SCN: Censorship

[Steve]

x-no-archive: yes

===================

Governments Learn How to Censor the Internet, Report Says

by Carl S. Kaplan


(NY Times)---Conventional wisdom dictates that governments cannot 
really control speech on the Internet. Try to stamp out an idea or a 
conversation, the theory goes, and users of the global network will 
re-route around the local "damage" and continue talking as before.  

The theory is wrong. In reality, many governments around the world 
are doing a pretty good job of censoring or restricting speech online. 
That is the conclusion of a report on world press freedom released 
this week by Freedom House, a respected New York-based human 
rights organization.  

"The Internet is the new technology, and we're seeing censorship in 
many kinds of countries now," said Leonard R. Sussman, a senior 
scholar at Freedom House and author of the report. It includes an 
essay, "Censor Dot Gov: The Internet and Press Freedom 2000," 
and a 30-page annual survey of press freedoms in 186 countries.  

"We're in an early transitional stage" of online censorship, 
Sussman said. "The clobbering can become so institutionalized in 
some countries that it can become just as successful as censorship 
of older media. Or things can open up. I'm optimistic in the long run, 
but right now some governments are heavy-handed -- just as they 
were in the old days of the blue pencil," he said.  

Sussman is a long-time observer of press freedoms; the current 
report is the 22nd annual survey he has compiled for Freedom 
House. Like its predecessors, it employs several criteria to 
measure the degree of freedom for newspapers and radio and 
television stations in many countries. The report also includes brief 
anecdote-laden summaries of the state of press freedom in each 
surveyed country.  

This year, for the first time, Sussman decided to write an 
introductory essay on global Internet censorship, based on the 
evidence that he amassed in his research. The country summaries 
in the survey are also chock-full of Internet censorship episodes. All 
in all, the report is an important contribution to the fledgling field of 
scholarship covering Internet censorship.  

Why some countries censor information on the Internet is no secret, 
Sussman said. They do it for the same reasons they censor print 
and television: certain information is "displeasing" to those in 
power. Banned information runs the gamut from political dissent to 
certain forms of expression that are deemed harmful to a country's 
religious or ethnic values.  

Countries use a variety of methods to control online speech, 
Sussman explained in his essay. At the first level, some simply 
prevent a majority of their citizens from gaining access to the 
Internet, either passively through a high-cost telecommunications 
infrastructure that limits participation, or more directly through laws 
or licensing. At least 20 countries, including Myanmar, Cuba, North 
Korea and Iraq, thoroughly restrict their citizens' access to the 
Internet, Sussman wrote. In Myanmar, for example, owners must 
report computers to the government or face a 15-year prison term.  

At the next level, some countries that allow widespread Internet 
access control what citizens may see by employing various filtering 
and blocking schemes on state-run or state-influenced Internet 
service providers (ISPs).  

"In China, for example, many government offices and institutes are 
wired, but the official ISP limits content, particularly incoming news 
from abroad," Sussman wrote. Online dissidents there have been 
imprisoned, and state security operatives inspect Web sites to 
make sure they include no state secrets. Based on such 
surveillance, Sussman said, some domestic Web sites have been 
shut down and e-mail has been censored. Even controversial Web 
sites on servers overseas have been crippled by denial-of-service 
attacks from sources based in China, Sussman said.  

Other countries that routinely block Internet sites considered 
offensive include Iran and Saudi Arabia, Sussman said.  

The final level of censorship is a sophisticated form of online 
surveillance akin to tapping a telephone. A government that uses 
this method not only controls speech but induces a high degree of 
self-censorship. In Russia, for example, the successor to the KGB 
has begun forcing ISPs to install surveillance equipment. Indeed, 
security services can monitor Internet communications without a 
court order, and ISPs can lose their licenses for denying security 
forces access to private online traffic.  

To be sure, there are many small victories over censorship and 
control, Sussman said. Newspapers censored in Algeria, Egypt and 
Jordan, among other places, have placed banned articles online, 
where they were available to foreigners and emigrants. Even in 
some of the most censored countries in the world, like Iran, Kuwait, 
Qatar, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates, cybercafes provide 
cheap public access to the Internet -- although in most of these, the 
government-controlled ISPs limit content and can employ 
surveillance techniques.  

For his part, Sussman said that what Freedom House and other 
organizations monitoring press freedom can do is expose instances 
of Internet censorship and shame the culprits. "Even the most 
oppressive countries don't like to be seen as oppressive," he said. 
"The key is to publish this type of information and add to the shame. 
That's what we did during the cold war. You've got to let certain 
governments know they are being watched."  

Kristina Stockwood the International Freedom of Expression 
eXchange (IFEX), a free speech clearinghouse based in Toronto, 
said she agreed that online press and speech censorship is an 
increasing problem in many countries. "I think it's getting worse 
because people have developed more sophisticated methods for 
controlling information," she said.  

"In a country like Vietnam, for example, which is a developing 
country, they can monitor your e-mail," Stockwood said. "Say 
anything that threatens national security, and you can be in trouble. 
And 'national security' is a broad phrase that is used to cover just 
about anything the government disagrees with."  

David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information 
Center, which is a founding member of a worldwide consortium of 
online free speech groups, said that the Freedom House report was 
"a good exercise" that he hoped would expand next year to include 
more data on online censorship.  

He added that the report points up a hidden danger. Some groups, 
led by businesses in the United States and Europe, are developing 
voluntary rating systems for online content. They hope to make 
voluntary blocking easier and head off government regulation. It 
sounds good, but "if you create tools for voluntary purposes, that 
architecture is likely to be mandated by more repressive 
governments," he said.  


Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company





* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *