Global Internet Censorship On the Rise

An anonymous reader writes "State-led internet censorship is on the rise around the world. According to a study conducted by the Open Net Initiative and reported by the BBC, some 25 of 41 countries surveyed were filtering at least some content. Skype and Google Maps were two of the most often-censored sites, according to the article. 'The filtering had three primary rationales, according to the report: politics and power, security concerns and social norms. The report said: 'In a growing number of states around the world, internet filtering has huge implications for how connected citizens will be to the events unfolding around them, to their own cultures, and to other cultures and shared knowledge around the world.'"

Comments

Good a place as any to throw this one out...

[Rude Turnip]

The ideas set forth in the First Amendment of the US Constitution should ideally apply to all citizens of the world. Discuss.

Re:Good a place as any to throw this one out...

[umStefa]

The ideas of the US Constitution (not just the 4th amendment) where based upon the philosophical ideals of Europe at the time. These ideas have largely been accepted by the WESTERN world as the ideal standard of living (with some notable exceptions such as the right to bear arms).

It is important to note that the social norms of many cultures are not compatible with western ideals. This causes conflict when the west tries to use its power (economic and military) to force its ideals on the rest of the world. The irony is that one of the most powerful ideas expressed by the US constitution that has been adopted by the western world is the concept of freedom of choice (association, religion, expression are all choices we make). By forcing western values on the rest of the world we are in effect violating them ourselves by not giving other cultures a choice.

Re:Good a place as any to throw this one out...

[Tuoqui]

Why not? After all the US is enforcing their laws on other countries' citizens already, why should they not also gain the benefits from the US Constitution as well?

Re:Good a place as any to throw this one out...

[TheNicestGuy]

The ideas set forth in the First Amendment of the US Constitution should ideally apply to all citizens of the world.

Wow, and you didn't even mean that ironically. There's your poster-child for American arrogance right there.

There is no need for any part of the U.S. constitution to be applied to citizens of the world when we've had a perfectly good Universal Declaration of Human Rights since 1948. Article 19 reads:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

That's pretty unambiguous. Unfortunately, like most things the U.N. does, it's toothless and not taken very seriously even by its member nations. But it's still a visible, noble standard for any nation with a conscience to hold itself to.

O Rly

[Aqua_boy17]

The filtering had three primary rationales, according to the report: politics and power, security concerns and social norms.

If Skype is one of the most frequently filtered, then it's also about money. To me, this implies the telco's are able to exert pressure on governments as well as ISP's to either limit or block Skype traffic outright.

I always said it would become a weapon of tyranny

[gelfling]

It's axiomatic that the web will eventually become a weapon of tyranny. Through selective censorship and the general sense that it's so unreliable from an accuracy perspective and therefore easy to manipulate and spin, the web will be used for agendas and the geek era will be over.

Re:Big deal

[LiquidCoooled]

What happens when wireless routers become so widespread that your message can get around the world without ever touching a government/big corp network?

Don't agree!

[PontifexPrimus]

I must respectfully disagree. I'm a German, and Germany has placed considerably limits on so-called "free speech"; and I'm fine with that. Why should I give holocaust deniers and nazi propagandist the right to be heard? And please don't trot out the old canard of "they'll be after your free speech next" - those limits have been in place since about 1946, and I don't know of any case when they were abused to censor other political speech. Feel free to enlighten me with examples to the contrary.

Re:Big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why it's vital to build community mesh networks. The internet has degraded to a star/tree topology in much of the world. That truly sucks. Network with thy Neighbour and build a mesh.

Re:Big deal

[Chandon Seldon]

Right now, it is precisely the lawless nature of the Internet (in that it is unreasonably difficult to enforce accepted laws there, even when pretty much everyone agrees they are reasonable laws) that leads to problems like spam, defamation, phishing expeditions, and all the other bad stuff that I'm sure everyone except those benefiting personally could happily live without.

It is *precisely* the "lawless" state of the internet today that makes it useful as a tool for freedom (and flexible as a basis for building things).

Spam is a technical problem with the design of the SMTP protocol, and a really interesting social issue re: the appropriateness of push marketing in any medium designed for 1 to 1 personal communication. But, rather than trying to fix technical problems with laws, let's let SMTP as it is continue to die it's slow death.

Defamation is nothing new to the internet. You could always distribute anonymous pamphlets about people. Sure, more people can participate in both reading and writing, but the effect will go down as more people realize that talk is cheap. More importantly, Defamation is in no way an important enough issue to consider restraining the essential liberty that is freedom of communication.

Phishing and other scams are no more interesting to me than pickpockets in open air markets (where that sort of thing is common). Sure, it sucks when you aren't prepared and lose your wallet - but all the locals will correctly just laugh at you and tell you to be more alert next time. There will always be people out to scam you / take your stuff - one of the key skills to operate in human society is to avoid being the victim. I give the pickpocket example for a very good reason - this isn't a new class of problem, it's been solved, and it isn't the government's responsibility to protect you from everything.

Re:Big deal

[Chandon Seldon]

Put another way, you seem to be concerned with what people can do. In contrast, I accept that governments will always be physically able to impair communications if they disregard any legal restrictions on them, and I accept that someone sufficiently determined and willing to pay any price will probably always be able to circumvent any restrictions. I am therefore more concerned that when either group's actions are reviewed under due process afterwards, justice should be done for all involved.

We disagree in two places then:

First, I think that if there are censorship methods in place all that stands between governments and restraining political speech is one legal restriction, we've already failed. They'll ignore that restriction without a second thought because all they have to do is use a tool that they have in place. If we prevent them from installing that set of tools, then we at least have a chance to see what they're doing and respond before it's too late. Currently, the architecture of the internet makes effective censorship very difficult - we, as individuals, should value that advantage over the the state very highly.

Second, I believe that anonymous speech is an essential element of free speech. By its very nature, the speech that needs to be protected will always be unpopular - no need to help the government identify "dissidents" too quickly.