Governmental Censorship Derails Internet Promise

The borderless Internet may have been the goal, but government interference into the free flow of information has put serious restrictions on the liberating effect that might have had on culture and society. The Open Net Initiative, sponsored by the University of Toronto, Harvard and Cambridge Universities, is focusing its research on what individual governments are doing to control information flow, and the impact this has had on politics, human rights, state sovereignty and law.

The results thus far haven’t been promising. Not only have a variety of countries — Iran, Singapore, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Bahrain, China and the United Arab Emirates — been identified as using under-handed tactics to control Internet information, but a number of U.S.-based companies have been instrumental in helping dictatorships choke off information. Included in the arsenal of censorship are programs that present users with “File not found,” or other technical excuses when pages are actually blocked. The Tunisian government has been accused by ONI of Internet to block information from political opponents and human rights groups.

In addition to ONI’s work to expose government censorship, Reporters Without Borders have raised the alert on companies that are making a buck off these repressive tactics.

With the recent revelation that the Bush administration has been spying on U.S. citizens without first obtaining court orders makes one wonder what ONI will find when it turns its attention to the United States.

Found in Business • Law and Regulations • Society • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink http://www.sundog.net/index.php/sunblog/entry/governmental-censorship-derails-internet-promise/

Comments

wrote on Jan 31, 2006 at 08:58 AM

I don’t really believe that this will be a significant issue in the United States. Perhaps it’s a naive belief, but everyday Americans expect more freedom and have a more transparent society than Iran, Singapore, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Bahrain, China or the United Arab Emirates.

Perhaps this assertion is supported by the lack of state run news services in the United States, unlike Iran, Saudi Arabia or China, who will more routinely take actions on political dissidents. In the United States, many Americans would take the stand that it’s their right to publicly disagree with their government. (and it is!)

Americans will trust a President to protect them from percieved dangers, but it’s unlikely that Americans would accept any significant censorship on the internet.

wrote on Jan 31, 2006 at 03:00 PM

Mark,

Thanks for your comments. You’re right, I don’t think we have to worry about such overt tactics from the U.S. government.

I am, however, concerned by the “muzzle the opposition” schemes that seem to be on the rise in Washington. From black-listing individuals who tried to attend the President’s Social Security “town meetings” a few years ago to the Valerie Plame affair, such sleazy practices are really contrary to the presumption of unfettered public debate in the U.S. Constitution.

Personally, I do no believe such activities are limited to the political right. I’m currently working on a blog about a member of Congress or staffer who has been aggressively editing Wikipedia to represent a particular viewpoint. Rep. Marty Meehan (D-Mass.) or a member of his staff was allegedly involved in the postings, which included calling White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan some nasty names.

I think we can both agree that the far more honorable (and effective) approach is to let the other side be heard in any conversation… and then present a more compelling argument.

-Cloy

wrote on Feb 02, 2006 at 03:23 PM

Well stated, Cloy! In a (perhaps perfect world) our American marketplace of ideas would have all ideas out there to contemplate, with some folks buying and some folks selling. The key to a strong society is the ability to go shopping for ideas, and not make conclusory judgments about individuals who have certain viewpoints (Bush is a fascist, Democrats are against national defense, etc. etc..).

I despise over handed efforts to stifle discussion in almost all situations. A great book to read that discusses these issues in the forum of religious extremism is “Step Across This Line” by Salman Rushdie. He argues, in several ways, that a free society is the best society, where one’s are taken and considered thoughfully, rather than just used as weapons.

Perhaps some day.