Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 06:01pm PT
|
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 06:57pm PT
|
This, you should read.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/23/isis-used-a-u-s-prison-as-boot-camp.html
In ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror, American journalist Michael Weiss and Syrian analyst Hassan Hassan explain how these violent extremists evolved from a nearly defeated Iraqi insurgent group into a jihadi army of international volunteers who behead Western hostages in slickly produced videos and have conquered territory equal to the size of Great Britain. Beginning with the early days of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the founder of ISIS’s first incarnation as “al Qaeda in Iraq,” Weiss and Hassan explain who the key players are—from their elusive leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to the former Saddam Baathists in their ranks—where they come from, how the movement has attracted both local and global support, and where their financing comes from.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2015 - 03:25am PT
|
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2015 - 04:34pm PT
|
From Reuters:
The cracks in Islamic State’s business plan are starting to show
By Ora Szekely
February 20, 2015
Over the last year, Islamic State has presented the rest of the world with a steady stream of atrocities: An attempted genocide against the Yazidi people in Iraq, massacres and bombings of Shi’ite civilians in Syria, and gruesome executions of journalists and aid workers. Last week the militant group murdered — via mass beheading – 21 Coptic Christian Egyptians in Libya. But despite the bravado of Islamic State’s public statements, the Islamist militant group increasingly appears to have painted itself into a strategic corner.
Islamic State’s expansion so far has been based heavily on extortion and theft. Using revenue from the oil wells it captured in eastern Syria in June 2014, along with money raised by looting in Mosul, supplemented by funding from ransoms paid by governments for its hostages, Islamic State was able to hire lots of fighters very quickly by paying top salaries. But revenues from the oil wells have dropped (due both to U.S. bombing and falling global oil prices), and with the tragic death of American aid worker Kayla Mueller earlier this month, Islamic State has executed what is likely its last foreign hostage, potentially eliminating a key source of its funding.
The result may be that Islamic State has reached an important crossroads. The strategy that it has relied on so far to fuel its expansion is becoming increasingly untenable. If Islamic State is going to hold on to its recent gains, it has some policy changes to make.
All militant groups need a range of resources — from guns and money to recruits and political legitimacy — to accomplish their goals. Broadly speaking, the strategies they use to acquire these resources fall into three categories: theft, barter, or gift. Some militias steal what they need, looting farmers’ crops or kidnapping journalists for ransom. Others rely on barter, offering their services as a fighting force to a state in return for money and weapons. Groups employing the gift option try to convince both local constituents and potential state sponsors to voluntarily provide political and material support for its cause. The vast majority of militant groups use a mixture of all three approaches, though many emphasize one approach.
What’s next for Islamic State?
So far, Islamic State has mostly relied on the first approach — theft. But using this strategy will become increasingly difficult; the resources it has already stolen — oil, cash from local banks, even hostages — aren’t easily renewable. And, as the Islamic State leadership is beginning to find, brutalizing civilians makes acquiring broad local support very difficult.
Another way forward would be for Islamic State to transition to a barter strategy, acting as a mercenary force for a state sponsor that has little interest in its overall project. This kind of quid pro quo relationship led Muammar Qaddhafi’s Libya in the 1970s and 1980s, for instance, to provide funding for everyone from the Irish Republican Army (IRA) to the far-left militant Baader Meinhof group in Germany. Today, however, there are fewer and fewer of these rogue states. Islamic State has so alienated most potentially supportive governments in the region that even those opposed to the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria — like Jordan and Turkey — are unlikely to view Islamic State as a reliable partner.
Finally, Islamic State could shift to a strategy based on a gift approach, by trying to build domestic and international support for their political project. To a degree, Islamic State already appears to be trying to do so. The movement’s massive public relations campaign on social media has attracted some funding from sympathetic individual donors in Qatar and Kuwait, but these donations represent a relatively insignificant part of their revenue, and few regional governments appear interested in backing Islamic State, for either power or purely ideological reasons. Iran and Syria (which have supported other militant groups in the past) are openly hostile to Islamic State, and the Gulf monarchies feel threatened by Islamic State’s (ludicrous) claims to have reestablished the caliphate, which challenges the legitimacy of their own regimes.
For a gift strategy to work, Islamic State would need to focus inward. This would mean appealing to the local population in the territory it occupies through improved governance and by softening its authoritarian rule, while simultaneously courting regional allies. This would require limiting its expansionist ambitions, toning down its inflammatory rhetoric, and reframing its core mission to appear less threatening to states like Saudi Arabia. In other words, it would have to become a radically different kind of entity than it is now.
Whether Islamic State is willing or able to do any of these things remains unclear. Militant groups have successfully reinvented themselves before. Hezbollah and Hamas both enacted internal reforms in the 1990s and 2000s respectively to better attract support both locally and from powerful patron states. Both of these organizations, however, had fairly rational leadership and a degree of internal cohesion that Islamic State has not yet exhibited.
This is partly a side-effect of Islamic State’s rapid expansion; in a relatively short time period it has had to absorb former Baathists, disaffected members of al Qaeda, random thugs, and rebellious European teenagers, none of whom may be interested in curbing their abusive treatment of civilians or moderating their ideology to appear less threatening to neighboring states and achieve longer term strategic goals.
If Islamic State’ leadership is unwilling, or unable, to make these necessary policy changes it may well continue to resort to the violence and extortion it is familiar with, but with ever-diminishing returns.
Ora Szekely is an assistant professor of political science at Clark University in Worcester, MA. Her research focuses on the foreign and domestic policy choices of militant groups in the Middle East.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/02/20/the-cracks-in-islamic-states-business-plan-are-starting-to-show/
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2015 - 04:38pm PT
|
Uk just got caught red handed supplying ISIS .
Everyone but stupid Americans know that the western coalition is supplying them.
You people just keep on getting 0wned day after day.
Dumber than the sack o rocks you climb on .....
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2015 - 04:41pm PT
|
You've been listening to too much Alex Jones bro.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2015 - 04:55pm PT
|
And yet you continue to bump the thread bVD.
OT threads have been here since the beginning and now you're gonna go on a one man crusade? That sounds like a recipe for not much.
Why don't YOU take it to PM? Then you can talk about your suspenders forever!!
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 24, 2015 - 04:57pm PT
|
The public has grown more supportive of the U.S. fight against ISIS, as about twice as many approve (63%) as disapprove (30%) of the military campaign against the Islamic militant group in Iraq and Syria. Last October, 57% approved and 33% disapproved.
The possibility of sending U.S. ground troops to the region is more divisive, although the idea draws more support than it did four months ago. Currently, about as many favor (47%) as oppose (49%) sending U.S. ground troops to fight Islamic militants in Iraq and Syria; in October, 39% favored the idea and 55% opposed it.
The new national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Feb. 18-22 among 1,504 adults, also finds a shift over the past year in public attitudes about the best approach for dealing with global terrorism.
In the new survey, 47% say “using overwhelming military force is the best way to defeat terrorism around the world.” About as many (46%) say that “relying too much on military force to defeat terrorism creates hatred that leads to more terrorism.”
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
Please provide a link for our donations
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
TGT always keeps us informed on what's going on in the wingnutosphere.
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
I've been saying this for a long time, glad to see that others see it too.
http://bluenationreview.com/catholic-cardinal-yes-can-compare-christian-extremists-isis/
Catholic Cardinal: ‘Yes, You Can Compare Christian Extremists to ISIS’
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, affirmed the old adage about broken clocks being right twice a day when he echoed Barack Obama’s sentiment that just as ISIS has distorted Islam, Christians have also seen their religion used to justify horrible things.
Speaking to Chris Cuomo on CNN, Dolan said that ISIS extremists do not represent “genuine Islamic thought:”
“Even the majority of temperate, peace-loving Muslims would say, ‘I’m afraid they have a particular strand of erroneous Islam.’ But I do think they are. They are distorting it.”
Dolan went on to say, “these are not real Muslims.”
At the National Prayer Breakfast, the president discouraged Christians from getting on a “high horse” and conflating ISIS with Islam because Christianity was at one point used to justify, among other things, the Crusades and slavery.
I’ve written before on why I’m afraid of Christian extremists. Mostly it’s because Christian extremists in the United States aren’t labeled as radical. More often than not, they are given a title and allowed to make laws.
But ultimately, like Hitler and the Nazis, ISIS comparisons don’t accomplish much and should probably be stopped. Remember when someone on CNN asked if Ebola was, “the ISIS of biological agents?”
It comes down to this: every religion can be perverted and warped into something evil and can be used to justify evil.
Cardinal Dolan would know. He uses his Catholicism to staunchly oppose LGBT civil rights
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
don't even think of it. there are already numerous venues for internet heroism. take it to a pm.
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
Internet censorship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Internet
Visualization of Internet routing paths
An Opte Project visualization of routing paths through a portion of the Internet
General[show]
Governance[show]
Information infrastructure[show]
Services[show]
Guides[show]
Portal icon Internet portal
v t e
Internet censorship is the control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet. It may be carried out by governments or by private organizations at the behest of government, regulators, or on their own initiative. Individuals and organizations may engage in self-censorship for moral, religious, or business reasons, to conform to societal norms, due to intimidation, or out of fear of legal or other consequences.[1]
The extent of Internet censorship varies on a country-to-country basis. While most democratic countries have moderate Internet censorship, other countries go as far as to limit the access of information such as news and suppress discussion among citizens.[1] Internet censorship also occurs in response to or in anticipation of events such as elections, protests, and riots. An example is the increased censorship due to the events of the Arab Spring. Other areas of censorship includes copyrights, defamation, harassment, and obscene material.
Support for and opposition to Internet censorship also varies. In a 2012 Internet Society survey 71% of respondents agreed that "censorship should exist in some form on the Internet". In the same survey 83% agreed that "access to the Internet should be considered a basic human right" and 86% agreed that "freedom of expression should be guaranteed on the Internet". According to GlobalWebIndex, over 400 million people use virtual private networks to circumvent censorship or for increased level of privacy.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Overview
2 Content suppression methods
2.1 Technical censorship
2.1.1 Approaches
2.1.2 Over- and under-blocking
2.1.3 Use of commercial filtering software
2.2 Non-technical censorship
2.3 Major web portal official statements on site and content removal
3 Circumvention
4 Common targets
4.1 Politics and power
4.2 Social norms and morals
4.3 Security concerns
4.4 Protection of existing economic interests and copyright
4.5 Network tools
4.6 Information about individuals
5 Around the world
5.1 Reports, ratings, and trends
5.1.1 OpenNet Initiative reports
5.1.2 Freedom on the Net reports
5.1.3 Reporters Without Borders (RWB)
5.1.3.1 RWB "Internet enemies" and "countries under surveillance" lists
5.1.3.2 RWB Special report on Internet Surveillance
5.1.4 BBC World Service global public opinion poll
5.1.5 Internet Society's Global Internet User Survey
5.2 Transparency of filtering or blocking activities
5.3 Arab Spring
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
§Overview[edit]
Many of the issues associated with Internet censorship are similar to those for offline censorship of more traditional media such as newspapers, magazines, books, music, radio, television, and film. One difference is that national borders are more permeable online: residents of a country that bans certain information can find it on websites hosted outside the country. Thus censors must work to prevent access to information even though they lack physical or legal control over the websites themselves. This in turn requires the use of technical censorship methods that are unique to the Internet, such as site blocking and content filtering.[3]
Views about the feasibility and effectiveness of Internet censorship have evolved in parallel with the development of the Internet and censorship technologies:
A 1993 Time Magazine article quotes computer scientist John Gilmore, one of the founders of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, as saying "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."[4]
In November 2007, "Father of the Internet" Vint Cerf stated that he sees government control of the Internet failing because the Web is almost entirely privately owned.[5]
A report of research conducted in 2007 and published in 2009 by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University stated that: "We are confident that the [ censorship circumvention ] tool developers will for the most part keep ahead of the governments' blocking efforts", but also that "...we believe that less than two percent of all filtered Internet users use circumvention tools".[6]
In contrast, a 2011 report by researchers at the Oxford Internet Institute published by UNESCO concludes "... the control of information on the Internet and Web is certainly feasible, and technological advances do not therefore guarantee greater freedom of speech."[3]
Blocking and filtering can be based on relatively static blacklists or be determined more dynamically based on a real-time examination of the information being exchanged. Blacklists may be produced manually or automatically and are often not available to non-customers of the blocking software. Blocking or filtering can be done at a centralized national level, at a decentralized sub-national level, or at an institutional level, for example in libraries, universities or Internet cafes.[1] Blocking and filtering may also vary within a country across different ISPs.[7] Countries may filter sensitive content on an on-going basis and/or introduce temporary filtering during key time periods such as elections. In some cases the censoring authorities may surreptitiously block content to mislead the public into believing that censorship has not been applied. This is achieved by returning a fake "Not Found" error message when an attempt is made to access a blocked web.[8]
Unless the censor has total control over all Internet-connected computers, such as in North Korea or Cuba, total censorship of information is very difficult or impossible to achieve due to the underlying distributed technology of the Internet. Pseudonymity and data havens (such as Freenet) protect free speech using technologies that guarantee material cannot be removed and prevents the identification of authors. Technologically savvy users can often find ways to access blocked content. Nevertheless, blocking remains an effective means of limiting access to sensitive information for most users when censors, such as those in China, are able to devote significant resources to building and maintaining a comprehensive censorship system.[3]
The term "splinternet" is sometimes used to describe the effects of national firewalls. The verb "rivercrab" colloquially refers to censorship of the Internet, particularly in Asia.[9]
§Content suppression methods[edit]
§Technical censorship[edit]
§Approaches[edit]
Internet content is subject to technical censorship methods, including:[1][3][10]
Internet Protocol (IP) address blocking: Access to a certain IP address is denied. If the target Web site is hosted in a shared hosting server, all websites on the same server will be blocked. This affects IP-based protocols such as HTTP, FTP and POP. A typical circumvention method is to find proxies that have access to the target websites, but proxies may be jammed or blocked, and some Web sites, such as Wikipedia (when editing), also block proxies. Some large websites such as Google have allocated additional IP addresses to circumvent the block, but later the block was extended to cover the new addresses.
Domain name system (DNS) filtering and redirection: Blocked domain names are not resolved, or an incorrect IP address is returned via DNS hijacking or other means. This affects all IP-based protocols such as HTTP, FTP and POP. A typical circumvention method is to find an alternative DNS resolver that resolves domain names correctly, but domain name servers are subject to blockage as well, especially IP address blocking. Another workaround is to bypass DNS if the IP address is obtainable from other sources and is not itself blocked. Examples are modifying the Hosts file or typing the IP address instead of the domain name as part of a URL given to a Web browser.
Uniform Resource Locator filtering: URL strings are scanned for target keywords regardless of the domain name specified in the URL. This affects the HTTP protocol. Typical circumvention methods are to use escaped characters in the URL, or to use encrypted protocols such as VPN and TLS/SSL.[11]
Packet filtering: Terminate TCP packet transmissions when a certain number of controversial keywords are detected. This affects all TCP-based protocols such as HTTP, FTP and POP, but Search engine results pages are more likely to be censored. Typical circumvention methods are to use encrypted connections – such as VPN and TLS/SSL – to escape the HTML content, or by reducing the TCP/IP stack's MTU/MSS to reduce the amount of text contained in a given packet.
Connection reset: If a previous TCP connection is blocked by the filter, future connection attempts from both sides can also be blocked for some variable amount of time. Depending on the location of the block, other users or websites may also be blocked, if the communication is routed through the blocking location. A circumvention method is to ignore the reset packet sent by the firewall.[12]
Network disconnection: A technically simpler method of Internet censorship is to completely cut off all routers, either by software or by hardware (turning off machines, pulling out cables). This appears to have been the case on 27/28 January 2011 during the 2011 Egyptian protests, in what has been widely described as an "unprecedented" internet block.[13][14] About 3500 Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routes to Egyptian networks were shut down from about 22:10 to 22:35 UTC 27 January.[13] This full block was implemented without cutting off major intercontinental fibre-optic links, with Renesys stating on 27 January, "Critical European-Asian fiber-optic routes through Egypt appear to be unaffected for now."[13] Full blocks also occurred in Myanmar/Burma in 2007,[15] Libya in 2011,[16] and Syria during the Syrian civil war.
Portal censorship and search result removal: Major portals, including search engines, may exclude web sites that they would ordinarily include. This renders a site invisible to people who do not know where to find it. When a major portal does this, it has a similar effect as censorship. Sometimes this exclusion is done to satisfy a legal or other requirement, other times it is purely at the discretion of the portal. For example Google.de and Google.fr remove Neo-Nazi and other listings in compliance with German and French law.[17]
Computer network attacks: Denial-of-service attacks and attacks that deface opposition websites can produce the same result as other blocking techniques, preventing or limiting access to certain websites or other online services, although only for a limited period of time. This technique might be used during the lead up to an election or some other sensitive period. It is more frequently used by non-state actors seeking to disrupt services.[18]
See also: Internet forum § Word censor and Anti-spam techniques § Detecting spam
§Over- and under-blocking[edit]
Technical censorship techniques are subject to both over- and under-blocking since it is often impossible to always block exactly the targeted content without blocking other permissible material or allowing some access to targeted material and so providing more or less protection than desired.[3] An example is that automatic censorship against sexual words in matter for children, set to block the word "cunt", has been known to block the Lincolnshire placename Scunthorpe.[19] Another example is blocking an IP-address of a server that hosts multiple websites, which prevents access to all of the websites rather than just those that contain content deemed offensive.[20]
According to a report produced in 1997 by the gay rights group GLAAD, many 1990s-era Internet censorship software products prevent access to non-pornographic LGBT-related material.[21]
§Use of commercial filtering software[edit]
Screenshot of Websense blocking Facebook in an organisation where it has been configured to block a category named "Personals and Dating"
Main article: Content-control software
Writing in 2009 Ronald Deibert, professor of political science at the University of Toronto and co-founder and one of the principal investigators of the OpenNet Initiative, and, writing in 2011, Evgeny Morzov, a visiting scholar at Stanford University and an Op-Ed contributor to the New York Times, explain that companies in the United States, Finland, France, Germany, Britain, Canada, and South Africa are in part responsible for the increasing sophistication of online content filtering worldwide. While the off-the-shelf filtering software sold by Internet security companies are primarily marketed to businesses and individuals seeking to protect themselves and their employees and families, they are also used by governments to block what they consider sensitive content.[22][23]
Among the most popular filtering software programs is SmartFilter by Secure Computing in California, which was bought by McAfee in 2008. SmartFilter has been used by Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iran, and Oman, as well as the United States and the UK.[24] Myanmar and Yemen have used filtering software from Websense. The Canadian-made commercial filter Netsweeper[25] is used in Qatar, the UAE, and Yemen.[26]
On 12 March 2013 in a Special report on Internet Surveillance, Reporters Without Borders named five "Corporate Enemies of the Internet": Amesys (France), Blue Coat Systems (U.S.), Gamma (UK and Germany), Hacking Team (Italy), and Trovicor (Germany). The companies sell products that are liable to be used by governments to violate human rights and freedom of information. RWB said that the list is not exhaustive and will be expanded in the coming months.[27]
In a U.S. lawsuit filed in May 2011, Cisco Systems is accused of helping the Chinese Government build a firewall, known widely as the Golden Shield, to censor the Internet and keep tabs on dissidents. Cisco said it had made nothing special for China. Cisco is also accused of aiding the Chinese government in monitoring and apprehending members of the banned Falun Gong group.[28]
Many filtering programs allow blocking to be configured based on dozens of categories and sub-categories such as these from Websense: "abortion" (pro-life, pro-choice), "adult material" (adult content, lingerie and swimsuit, nudity, sex, sex education), "advocacy groups" (sites that promote change or reform in public policy, public opinion, social practice, economic activities, and relationships), "drugs" (abused drugs, marijuana, prescribed medications, supplements and unregulated compounds), "religion" (non-traditional religions occult and folklore, traditional religions), ....[26] The blocking categories used by the filtering programs may contain errors leading to the unintended blocking of websites.[22] The blocking of DailyMotion in early 2007 by Tunisian authorities was, according to the OpenNet Initiative, due to Secure Computing wrongly categorizing DailyMotion as pornography for its SmartFilter filtering software. It was initially thought that Tunisia had blocked DailyMotion due to satirical videos about human rights violations in Tunisia, but after Secure Computing corrected the mistake access to DailyMotion was gradually restored in Tunisia.[29]
Organizations such as the Global Network Initiative, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Amnesty International, and the American Civil Liberties Union have successfully lobbied some vendors such as Websense to make changes to their software, to refrain from doing business with repressive governments, and to educate schools who have inadvertently reconfigured their filtering software too strictly.[30][31][32] Nevertheless, regulations and accountability related to the use of commercial filters and services are often non-existent, and there is relatively little oversight from civil society or other independent groups. Vendors often consider information about what sites and content is blocked valuable intellectual property that is not made available outside the company, sometimes not even to the organizations purchasing the filters. Thus by relying upon out-of-the-box filtering systems, the detailed task of deciding what is or is not acceptable speech may be outsourced to the commercial vendors.[26]
§Non-technical censorship[edit]
Main article: Censorship
Internet content is also subject to censorship methods similar to those used with more traditional media. For example:[3]
Laws and regulations may prohibit various types of content and/or require that content be removed or blocked either proactively or in response to requests.
Publishers, authors, and ISPs may receive formal and informal requests to remove, alter, slant, or block access to specific sites or content.
Publishers and authors may accept bribes to include, withdraw, or slant the information they present.
Publishers, authors, and ISPs may be subject to arrest, criminal prosecution, fines, and imprisonment.
Publishers, authors, and ISPs may be subject to civil lawsuits.
Equipment may be confiscated and/or destroyed.
Publishers and ISPs may be closed or required licenses may be withheld or revoked.
Publishers, authors, and ISPs may be subject to boycotts.
Publishers, authors, and their families may be subject to threats, attacks, beatings, and even murder.[33]
Publishers, authors, and their families may be threatened with or actually lose their jobs.
Individuals may be paid to write articles and comments in support of particular positions or attacking opposition positions, usually without acknowledging the payments to readers and viewers.[34][35]
Censors may create their own online publications and Web sites to guide online opinion.[34]
Access to the Internet may be limited due to restrictive licensing policies or high costs.
Access to the Internet may be limited due to a lack of the necessary infrastructure, deliberate or not.
§Major web portal official statements on site and content removal[edit]
See also: Terms of Service
Most major web service operators reserve to themselves broad rights to remove or pre-screen content, sometimes without giving a specific list or only a vague general list of the reasons allowing the removal. The phrases "at our sole discretion", "without prior notice", and "for other reasons" are common in Terms of Service agreements.
Facebook: Among other things the Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities says: "You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence", "You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory", "We can remove any content or information you post on Facebook if we believe that it violates this Statement", and "If you are located in a country embargoed by the United States, or are on the U.S. Treasury Department's list of Specially Designated Nationals you will not engage in commercial activities on Facebook (such as advertising or payments) or operate a Platform application or website".[36]
Google: Google's general Terms of Service, which were updated on 1 March 2012, state: "We may suspend or stop providing our Services to you if you do not comply with our terms or policies or if we are investigating suspected misconduct", "We may review content to determine whether it is illegal or violates our policies, and we may remove or refuse to display content that we reasonably believe violates our policies or the law", and "We respond to notices of alleged copyright infringement and terminate accounts of repeat infringers according to the process set out in the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act".[37]
Google Search: Google's Webmaster Tools help includes the following statement: "Google may temporarily or permanently remove sites from its index and search results if it believes it is obligated to do so by law, if the sites do not meet Google's quality guidelines, or for other reasons, such as if the sites detract from users' ability to locate relevant information."[38]
Twitter: The Twitter Terms of Service state: "We reserve the right at all times (but will not have an obligation) to remove or refuse to distribute any Content on the Services and to terminate users or reclaim usernames" and "We reserve the right to remove Content alleged to be [copyright] infringing without prior notice and at our sole discretion".[39]
YouTube: The YouTube Terms of Service include the statements: "YouTube reserves the right to decide whether Content violates these Terms of Service for reasons other than copyright infringement, such as, but not limited to, pornography, obscenity, or excessive length. YouTube may at any time, without prior notice and in its sole discretion, remove such Content and/or terminate a user's account for submitting such material in violation of these Terms of Service", "YouTube will remove all Content if properly notified that such Content infringes on another's intellectual property rights", and "YouTube reserves the right to remove Content without prior notice".[40]
Wikipedia: Content within a Wikipedia article may be modified or deleted by any editor as part of the normal process of editing and updating articles. All editing decisions are open to discussion and review. The Wikipedia Deletion policy outlines the circumstances in which entire articles can be deleted. Any editor who believes a page doesn't belong in an encyclopedia can propose its deletion. Such a page can be deleted by any administrator if, after seven days, no one objects to the proposed deletion. Speedy deletion allows for the deletion of articles without discussion and is used to remove pages that are so obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia that they have no chance of surviving a deletion discussion. All deletion decisions may be reviewed, either informally or formally.[41] For more information see, Wikipedia:Censorship issue.
Yahoo!: Yahoo!'s Terms of Service (TOS) state: "You acknowledge that Yahoo! may or may not pre-screen Content, but that Yahoo! and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to pre-screen, refuse, or remove any Content that is available via the Yahoo! Services. Without limiting the foregoing, Yahoo! and its designees shall have the right to remove any Content that violates the TOS or is otherwise objectionable."[42]
§Circumvention[edit]
Main article: Internet censorship circumvention
Internet censorship circumvention is the processes used by technologically savvy Internet users to bypass the technical aspects of Internet filtering and gain access to otherwise censored material. Circumvention is an inherent problem for those wishing to censor the Internet because filtering and blocking do not remove content from the Internet, but instead block access to it. Therefore, as long as there is at least one publicly accessible uncensored system, it will often be possible to gain access to otherwise censored material. However circumvention may not be possible by non tech-savvy users, so blocking and filtering remain effective means of censoring the Internet access of large numbers of users.[3]
Different techniques and resources are used to bypass Internet censorship, including proxy websites, virtual private networks, sneakernets, and circumvention software tools. Solutions have differing ease of use, speed, security, and risks. Most, however, rely on gaining access to an Internet connection that is not subject to filtering, often in a different jurisdiction not subject to the same censorship laws. According to GlobalWebIndex, over 400 million people use virtual private networks to circumvent censorship or for increased level of privacy.[2]
There are risks to using circumvention software or other methods to bypass Internet censorship. In some countries individuals that gain access to otherwise restricted content may be violating the law and if caught can be expelled, fired, jailed, or subject to other punishments and loss of access.[1][43]
In June 2011 the New York Times reported that the U.S. is engaged in a "global effort to deploy 'shadow' Internet and mobile phone systems that dissidents can use to undermine repressive governments that seek to silence them by censoring or shutting down telecommunications networks."[44]
§Common targets[edit]
There are several motives or rationales for Internet filtering: politics and power, social norms and morals, and security concerns. Protecting existing economic interests is an additional emergent motive for Internet filtering. In addition, networking tools and applications that allow the sharing of information related to these motives are themselves subjected to filtering and blocking. And while there is considerable variation from country to country, the blocking of web sites in a local language is roughly twice that of web sites available only in English or other international languages.[8]
§Politics and power[edit]
Censorship directed at political opposition to the ruling government is common in authoritarian and repressive regimes. Some countries block web sites related to religion and minority groups, often when these movements represent a threat to the ruling regimes.[8]
Examples include:
Political blogs and web sites[45]
Lèse majesté sites, sites with content that offends the dignity of or challenges the authority of a reigning sovereign or of a state
Falun Gong and Tibetan exile group sites in China or Buddhist, Cao Dai faith, and indigenous hill tribes sites in Vietnam
Sites aimed at religious conversion from Islam to Christianity[8]
§Social norms and morals[edit]
Social filtering is censorship of topics that are held to be antithetical to accepted societal norms.[8] In particular censorship of child pornography and to protect children enjoys very widespread public support and such content is subject to censorship and other restrictions in most countries.
Examples include:
Sites that include hate speech inciting racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of hatred
Sites seen as promoting illegal drug use (Erowid)[46]
Sex and erotic, fetishism, prostitution, and pornographic sites
Child pornography and pedophile related sites (see also CIRCAMP)
Gambling sites
Sites encouraging or inciting violence
Sites promoting criminal activity
Nazi and similar websites – particularly in France and Germany[47]
Sites that contain blasphemous content, particularly when directed at a majority or state supported religion
Sites that contain defamatory, slanderous, or libelous content
Sites that include political satire
§Security concerns[edit]
Many organizations implement filtering as part of a defense in depth strategy to protect their environments from malware,[48] and to protect their reputations in the event of their networks being used, for example, to carry out sexual harassment.
Internet filtering related to threats to national security that targets the Web sites of insurgents, extremists, and terrorists often enjoys wide public support.[8]
Examples include:
Blocking of pro–North Korean sites by South Korea[49]
Blocking sites of groups that foment domestic conflict in India
Blocking of sites of the Muslim Brotherhood in some countries in the Middle East
Blocking Wikileaks[50]
Blocking sites such as 4chan thought to be related to the group Anonymous[51]
§Protection of existing economic interests and copyright[edit]
The protection of existing economic interests is sometimes the motivation for blocking new Internet services such as low-cost telephone services that use Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). These services can reduce the customer base of telecommunications companies, many of which enjoy entrenched monopoly positions and some of which are government sponsored or controlled.[8]
Anti-copyright activists Christian Engström, Rick Falkvinge and Oscar Swartz have alleged that censorship of child pornography is being used as a pretext by copyright lobby organizations to get politicians to implement similar site blocking legislation against copyright-related piracy.[52][53]
Examples include:
Filesharing and Peer-to-peer (P2P) related websites such as The Pirate Bay
Skype
Sites that sell or distribute music, but are not 'approved' by rights holders, such as allofmp3
According to Google chairman Eric Schmidt, "government plans to block access to illicit filesharing websites could set a "disastrous precedent" for freedom of speech" and also expressed that Google would "fight attempts to restrict access to sites such as the Pirate Bay."[54]
§Network tools[edit]
Blocking the intermediate tools and applications of the Internet that can be used to assist users in accessing and sharing sensitive material is common in many countries.[8]
Examples include:
Media sharing websites (e.g. Flickr and YouTube)[55]
Social networks (e.g. Facebook and Myspace)
Translation sites and tools
E-mail providers
Web hosting sites
Blog hosting sites such as Blogspot
Microblogging sites such as Twitter and Weibo[56]
Wikipedia
Censorship circumvention sites
Anonymizers
Proxy avoidance sites
Search engines such as Bing[57] and Google[58][59] – particularly in Mainland China and Cuba[60]
§Information about individuals[edit]
Main article: Right to be forgotten
The right to be forgotten is a concept that has been discussed and put into practice in the European Union. In May 2014, the European Court of Justice ruled against Google in Costeja, a case brought by a Spanish man who requested the removal of a link to a digitized 1998 article in La Vanguardia newspaper about an auction for his foreclosed home, for a debt that he had subsequently paid.[61] He initially attempted to have the article removed by complaining to Spain's data protection agency—Agencia Española de Protección de Datos—which rejected the claim on the grounds that it was lawful and accurate, but accepted a complaint against Google and asked Google to remove the results.[62] Google sued in Spain and the lawsuit was transferred to the European Court of Justice. The court ruled in Costeja that search engines are responsible for the content they point to and thus, Google was required to comply with EU data privacy laws.[63][64] It began compliance on 30 May 2014 during which it received 12,000 requests to have personal details removed from its search engine.[65]
Index on Censorship claimed that "Costeja ruling ... allows individuals to complain to search engines about information they do not like with no legal oversight. This is akin to marching into a library and forcing it to pulp books. Although the ruling is intended for private individuals it opens the door to anyone who wants to whitewash their personal history....The Court’s decision is a retrograde move that misunderstands the role and responsibility of search engines and the wider internet. It should send chills down the spine of everyone in the European Union who believes in the crucial importance of free expression and freedom of information.[66]
§Around the world[edit]
Main articles: Internet censorship by country and Censorship by country
Internet censorship and surveillance by country[67][68][69][70]
Pervasive censorship
Substantial censorship
Selective censorship
Changing situation
Little or no censorship
Not classified / no data
As more people in more places begin using the Internet for important activities, there is an increase in online censorship, using increasingly sophisticated techniques. 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: east Asia, central Asia, and the Middle East/North Africa.
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-12 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.[71] In fact, many countries throughout the world, including some democracies with long traditions of strong support for freedom of expression and freedom of the press, are engaged in some amount of online censorship, often with substantial public support.[72]
Internet censorship in China is among the most stringent in the world. The government blocks Web sites that discuss the Dalai Lama, the 1989 crackdown on Tiananmen Square protesters, the banned spiritual practice Falun Gong, as well as many general Internet sites.[73] The government requires Internet search firms and state media to censor issues deemed officially “sensitive,” and blocks access to foreign websites including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.[74] According to a recent study,[75] censorship in China is used to muzzle those outside government who attempt to spur the creation of crowds for any reason—in opposition to, in support of, or unrelated to the government. 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".[76][better source needed]
In 2013 social media was banned in Turkey after the Taksim Gezi Park protests. Both Twitter and YouTube were closed in country with Turkish court’s decision. And a new law, passed by Turkish Parliament, has granted immunity to Turkey’s Telecommunications Directorate (TİB) personnel. The TİB was also given the authority to block access to specific websites without the need for a court order.[77]
§Reports, ratings, and trends[edit]
World map showing the status of YouTube blocking
Has local YouTube version
Accessible
Blocked
Previously blocked
Detailed country by country information on Internet censorship is provided by the OpenNet Initiative, Reporters Without Borders, Freedom House, and in the U.S. State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor's Human Rights Reports.[78] The ratings produced by several of these organizations are summarized in the Internet censorship by country and the Censorship by country articles.
§OpenNet Initiative reports[edit]
Through 2010 the OpenNet Initiative had documented Internet filtering by governments in over forty countries worldwide.[26] The level of filtering in 26 countries in 2007 and in 25 countries in 2009 was classified in the political, social, and security areas. 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 2007 and 2009, 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).[3][68]
§Freedom on the Net reports[edit]
In the 2011 edition of Freedom House's report Freedom on the Net, of the 37 countries surveyed, 8 were rated as "free" (22%), 18 as "partly free" (49%), and 11 as "not free" (30%).[79] In their 2009 report, of the 15 countries surveyed, 4 were rated as "free" (27%), 7 as "partly free" (47%), and 4 as "not free" (27%).[80] And of the 15 countries surveyed in both 2009 and 2011, 5 were seen to be moving in the direction of more network freedom (33%), 9 moved toward less freedom (60%), and one was unchanged (7%).
The 2014 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 2013 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. [81]
§Reporters Without Borders (RWB)[edit]
§RWB "Internet enemies" and "countries under surveillance" lists[edit]
In 2006, Reporters without Borders (Reporters sans frontières, RSF), a Paris-based international non-governmental organization that advocates freedom of the press, started publishing a list of "Enemies of the Internet".[82] The organization classifies a country as an enemy of the internet because "all of these countries mark themselves out not just for their capacity to censor news and information online but also for their almost systematic repression of Internet users."[83] In 2007 a second list of countries "Under Surveillance" (originally "Under Watch") was added. Both lists are updated annually.[84]
Current Enemies of the Internet:[70][69]
Bahrain: 2012 to present
Belarus: 2006-2008, 2012 to present
China: 2008 to present
Cuba: 2006 to present
Ethiopia: 2014 to present
India: 2014 to present
Iran: 2006 to present
North Korea: 2006 to present
Pakistan: 2014 to present
Russia: 2014 to present
Saudi Arabia: 2006 to present
Sudan: 2014 to present
Syria: 2006 to present
Turkmenistan: 2006 to present
United Arab Emirates: 2014 to present
United Kingdom: 2014 to present
United States: 2014 to present
Uzbekistan: 2006 to present
Vietnam: 2006 to present
Past Enemies of the Internet:
Burma: 2006 to 2013
Egypt: 2006-2010
Tunisia: 2006-2010
Current Countries Under Surveillance:[70]
Australia: 2009 to present
Bahrain: 2008-2009 and 2011
Egypt: 2011 to present
Eritrea: 2008-2009, 2011 to present
France: 2011 to present
Jordan: 2008
Kazakhstan: 2008 to present
Malaysia: 2008-2009, 2011 to present
South Korea: 2009 to present
Sri Lanka: 2008-2009, 2011 to present
Thailand: 2008 to present
Tajikistan: 2008
Tunisia: 2011 to present
Turkey: 2010 to present
Venezuela: 2011
Past Countries Under Surveillance:
Belarus: 2009-2011
India: 2008-2013
Libya: 2008 and 2011
Russia: 2010-2013
United Arab Emirates: 2008 to 2013
Yemen: 2008-2009
When the "Enemies of the Internet" list was introduced in 2006, it listed 13 countries. From 2006 to 2012 the number of countries listed fell to 10 and then rose to 12. The list was not updated in 2013. In 2014 the list grew to 19 with an increased emphasis on surveillance in addition to censorship.
When the "Countries under surveillance" list was introduced in 2008, it listed 10 countries. Between 2008 and 2012 the number of countries listed grew to 16 and then fell to 14. The list was not updated in 2013 or 2014.
§RWB Special report on Internet Surveillance[edit]
On 12 March 2013 Reporters Without Borders published a Special report on Internet Surveillance.[27] The report includes two new lists:
a list of "State Enemies of the Internet", countries whose governments are involved in active, intrusive surveillance of news providers, resulting in grave violations of freedom of information and human rights; and
a list of "Corporate Enemies of the Internet", companies that sell products that are liable to be used by governments to violate human rights and freedom of information.
The five "State Enemies of the Internet" named in March 2013 are: Bahrain, China, Iran, Syria, and Vietnam.[27]
The five "Corporate Enemies of the Internet" named in March 2013 are: Amesys (France), Blue Coat Systems (U.S.), Gamma (UK and Germany), Hacking Team (Italy), and Trovicor (Germany).[27]
§BBC World Service global public opinion poll[edit]
A poll of 27,973 adults in 26 countries, including 14,306 Internet users,[85] was conducted for the BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan using telephone and in-person interviews between 30 November 2009 and 7 February 2010. GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller felt, overall, that the poll showed that:
Despite worries about privacy and fraud, people around the world see access to the internet as their fundamental right. They think the web is a force for good, and most don’t want governments to regulate it.[86]
Findings from the poll include:[86]
Nearly four in five (78%) Internet users felt that the Internet had brought them greater freedom.
Most Internet users (53%) felt that "the internet should never be regulated by any level of government anywhere".
Opinion was evenly split between Internet users who felt that “the internet is a safe place to express my opinions” (48%) and those who disagreed (49%). Somewhat surprisingly users in Germany and France agreed the least, followed by users in highly filtered countries such as the People's Republic of China and South Korea, while users in Egypt, India and Kenya agreed more strongly.[3]
The aspects of the Internet that cause the most concern include: fraud (32%), violent and explicit content (27%), threats to privacy (20%), state censorship of content (6%), and the extent of corporate presence (3%).
Almost four in five Internet users and non-users around the world felt that access to the Internet was a fundamental right (50% strongly agreed, 29% somewhat agreed, 9% somewhat disagreed, 6% strongly disagreed, and 6% gave no opinion).[87] And while there is strong support for this right in all of the countries surveyed, it is surprising that the United States and Canada were among the top five countries where people most strongly disagreed that access to the Internet was a fundamental right of all people (13% in Japan, 11% in the U.S., 11% in Kenya, 11% in Pakistan, and 10% in Canada strongly disagree).[3]
§Internet Society's Global Internet User Survey[edit]
In July and August 2012 the Internet Society conducted online interviews of more than 10,000 Internet users in 20 countries. Some of the results relevant to Internet censorship are summarized below.[88]
Question No. of Responses Responses[89]
Access to the Internet should be considered a basic human right. 10,789 83% somewhat or strongly agree,
14% somewhat or strongly disagree,
3% don't know
Freedom of expression should be guaranteed on the Internet. 10,789 86% somewhat or strongly agree,
11% somewhat or strongly disagree,
2% don't know
The Internet should be governed in some form to protect the community from harm. 10,789 82% somewhat or strongly agree,
15% somewhat or strongly disagree,
3% don't know / not applicable
Censorship should exist in some form on the Internet. 10,789 71% somewhat or strongly agree,
24% somewhat or strongly disagree,
5% don't know / not applicable
Each individual country has the right to govern the Internet the way they see fit. 10,789 67% somewhat or strongly agree,
29% somewhat or strongly disagree,
4% don't know /not applicable
The Internet does more to help society than it does to hurt it. 10,789 83% somewhat or strongly agree,
13% somewhat or strongly disagree,
4% don't know / not applicable
How often do you read the privacy policies of websites or services that you share personal information with? 10,789 16% all the time,
31% most of the time,
41% sometimes,
12% never
When you are logged in to a service or application do you use privacy protections? 10,789 27% all the time,
36% most of the time,
29% sometimes,
9% never
Do you use “anonymization” services, for example, the “anonymize” feature in your web browser, specialized software like Tor, third - party redirection services like duckduckgo.com? 10,789 16% yes,
38% no,
43% don't know / not aware of these types of services,
3% would like to use them but I am not able to
Increased government control of the Internet would put limits on the content I can access. 9,717 77% somewhat or strongly agree,
18% somewhat or strongly disagree,
4% don't know / not applicable
Increased government control of the Internet would limit my freedom of expression. 9,717 74% somewhat or strongly agree,
23% somewhat or strongly disagree,
4% don't know / not applicable
Increased government control of the Internet would improve the content on the Internet. 9,717 49% somewhat or strongly agree,
44% somewhat or strongly disagree,
7% don't know / not applicable
Increased government control of the Internet would make the Internet safe for everyone to use. 9,717 58% somewhat or strongly agree,
35% somewhat or strongly disagree,
7% don't know / not applicable
Increased government control of the Internet would have no effect. 9,717 31% somewhat or strongly agree,
56% somewhat or strongly disagree,
14% don't know / not applicable
To what degree would you accept increased control or monitoring of the Internet if you gained increased safety? 10,789 61% a lot or somewhat,
23% not very much or not at all
§Transparency of filtering or blocking activities[edit]
Among the countries that filter or block online content, few openly admit to or fully disclose their filtering and blocking activities. States are frequently opaque and/or deceptive about the blocking of access to political information.[7] For example:
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are among the few states that publish detailed information about their filtering practices and display a notification to the user when attempting to access a blocked website.
In contrast, countries such as China and Tunisia send users a false error indication. China blocks requests by users for a banned website at the router level and a connection error is returned, effectively preventing the user's IP address from making further HTTP requests for a varying time, which appears to the user as "time-out" error with no explanation. Tunisia has altered the block page functionality of SmartFilter, the commercial filtering software it uses, so that users attempting to access blocked websites receive a fake "File not found" error page.
In Uzbekistan users are frequently sent block pages stating that the website is blocked because of pornography, even when the page contains no pornography. Uzbeki ISPs may also redirect users' request for blocked websites to unrelated websites, or sites similar to the banned websites, but with different information.[90]
§Arab Spring[edit]
See also: Internet Censorship in the Arab Spring, 2011 Egyptian Internet shutdown, and Free speech in the media during the Libyan civil war
During the Arab Spring of 2011, 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. An activist in Egypt tweeted, “we use Facebook to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world”.[91]
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[13][14][92] and Libya in 2011.[16][93] In Syria, the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA), an organization that operates with at least tacit support of the government, claims responsibility for defacing or otherwise compromising scores of websites that it contends spread news hostile to the Syrian government. SEA disseminates denial of service (DoS) software designed to target media websites including those of Al Jazeera, BBC News, Syrian satellite broadcaster Orient TV, and Dubai-based al-Arabia TV.[94]
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 2011, Reporters Without Borders moved Tunisia and Egypt from its "Internet enemies" list to its list of countries "under surveillance"[95] and in 2012 dropped Libya from the list entirely.[70] At the same time, there were warnings that Internet censorship might increase in other countries following the events of the Arab Spring.[96][97]
§See also[edit]
Organizations and projects:
Anonymous – an online hacktivist collective that express its opposition to Internet censorship through protests and online hacking in several countries.
Chilling Effects – A joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and several U.S. university law schools and clinics
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.S. based non-profit that produces the Freedom on the Net reports, among others.
Global Internet Freedom Consortium (GIFC) – A consortium of organizations that develop and deploy anti-censorship technologies
Global Internet Freedom Task Force (GIFT) - An initiative within the U.S. Department of State
International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX) – A global network of non-governmental organizations that promotes and defends the right to freedom of expression
Tunisia Monitoring Group – A coalition within IFEX that monitors free expression in Tunisia
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) – A United Nations multi-stakeholder policy dialogue initiative
Internet Watch Foundation - government-supported charity that manages the blacklist used by UK ISPs to block access to websites hosting child abuse content.
OpenNet Initiative – A joint project to monitor and report on Internet filtering and surveillance practices by nations
Peacefire, a U.S.-based website dedicated to "preserving First Amendment rights for Internet users, particularly those younger than 18"
The Pirate Party – a political movement that aims to reform laws regarding copyright and patents, strengthen the right to privacy, and increase the transparency of state administration
Reporters sans frontières (Reporters Without Borders) – A France-based international non-governmental organization that advocates freedom of the press
Book icon
Book: Internet
Portal icon Internet portal
Portal icon Freedom of speech portal
Topics:
Accountability software
Anti-copyright
Block (Internet), banning or blocking individual users.
Cleanfeed, a content blocking system in use in the UK and Canada.
Computer surveillance
Content-control software
Cyber-dissident
The Digital Imprimatur, a 2003 article about Internet censorship and Digital Rights Management by John Walker, co-founder of the computer-aided design software company Autodesk.
Digital rights
For the children (politics)
Great Firewall of China
Internet police
Internet activism
Internet safety
Laws and proposed laws:
List of Copyright Acts by country
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), multinational treaty.
Communications Decency Act, US law ruled unconstitutional.
Black World Wide Web protest
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), US law.
Copyright Directive, European Union directive.
Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008, New Zealand.
New Zealand Internet Blackout
HADOPI law, French law.
Paragraph 29 of DDL intercettazioni, proposed Italian law.
2011 mass blanking protest, Italian Wikipedia.
SOPA and PIPA, proposed US laws:
PROTECT Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), proposed US law.
Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), proposed US law.
Protests against SOPA and PIPA
Federal law of Russian Federation no. 139-FZ of 2012-07-28, Russian law.
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposed multilateral Free Trade Agreement that includes controversial intellectual property provisions.
Trans-Pacific Partnership intellectual property provisions
List of content-control software
Parental controls
Political repression of cyber-dissidents
Right to Internet access
River crab (Internet slang)
Scientology versus the Internet
Sociology of the Internet
Splinternet
§References[edit]
Cc.logo.circle.svg This article incorporates licensed material from the OpenNet Initiative web site.[98]
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Schmidt, Eric E.; Cohen, Jared (11 March 2014). "The Future of Internet Freedom". New York Times. Retrieved 11 March 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b Marcello Mari. How Facebook's Tor service could encourage a more open web. The Guardian. Friday 5 December 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Freedom of connection, freedom of expression: the changing legal and regulatory ecology shaping the Internet, Dutton, William H.; Dopatka, Anna; Law, Ginette; Nash, Victoria, Division for Freedom of Expression, Democracy and Peace, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, 2011, 103 pp., ISBN 978-92-3-104188-4
Jump up ^ "First Nation in Cyberspace", Philip Elmer-Dewitt, Time, 6 December 1993, No.49
Jump up ^ "Cerf sees government control of Internet failing", Pedro Fonseca, Reuters, 14 November 2007
Jump up ^ 2007 Circumvention Landscape Report: Methods, Uses, and Tools, Hal Roberts, Ethan Zuckerman, and John Palfrey, Beckman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, March 2009
^ Jump up to: a b ed. Chadwick, Andrew (2009). Routledge handbook of Internet politics. Routledge international handbooks. Taylor and Francis. p. 332. ISBN 978-0-415-42914-6.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h "Measuring Global Internet Filtering", Robert Faris and Nart Villeneuve, in Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering, Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain, eds., MIT Press (Cambridge), 2008
Jump up ^ Lao Wai (21 October 2007). "I've Been Rivercrabbed!". An American In Beijing. Retrieved 28 May 2011.
Jump up ^ "Empirical Analysis of Internet Filtering in China: Technical Appendix", Jonathan Zittrain and Benjamin Edelman, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, 20 March 2003
Jump up ^ For an example, see Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall
Jump up ^ Academics break the Great Firewall of China
^ Jump up to: a b c d Cowie, James. "Egypt Leaves the Internet". Renesys. Archived from the original on 28 January 2011. Retrieved 28 January 2011.
^ Jump up to: a b Kirk, Jeremy (28 January 2011). "With Wired Internet Locked, Egypt Looks to the Sky". IDG News/PC World. Archived from the original on 28 January 2011. Retrieved 28 January 2011.
Jump up ^ "Pulling the Plug: A Technical Review of the Internet Shutdown in Burma", OpenNet Initiative, November 2007
^ Jump up to: a b "Journalists confined to their hotels, Internet disconnected". Journalists confined to their hotels, Internet disconnected. Reporters Without Borders. Retrieved 21 March 2011.
Jump up ^ Google excluding controversial sites, Declan McCullagh, CNET News, 23 October 2002, 8:55 pm PDT. Retrieved 22 April 2007 00:40 UTC
Jump up ^ "The Emergence of Open and Organized Pro-Government Cyber Attacks in the Middle East: The Case of the Syrian Electronic Army", Helmi Noman, OpenNet Initiative, May 2011
Jump up ^ Declan McCullagh (23 April 2004). "Google's chastity belt too tight".
Jump up ^ "India blocks Yahoo! Groups", Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 24 September 2003
Jump up ^ "Access Denied". GLAAD. Archived from the original on 17 January 1999. Retrieved 5 May 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b ed. Chadwick, Andrew (2009). Routledge handbook of Internet politics. Routledge international handbooks. Taylor and Francis. pp. 330–331. ISBN 978-0-415-42914-6.
Jump up ^ "Political Repression 2.0", Evgeny Morzov, Op-Ed Contributor to the New York Times, 1 September 2011
Jump up ^ Glanville, Jo (17 November 2008). "The big business of net censorship". The Guardian (London).
Jump up ^ "Internet content filtering", Netsweeper, Inc. web site. Retrieved 1 September 2011
^ Jump up to: a b c d "West Censoring East: The Use of Western Technologies by Middle East Censors, 2010–2011", Helmi Noman and Jillian C. York, OpenNet Initiative, March 2011
^ Jump up to: a b c d The Enemies of the Internet Special Edition : Surveillance, Reporters Without Borders, 12 March 2013
Jump up ^ "Group Says It Has New Evidence of Cisco’s Misdeeds in China", Somini Sengupta, New York Times, 2 September 2011
Jump up ^ ed. Chadwick, Andrew (2009). Routledge handbook of Internet politics. Routledge international handbooks. Taylor and Francis. pp. 323–324. ISBN 978-0-415-42914-6.
Jump up ^ The Rhode Island affiliate, American Civil Liberties Union (April 2005). "R.I. ACLU releases report on "troubling" internet censorship in public libraries". Archived from the original on 8 December 2008. full report
Jump up ^ Sutton, Maira; Timm, Trevor (7 November 2011). "This Week in Internet Censorship Egypt Imprisons Alaa, Other Pro-democracy Bloggers". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 27 March 2012.
Jump up ^ China: Controls tighten as Internet activism grows "Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Nortel Networks, Websense and Sun Microsystems", citing Amnesty International: People’s Republic of China: State Control of the Internet in China, ASA, 17/007/2002, November 2002.
Jump up ^ "In Mexico, Social Media Become a Battleground in the Drug War", J. David Goodman, The Lede, New York Times, 15 September 2011
^ Jump up to: a b Provision of information in this fashion is in keeping with principles of freedom of expression, as long as it is done transparently and does not overwhelm alternative sources of information.
Jump up ^ "China’s growing army of paid internet commentators", Sarah Cook and Maggie Shum, Freedom House, 11 October 2011
Jump up ^ "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities", Facebook, 26 April 2011. Retrieved 18 August 2011
Jump up ^ "Google Terms of Service", Policies & Principles, Google, Inc.. Retrieved 1 April 2012
Jump up ^ "Why does Google remove sites from the Google index?", Google Webmaster Tools Help. Retrieved 22 April 2007 00:43 UTC
Jump up ^ "Terms of Service", Twitter, 1 June 2011. Retrieved 18 August 2011
Jump up ^ "Terms of Service", YouTube, 9 June 2010. Retrieved 18 August 2011
Jump up ^ "Deletion policy", Wikipedia. Retrieved 18 August 2011
Jump up ^ "Yahoo! Terms of Service", Yahoo!, 24 November 2008. Retrieved 18 August 2011
Jump up ^ "Risks", Internet censorship wiki. Retrieved 2 September 2011
Jump up ^ "U.S. Underwrites Internet Detour Around Censors", James Glanz and John Markoff, New York Times, 12 June 2011
Jump up ^ Blog censorship gains support | CNET News.com
Jump up ^ "Erowid Interview". Retrieved 26 May 2011.
Jump up ^ "Latest Stories From News.Com.Au".
Jump up ^ "Why Malware Filtering Is Necessary in the Web Gateway". Gartner. 26 August 2008. Retrieved 14 April 2012.
Jump up ^ "Collateral Blocking: Filtering by South Korean Government of Pro-North Korean Websites", OpenNet Initiative: Bulletin 009, 31 January 2005
Jump up ^ Press release from WIkileaks concerning Australian censorship
Jump up ^ "Federal authorities take on Anonymous hackers", Associated Press in the Washington Post, 12 September 2011
Jump up ^ Rick Falkvinge (9 July 2011). "The Copyright Lobby Absolutely Loves Child Pornography". TorrentFreak. Retrieved 26 July 2012.
Jump up ^ Christian Engström (27 April 2010). "IFPI’s child porn strategy". Retrieved 26 July 2012.
Jump up ^ Josh Halliday. theguardian.com. Google boss: anti-piracy laws would be disaster for free speech. Published on Wednesday 18 May 2011.
Jump up ^ YouTube Blocked in…Thailand
Jump up ^ "China struggles to tame microblogging masses", Agence France-Presse (AFP) in The Independent, 8 September 2011
Jump up ^ "Sex, Social Mores, and Keyword Filtering: Microsoft Bing in the "Arabian Countries", Helmi Noman, OpenNet Initiative, March 2010
Jump up ^ "Google Search & Cache Filtering Behind China's Great Firewall", OpenNet Initiative: Bulletin 006, 3 September 2004
Jump up ^ "Empirical Analysis of Google SafeSearch", Benjamin Edelman, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School, 13 April 2003
Jump up ^ "China blocking Google". BBC News. 2 September 2002. Retrieved 5 May 2010.
Jump up ^ Julia Powles (15 May 2014). "What we can salvage from 'right to be forgotten' ruling". Wired.co.uk. Retrieved 16 May 2014.
Jump up ^ Solon, Olivia (13 May 2014). "People have the right to be forgotten, rules EU court". Wired.co.uk. Conde Nast Digital. Retrieved 13 May 2014.
Jump up ^ "EU court backs 'right to be forgotten' in Google case". BBC News. 13 May 2014. Retrieved 13 May 2014.
Jump up ^ "EU court rules Google must tweak search results in test of "right to be forgotten"". CBS News. 13 May 2014. Retrieved 13 May 2014.
Jump up ^ "Removal of Google personal information could become work intensive". Europe News.Net. Retrieved 2 June 2014.
Jump up ^ Index blasts EU court ruling on “right to be forgotten”
Jump up ^ OpenNet Initiative "Summarized global Internet filtering data spreadsheet", 8 November 2011 and "Country Profiles", the OpenNet Initiative is a collaborative partnership of the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto; the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University; and the SecDev Group, Ottawa
^ Jump up to: a b Due to legal concerns the OpenNet Initiative does not check for filtering of child pornography and because their classifications focus on technical filtering, they do not include other types of censorship.
^ Jump up to: a b "Internet Enemies", Enemies of the Internet 2014: Entities at the heart of censorship and surveillance, Reporters Without Borders (Paris), 11 March 2014. Retrieved 24 June 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Internet Enemies, Reporters Without Borders (Paris), 12 March 2012
Jump up ^ "Introduction" at the Wayback Machine (archived June 29, 2012), Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey, in Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering, Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain, eds., MIT Press (Cambridge), 2008
Jump up ^ "Internet Filtering: The Politics and Mechanisms of Control", Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey, in Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering, Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain, eds., MIT Press (Cambridge), 2008
Jump up ^ "Internet Censorship in China". The New York Times. December 28, 2012. Retrieved 9 March 2013.
Jump up ^ Human Rights Watch. "World Report 2012: China". Retrieved 9 March 2013.
Jump up ^ G. King et al. (22 August 2014). "Reverse-entineering censorship in China: Randomized experimentation and participant observation". Science 345 (6199): 891. doi:10.1126/scient.1251722.
Jump up ^ [1] (subscription required), Proquest, 6 January 2010. Retrieved 11 February 2013
Jump up ^ Sarıkaya, Salih. "Social Media Ban In Turkey: What Does It Mean? by Salih Sarıkaya". Retrieved 15/07/14. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
Jump up ^ "2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices", Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State, 8 April 2011
Jump up ^ Freedom on the Net 2011, Freedom House. Retrieved 1 September 2011
Jump up ^ Freedom on the Net 2009, Freedom House. Retrieved 1 September 2011
Jump up ^ Freedom on the Net 2014, Freedom House. Retrieved 14 December 2014
Jump up ^ List of the 13 Internet enemies Reporters Without Borders (Paris), 11 July 2006.
Jump up ^ "Internet enemies", Reporters Without Borders (Paris), 12 March 2009.
Jump up ^ Web 2.0 versus Control 2.0. Reporters Without Borders (Paris), 18 March 2010.
Jump up ^ For the BBC poll Internet users are those who used the Internet within the previous six months.
^ Jump up to: a b "BBC Internet Poll: Detailed Findings", BBC World Service, 8 March 2010
Jump up ^ "Internet access
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
bvb,
Wow, that's a lot to digest.
To sum up, which countries would censor a photo of Willie Nelson's ball sack?
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
bvb thinks he's saving supertopo for climbers only. LOL!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!