Internet increasingly censored, study finds
The level of state-led censorship of the Internet is growing around the world. A study of thousands of websites across 120 internet service providers found that 25 of 41 countries surveyed showed evidence of content filtering.
The report realeased by the OpenNet Initiative (ONI) in collaboration with four universities – Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford and Toronto, found that the scale, the scope, and the sophistication of state-led internet filtering have all increased dramatically in recent years, with tech-savvy governments filtering forbidden themes from politics and human rights to sexuality and religion.
Such “state-mandated net filtering” was only being carried out in “a couple” of states in 2002, one researcher said.
“In five years we have gone from a couple of states doing state-mandated net filtering to 25,” said John Palfrey, at Harvard Law School.
The actual number may be higher, but ONI only had the time and capabilities to study 41 countries.
The report discusses three primary rationales that nations have for blocking Internet content. The first is political, which leads to, for example, the blocking of opposition-group websites. The second rationale is social: some countries block pornography and sites dealing with gambling or sexuality issues. The third rationale is national security, which can lead some nations to block online material produced by, for example, extremist groups.
Countries like China, Iran, Myanmar, Syria, Tunisia and Vietnam had the most extensive filters for political sites. While Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen had the strictest social-filtering practices, blocking pornography, gambling and gay and lesbian sites.
The report also found that some countries pursued only specific approaches or exerted little control over the online universe. South Korea filters only North Korean sites, many of them originating in Japan. Jordan, Morocco and Singapore were also sparing, filtering just a handful of sites.
A number of countries showed no signs of official filtering: Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, West Bank and Gaza, Malaysia, Nepal, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Russia also appears to refrain from government-directed filtering, though the survey results are inconclusive because of the limited number of Moscow ISPs tested.
The group said the regions chosen for review should not be considered comprehensive. The United States and much of Europe were not studied in the survey because in those countries, filtering is focused primarily on copyright infringement issues and is generally pursued in the private sector. It also excluded North Korea and Cuba for fear of risking the safety of collaborators in those countries.
The study predicts a rise in more subtle forms of filtering, such as political Web sites made inaccessible during election periods.
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.”
Related Posts:
May 19th, 2007
An argument facing those who feel the world’s countries should all be united. One World? With rampant censorship?
Worry first about your own country. Censorship in America should be our concern. Fight it, tooth and nail, wherever its ugly head is reared.
I myself am disgusted at many websites that I feel are not worth the effort of a click.
But I do not want them censored. In the back of my mind, every time I think something along the lines of “that’s crap. It’s disgusting, it should be stopped”, another voice comes through: “Oh, yeah? Then what will you say if someone wants to stop your opinions?”