tharoor calls for caution in freedom of expression". 
  8. ^ a b ed. Chadwick, Andrew (2009). Routledge handbook of Internet politics. Routledge international handbooks. Taylor and Francis. p. 332. "ISBN "978-0-415-42914-6. 
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h "Measuring Global Internet Filtering", Robert Faris and Nart Villeneuve, in Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering Archived 26 February 2009 at the "Wayback Machine., Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain, eds., MIT Press (Cambridge), 2008
  10. ^ Lao Wai (21 October 2007). "I've Been Rivercrabbed!". An American In Beijing. Retrieved 28 May 2011. 
  11. ^ For an example, see "Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall
  12. ^ "Topics - ZDNet". ZDNet. Retrieved 5 April 2015. 
  13. ^ a b c d Cowie, James. "Egypt Leaves the Internet". Renesys. Archived from the original on 28 January 2011. Retrieved 28 January 2011. 
  14. ^ a b Kirk, Jeremy (28 January 2011). "With Wired Internet Locked, Egypt Looks to the Sky". IDG News/"PC World. Archived from the original on 28 January 2011. Retrieved 28 January 2011. 
  15. ^ "Pulling the Plug: A Technical Review of the Internet Shutdown in Burma". opennet.net. Retrieved 5 April 2015. 
  16. ^ a b "Journalists confined to their hotels, Internet disconnected". Journalists confined to their hotels, Internet disconnected. Reporters Without Borders. Retrieved 21 March 2011. 
  17. ^ Google excluding controversial sites, Declan McCullagh, CNET News, 23 October 2002, 8:55 pm PDT. Retrieved 22 April 2007 00:40 UTC
  18. ^ "The Emergence of Open and Organized Pro-Government Cyber Attacks in the Middle East: The Case of the Syrian Electronic Army", Helmi Noman, OpenNet Initiative, May 2011
  19. ^ Declan McCullagh (23 April 2004). "Google's chastity belt too tight". 
  20. ^ "India blocks Yahoo! Groups", Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 24 September 2003
  21. ^ "Access Denied". GLAAD. Archived from the original on 17 January 1999. Retrieved 5 May 2012. 
  22. ^ a b ed. Chadwick, Andrew (2009). Routledge handbook of Internet politics. Routledge international handbooks. Taylor and Francis. pp. 330–331. "ISBN "978-0-415-42914-6. 
  23. ^ "Political Repression 2.0", Evgeny Morzov, Op-Ed Contributor to the New York Times, 1 September 2011
  24. ^ Glanville, Jo (17 November 2008). "The big business of net censorship". The Guardian. London. 
  25. ^ "Internet content filtering", Netsweeper, Inc. web site. Retrieved 1 September 2011
  26. ^ a b c d "West Censoring East: The Use of Western Technologies by Middle East Censors, 2010–2011", Helmi Noman and Jillian C. York, OpenNet Initiative, March 2011
  27. ^ a b c d The Enemies of the Internet Special Edition : Surveillance, Reporters Without Borders, 12 March 2013
  28. ^ "Group Says It Has New Evidence of Cisco’s Misdeeds in China", Somini Sengupta, New York Times, 2 September 2011
  29. ^ ed. Chadwick, Andrew (2009). Routledge handbook of Internet politics. Routledge international handbooks. Taylor and Francis. pp. 323–324. "ISBN "978-0-415-42914-6. 
  30. ^ The Rhode Island affiliate, American Civil Liberties Union (April 2005). "R.I. ACLU releases report on "troubling" internet censorship in public libraries". Archived from the original on 5 December 2008.  full report Archived 11 May 2008 at the "Wayback Machine.
  31. ^ Sutton, Maira; Timm, Trevor (7 November 2011). "This Week in Internet Censorship Egypt Imprisons Alaa, Other Pro-democracy Bloggers". "Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 27 March 2012. 
  32. ^ China: Controls tighten as Internet activism grows Archived 25 September 2012 at the "Wayback Machine. ""Cisco Systems, "Microsoft, "Nortel Networks, Websense and "Sun Microsystems", citing Amnesty International: People’s Republic of China: State Control of the Internet in China, ASA, 17/007/2002, November 2002.
  33. ^ "In Mexico, Social Media Become a Battleground in the Drug War" Archived 25 November 2012 at "WebCite, J. David Goodman, The Lede, New York Times, 15 September 2011
  34. ^ a b Provision of information in this fashion is in keeping with principles of freedom of expression, as long as it is done transparently and does not overwhelm alternative sources of information.
  35. ^ "China’s growing army of paid internet commentators" Archived 13 October 2011 at the "Wayback Machine., Sarah Cook and Maggie Shum, Freedom House, 11 October 2011
  36. ^ "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities", Facebook, 26 April 2011. Retrieved 18 August 2011
  37. ^ "Google Terms of Service", Policies & Principles, Google, Inc.. Retrieved 1 April 2012
  38. ^ "Why does Google remove sites from the Google index?", Google Webmaster Tools Help. Retrieved 22 April 2007 00:43 UTC
  39. ^ "Terms of Service", Twitter, 1 June 2011. Retrieved 18 August 2011
  40. ^ "Terms of Service", YouTube, 9 June 2010. Retrieved 18 August 2011
  41. ^ ""Deletion policy", Wikipedia. Retrieved 18 August 2011
  42. ^ "Yahoo! Terms of Service", Yahoo!, 24 November 2008. Retrieved 18 August 2011
  43. ^ Roberts, H., Zuckerman, E., & Palfrey, J. (2009, March). 2007 Circumvention Landscape Report: Methods, Uses, and Tools (Rep.). Retrieved March 18, 2016, from The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University.
  44. ^ "Risks", Internet censorship wiki. Retrieved 2 September 2011
  45. ^ "U.S. Underwrites Internet Detour Around Censors", James Glanz and John Markoff, New York Times, 12 June 2011
  46. ^ "Blog censorship gains support". CNET. Retrieved 5 April 2015. 
  47. ^ a b c d e f g h i j "WHAT IT TAKES TO FORGIVE A KILLER". "Time Magazine. 2015-11-23. p. 36. 
  48. ^ "Erowid Interview" (PDF). Retrieved 26 May 2011. 
  49. ^ "Latest Stories From News.Com.Au". 
  50. ^ Heywood, ed. by Leslie L. (2006). A - Z (1. publ. ed.). Westport, Conn. [u.a.]: Greenwood Press. p. 306. "ISBN "0313331340. 
  51. ^ "Why Malware Filtering Is Necessary in the Web Gateway". "Gartner. 26 August 2008. Retrieved 14 April 2012. 
  52. ^ "Collateral Blocking: Filtering by South Korean Government of Pro-North Korean Websites", OpenNet Initiative: Bulletin 009, 31 January 2005
  53. ^ "Australia secretly censors Wikileaks press release and Danish Internet censorship list". wikileaks.org. 16 March 2009. Retrieved 5 April 2015. 
  54. ^ "Federal authorities take on Anonymous hackers", Associated Press in the Washington Post, 12 September 2011
  55. ^ "Rick Falkvinge (9 July 2011). "The Copyright Lobby Absolutely Loves Child Pornography". "TorrentFreak. Retrieved 26 July 2012. 
  56. ^ "Christian Engström (27 April 2010). "IFPI's child porn strategy". Retrieved 26 July 2012. 
  57. ^ Josh Halliday. "theguardian.com. Google boss: anti-piracy laws would be disaster for free speech. Published on Wednesday 18 May 2011.
  58. ^ "YouTube Blocked in...Thailand". Mashable. 11 March 2007. Retrieved 5 April 2015. 
  59. ^ "China struggles to tame microblogging masses", Agence France-Presse (AFP) in The Independent, 8 September 2011
  60. ^ "Sex, Social Mores, and Keyword Filtering: Microsoft Bing in the "Arabian Countries", Helmi Noman, OpenNet Initiative, March 2010
  61. ^ "Google Search & Cache Filtering Behind China's Great Firewall", OpenNet Initiative: Bulletin 006, 3 September 2004
  62. ^ "Empirical Analysis of Google SafeSearch", Benjamin Edelman, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School, 13 April 2003
  63. ^ "China blocking Google". BBC News. 2 September 2002. Retrieved 5 May 2010. 
  64. ^ Julia Powles (15 May 2014). "What we can salvage from 'right to be forgotten' ruling". Wired.co.uk. Retrieved 16 May 2014. 
  65. ^ Solon, Olivia (13 May 2014). "People have the right to be forgotten, rules EU court". Wired.co.uk. Conde Nast Digital. Retrieved 13 May 2014. 
  66. ^ "EU court backs 'right to be forgotten' in Google case". BBC News. 13 May 2014. Retrieved 13 May 2014. 
  67. ^ "EU court rules Google must tweak search results in test of "right to be forgotten"". CBS News. 13 May 2014. Retrieved 13 May 2014. 
  68. ^ "Removal of Google personal information could become work intensive". Europe News.Net. Retrieved 2 June 2014. 
  69. ^ "Index blasts EU court ruling on "right to be forgotten"". indexoncensorship.org. Retrieved 5 April 2015. 
  70. ^ OpenNet Initiative "Summarized global Internet filtering data spreadsheet", 8 November 2011 and "Country Profiles", the OpenNet Initiative is a collaborative partnership of the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto; the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University; and the SecDev Group, Ottawa
  71. ^ a b Due to legal concerns the "OpenNet Initiative does not check for filtering of "child pornography and because their classifications focus on technical filtering, they do not include other types of censorship.
  72. ^ a b "Internet Enemies", Enemies of the Internet 2014: Entities at the heart of censorship and surveillance, Reporters Without Borders (Paris), 11 March 2014. Retrieved 24 June 2014.
  73. ^ a b c d Internet Enemies, Reporters Without Borders (Paris), 12 March 2012
  74. ^ ""Introduction"" (PDF). Archived from the original on 29 June 2012. Retrieved 14 September 2011.  , Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey, in Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering Archived 26 February 2009 at the "Wayback Machine., Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain, eds., MIT Press (Cambridge), 2008
  75. ^ "Internet Filtering: The Politics and Mechanisms of Control", Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey, in Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering Archived 26 February 2009 at the "Wayback Machine., Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain, eds., MIT Press (Cambridge), 2008
  76. ^ "Internet Censorship in China". The New York Times. December 28, 2012. Retrieved 9 March 2013. 
  77. ^ Human Rights Watch. "World Report 2012: China". Retrieved 9 March 2013. 
  78. ^ G. King et al. (22 August 2014). "Reverse-engineering censorship in China: Randomized experimentation and participant observation". Science. 345 (6199): 891. "doi:10.1126/science.1251722. "PMID 25146296. 
  79. ^ WTO could challenge Internet censorship Anonymous. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom 59(1) (Jan 2010): 6.
  80. ^ "2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices", Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State, 8 April 2011
  81. ^ Freedom on the Net 2011, Freedom House. Retrieved 1 September 2011
  82. ^ Freedom on the Net 2009, Freedom House. Retrieved 1 September 2011
  83. ^ Freedom on the Net 2014, Freedom House. Retrieved 14 December 2014
  84. ^ List of the 13 Internet enemies Reporters Without Borders (Paris), 11 July 2006.
  85. ^ "Internet enemies", Reporters Without Borders (Paris), 12 March 2009.
  86. ^ Web 2.0 versus Control 2.0. Reporters Without Borders (Paris), 18 March 2010.
  87. ^ For the BBC poll Internet users are those who used the Internet within the previous six months.
  88. ^ a b "BBC Internet Poll: Detailed Findings", BBC World Service, 8 March 2010
  89. ^ "Internet access is 'a fundamental right'", BBC News, 8 March 2010
  90. ^ "Global Internet User Survey 2012", Internet Society, 20 November 2012
  91. ^ Note: Responses may not add up to 100% due to rounding in the original report.
  92. ^ ed. Chadwick, Andrew (2009). Routledge handbook of Internet politics. Routledge international handbooks. Taylor and Francis. p. 331. "ISBN "978-0-415-42914-6. 
  93. ^ "The Arab Spring’s Cascading Effects" Archived 27 February 2011 at the "Wayback Machine., Philip N. Howard, Miller-McCune, 23 February 2011
  94. ^ "Middle East Political Protest And Internet Traffic Report: February 12–20, 2011", Craig Labovitz, Arbor Networks
  95. ^ Dainotti; et al. (2011). "Analysis of Country-wide Internet Outages Caused by Censorship" (PDF). ACM. 
  96. ^ "Syrian Electronic Army: Disruptive Attacks and Hyped Targets", OpenNet Initiative, 25 June 2011
  97. ^ "Countries under surveillance: Egypt", Reporters Without Borders, March 2011
  98. ^ "Censorship fallout from the Arab Spring?" Archived 26 January 2012 at the "Wayback Machine., Juliette Terzieff, The Future 500, 29 June 2011
  99. ^ "Insight: Social media – a political tool for good or evil?", Peter Apps, Reuters Canada, 28 September 2011
  100. ^ LTT Blocks Pornographic Websites
  101. ^ ""CC-BY-icon-80x15.png Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license, see the lower right corner of pages at the OpenNet Initiative web site

External links[edit]

) )