How Internet Censorship Works

Quick Guide to Internet Censorship

Internet censorship
The companies sell products that are liable to be used by governments to violate human rights and freedom of information. The phrases "at our sole discretion", "without prior notice", and "for other reasons" are common in Terms of Service agreements. Corporations may voluntarily choose to limit the content they make available or allow others to make available on the Internet. Similarly, public perception claims that the law was intended to protect children from pedophiles than unintended marketing practices. House on December 15, , [45] and was signed into law by President Barack Obama on December 18, Blockchain Technology Ready to Disrupt the World.

Navigation menu

Internet censorship in the United States

A January 4, restraining order issued by U. District Court Judge Jack B. Weinstein forbade a large number of activists in the psychiatric survivors movement from posting links on their websites to ostensibly leaked documents which purportedly show that Eli Lilly and Company intentionally withheld information as to the lethal side-effects of Zyprexa.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation appealed this as prior restraint on the right to link to and post documents, saying that citizen-journalists should have the same First Amendment rights as major media outlets. In January details from the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack revealed the Motion Picture Association of America 's lobbying of the United States International Trade Commission to mandate that US ISPs either at the internet transit or internet service provider level, implement IP address blocking of unauthorized file sharing as well as linking websites.

On August 29, , a coalition of nine public interest groups led by Public Knowledge filed an Emergency Petition asking the U. In December BART adopted a new "Cell Service Interruption Policy" that only allows shutdowns of cell phone services within BART facilities "in the most extraordinary circumstances that threaten the safety of District passengers, employees and other members of public, the destruction of District property, or the substantial disruption of public transit service.

Instead police officers would arrest individuals who break the law. In March the FCC requested public comment on the question of whether or when the police and other government officials can intentionally interrupt cellphone and Internet service to protect public safety. In December the FCC issued an Enforcement Advisory that warns the public "that it is illegal to use a cell phone jammer or any other type of device that blocks, jams or interferes with authorized communications" and that "this prohibition extends to every entity that does not hold a federal authorization, including state and local law enforcement agencies".

While jamming was not used by BART to disable cell phones, the legal and regulatory considerations are similar. To be constitutional the action will usually need to be approved by a judicial officer who has found i probable cause that the communication service is or will be used for an unlawful purpose, ii that immediate action is required to protect public health, safety, or welfare and iii the affected customer must have a prompt opportunity for adjudication of the government's contentions.

For a general interruption of communication service that will affect a large number of people or a large geographic area, judicial approval would also require that the action iv is necessary to avoid a serious threat of violence that is both imminent and likely to occur or v that the effect on expression is incidental to some other valid government purpose, and vi is reasonable, vii is content-neutral, viii would impair no more speech than is necessary, and ix leaves open other ample means of communication.

Prior judicial approval is not required in extreme emergencies involving immediate danger of death or great bodily injury where there is insufficient time to obtain a court order. Beyond constitutional law, a state or local government's ability to effect a general interruption of wireless communication service is also subject to the federal "Emergency Wireless Protocol EWP " or "Standard Operating Procedure " which established a process for interrupting and restoring wireless communication service during times of national emergency.

The effect of this protocol is that state and local government officials can initiate an interruption of communication service, but they cannot directly order wireless communication service providers to take action.

If an order authorizing an interruption does not fall within the EWP, it is served directly on the relevant communication service provider. This article incorporates licensed material from the Regional Overviews and other sections of the OpenNet Initiative web site. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved 25 March Bambauer, Duke Law Journal , vol. Pursuing a Middleman in Web Piracy". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 July Archived from the original PDF on 6 October Retrieved 10 July Retrieved 27 February Retrieved 5 December Archived from the original on 24 December Archived from the original PDF on 10 December Retrieved 27 September Archived from the original on 6 September Retrieved 19 January Marshall; Bailie, Michael W.

Retrieved June 3, Let's end the absurdity". Oracle and Larry Ellison killed Aaron's Law". Retrieved July 11, Retrieved March 22, Archived from the original on 12 July Retrieved 24 January Office of Foreign Assets Control , U.

Department of the Treasury. Retrieved 25 February Retrieved 31 Jul L , May 29, Retrieved April 8, American Civil Liberties Union. Sex Workers Outreach Project. Deleting Online Predators Act of , govtrack. Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act , govtrack. Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of , govtrack. The Facts About S. Lieberman, Chairman, and Susan M. Executive Cyberspace Coordination Act of , govtrack. Retrieved October 16, Retrieved January 20, Retrieved Nov 7, Retrieved May 22, Retrieved May 24, Archived from the original PDF on House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Archived from the original on April 26, Retrieved April 26, Retrieved 12 April Retrieved 15 April Capitol Hill Publishing Corp. Retrieved 9 May Retrieved 8 April A form of Internet censorship that blocks an IP address from being accessed.

If the targeted Web site is hosted in a shared hosting server, all websites on the particular server will be blocked from access.

DNS Filtering and Redirection: This form of internet censorship does not resolve domain names or return incorrect IP addresses. Uniform Resource Locator Filtering: This form of Internet censorship will scan the requested URL string for target keywords regardless of the desired domain name specified in the URL.

This form of Internet censorship terminates TCP packet transmissions when a certain number of controversial words or keywords are detected. An aggressive form of Internet censorship that will block future connection attempts from accessing sites. If a previous TCP connection is blocked by a filter, all future connection attempts from both sides will also be blocked for at least 30 minutes. 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: 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 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.

Internet censorship in China is among the most stringent in the world. The government blocks Web sites that discuss the Dalai Lama , the crackdown on Tiananmen Square protesters , the banned spiritual practice Falun Gong , as well as many general Internet sites. 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".

Through the OpenNet Initiative had documented Internet filtering by governments in over forty countries worldwide. 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 and , 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. The 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 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.

When the "Enemies of the Internet" list was introduced in , it listed 13 countries. From to the number of countries listed fell to 10 and then rose to The list was not updated in In the list grew to 19 with an increased emphasis on surveillance in addition to censorship. The list has not been updated since When the "Countries under surveillance" list was introduced in , it listed 10 countries. Between and the number of countries listed grew to 16 and then fell to The list was last updated in The five "State Enemies of the Internet" named in March are: Bahrain , China , Iran , Syria , and Vietnam.

The five "Corporate Enemies of the Internet" named in March are: A poll of 27, adults in 26 countries, including 14, Internet users, [88] was conducted for the BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan using telephone and in-person interviews between 30 November and 7 February GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller felt, overall, that the poll showed that:. Findings from the poll include: In July and August the Internet Society conducted online interviews of more than 10, Internet users in 20 countries.

Some of the results relevant to Internet censorship are summarized below. Among the countries that filter or block online content, few openly admit to or fully disclose their filtering and blocking activities.

During the Arab Spring of , 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. 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 [14] [15] [95] and Libya in 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 , Reporters Without Borders moved Tunisia and Egypt from its "Internet enemies" list to its list of countries "under surveillance" [98] and in dropped Libya from the list entirely.

This article incorporates licensed material from the OpenNet Initiative web site. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Internet An Opte Project visualization of routing paths through a portion of the Internet.

Right to be forgotten. Internet censorship by country and Censorship by country. Has local YouTube version. Current Enemies of the Internet: Anonymous — an online hacktivist collective that express its opposition to Internet censorship through protests and online hacking in several countries.

CIRCAMP Cospol Internet Related Child Abusive Material Project — a project of the European Chiefs of Police Task Force to combat commercial and organized distribution of child pornography The Clean IT project — a European Union-funded project with the stated aim of suppressing terrorist activity Electronic Frontier Foundation — an international non-profit digital rights advocacy and legal organization Financial Coalition Against Child Pornography — a coalition of credit card issuers and Internet services companies that seeks to eliminate commercial child pornography by taking action on the payment systems that fund these operations Freedom House — a U.

Government funded program created in at Radio Free Asia to support global Internet freedom technologies OpenNet Initiative — a joint project to monitor and report on Internet filtering and surveillance practices by nations Peacefire — a U.

Internet Internet portal Freedom of speech portal. Retrieved 11 March How Facebook's Tor service could encourage a more open web. Friday 5 December Routledge handbook of Internet politics.

An American In Beijing. Retrieved 28 May Retrieved 15 August Retrieved 5 April Archived from the original on 28 January

Leave a Reply