@InfosecurityMag
Internet Censorship of Political Content
Source: OpenNet Initiative
UK newspaper, The Guardian, recently produced an interactive map of the world showing the extent and nature of online censorship in individual nations. The map, shown above, is based on public data from the OpenNet Initiative (ONI), a joint venture by several US and Canadian academic and research institutions, that researches and reports on online censorship and its effects worldwide. In its 2011 review, ONI notes: “Although Asian and Middle Eastern countries and regimes were often in the ONI spotlight this year, European and American companies also came under scrutiny for their role in internet censorship. Last year saw French and British software fi rms exporting technology to the Middle East that was used
in surveillance and monitoring of online and mobile communications. In August, political prisoners sued Cisco for supplying the Chinese government with software to track Chinese internet users.”
In an earlier (March 2011) report on the role of Western technologies in state censorship, ONI points out that technologies developed in the West – ostensibly to detect and block offensive or illegal material – are increasingly being adopted by governments elsewhere to keep tabs on – or silence – dissenting voices, curb protest and sure up their political power. “ISPs [internet service providers] in Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Sudan, and Tunisia all use Western-built automated
fi ltering solutions to block mass content”, it says. Censored material includes websites that provide skeptical views of Islam or openly discuss secular, atheist, sexual or gay rights issues, as well as those offering dating services or information about censorship- circumvention tools.
Policy Insanity Indeed, many Western governments seem to take a somewhat schizophrenic stance on censorship. On one hand, they seek to promote online freedom of expression throughout the world, in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For example, the UK Foreign Offi ce last year convened a Freedom of Expression on the
www.infosecurity-magazine.com /// 33
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52