The Debate on Internet Censorship: Part 2

This blog post is in response to a question from Professor Sauter regarding my last blog post. I originally started it as reply to her comment on the relevant post, but by the time I finished it had grown into something more.

1 comments:

Vicki said...

Free speech is something we take for granted even though it is not so free in many other places. It has become more than a philosophical discussion now that governments are involved. Whom do you believe should decide such things?

April 14, 2010 12:46 PM

Well, it depends on the situation. I agree that when it comes to businesses and government offices, they should have some say over what goes in and out of their networks, not only for business reasons, but for security reasons too. At the same time, I don't think anybody should have their access to information limited. The way I envision it is that businesses can control what kind of file types can be downloaded using the business computer/networks. For example, there is no reason for an employee to be downloading music or videos (even if paid for) during business hours (unless that's what the business is in). Those are things that should be done at home. Factory workers or hospital staff should not be spending their time on the clock on Facebook or YouTube, they have a job to do.

When it comes to censorship and citizens of a country as a whole, there should be no censorship. I don't understand why the countries that still censor internet traffic keep fighting a battle that they seemed destined to lose. Looking at history, censorship efforts almost always fail. Even if you go back only 20-25 years ago, before the Iron Curtain fell, most of Eastern Europe, Russia, and the Middle East saw the effects of some kind of censorship under the Communist government. I know these governments see censorship as a form of control over the populace and a way of staying in power, but as history tells us, only a rare few manage to keep control for long periods of time.

I think that it is up to the public to decide what they want to see or do, and no government can control it. Look at the way TV turned out. Today, you can see almost anything on TV. Not too long ago, broadcasts were not allowed to use certain words or depict certain acts. They still aren't to a certain extent, but for the most part, especially on cable and premium channels, you get everything from violence, to drug use, to nudity. The point is, that if you are watching these channels, it is because you chose to do so. You turned the TV on, changed the channel, and stopped on a channel that looks interesting, and in some cases this is a channel that you are paying extra for. If you object to what is being shown, you can always change the channel. It is true that the worst of what you can find on TV doesn't compare to the worst of what you can find on the Internet, but, again, in most cases you have a choice of going to that site or not. The exceptions are pop-up ads which we have no control over, but presently, most pop-up blockers do a decent job of filtering out the worst offenders. But, other than pop-ups, you have a choice when browsing the internet.

If internet sites had clear rating standards for content, like TV broadcasts and movies already do, then accessing the internet would be safer, while preserving freedom of speech. For example, if each website had a label clearly visible upon entering whether the site is rated for minors or not, and the reasons for the rating, and a way of broadcasting this rating to filtering programs, then surfing the internet would be like watching TV. Parents could set a filter program to filter out anything that is rated above a certain age, kind of like they already do with TV now. There are ways to do this now, but they don't always do it effectively, and they mostly rely on white lists of websites, based on keywords, or other criteria that are fallible. One problem with this is that some filters are overly aggressive. For example, the network at my parent's house filters any websites related to torrents, blocking most websites where you can find these files. However it misses one major site, and blocks most search results (which I can get around by mistyping the word torrent as torent

A great tool that I use in addition to pop-up blockers is an extension available for most browsers called WOT: Wheel of Trust. The way it works is that whenever you visit a site you can rate its based on reliability, trustworthiness, privacy, and child safety. It takes all the ratings that users submit and aggregates them into a rating that is displayed next to links and next to the browser bar as a circle that goes from red to green. Green means you're good to go. Red means that this site is questionable, and you should be cautious before proceeding and giving out any information. But it gives you a clear choice: "Do you still want to go this site, or No". You aren't being denied access because someone thinks this site is objectionable, but rather you are being warned, and if you choose to proceed you are responsible for what you see or what happens. While this still isn't the best way to rate sites because it depends wholly on user ratings, so if a site isn't visited and rated it won't have a rating to display. However a system similar to this would ensure that we aren't bombarded with sites and information we don't want to see, while still protecting the freedom of speech.

In summary, censorship, and control over internet content and freedom of speech is not something that is black and white. In certain rare cases it is beneficial, and even highly recommended (e.g. military censorship of letters sent home from war zones, for security reasons). But it is not something that can be controlled by the government. The people should have a right to access any information they choose. Based on history, it is inevitable that the people will eventually win when it comes to government censorship and free speech. The only difference is whether that comes about as a result of a war or revolution, or as a result peaceful and open discussion about the issue.

Link to WoT website: http://www.mywot.com/

The Debate on Internet Censorship

Internet censorship is a topic that is drawing more and more attention recently. The debate centers around whether governments and other authority figures have the right to censor what internet users can and can't do or see online. Major examples of this seen in the news recently are the controversy surrounding China and its internet policies and Iran's blocking of Gmail.

China censors many websites because it vies them as a threat to the ruling regime or because of opinions or news that is contrary to the official party line. It does this in an effort to prevent dissenters from organizing and coordinating effectively. It not only censors websites, but also monitors individual access. Doing this allows the government to crack down on protests and anti-government propaganda before they have a chance to flourish or become a major headache for them.

Recently, Iran suspended access to Google's Gmail service, so that the countries leaders could unveil a new national email system for Iranians. This is a thinly veiled attempt to control the populations internet activities, through monitoring and censorship of email. Most observers speculate that this because of recent protests over elections and because of the release of Google Buzz, a feature integrated into Gmail which aims to put Google on the social networking map.

(Links to the story about Iran:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/10/technology/google_iran_gmail/index.htm?eref=time_tech

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704140104575057621649270154.html

)

Both of these examples illustrate some of the reasons why this debate has become a big issue. Internet users can access information anywhere in the world. This means that governments now have less control over what the general population sees. Before the internet, people had limited sources to get their news, usually newspapers or television. These are much easier to censor or block than material on the internet is. With the advent of the internet, one could get news and communicate with people anywhere in the world. Now it was much harder for a government to claim one thing to tits citizens, when the rest of the world said another. At the same time, businesses, schools, and other users of the internet were looking for a way to maintain productivity, by preventing users from accessing certain websites which were unnecessary for work or school. This benign goal led to technology that made it easier to control the flow of information. Now internet access could be limited through software or hardware solutions. Naturally, governments such as China or Iran would want such technology to make it easier to patrol the internet within their borders. Of course this led to the development of methods to get around these blocks. Since then, the debate over free speech on the internet has grown to epic proportions.

There are other parts to this debate as well. Should companies be allowed to limit employees' access to certain websites? Should schools be allowed to block objectionable or offensive material from its networks? Should internet providers limit bandwidth, so as to prevent network slowdowns? Should governments be allowed to monitor individual internet access? Should people be allowed to say racist or inflammatory things online? Should the internet access of certain criminals be allowed?

There are no clear answers to any of these questions. What is clear is that there are pros and cons to both limited and unlimited access to information on the internet. Institutions such as schools and government offices argue that they need to protect internet access because otherwise their networks and security could be compromised. Businesses claim that without blocking some internet access, worker productivity would fall. Everyone is worried that objectionable material such as pornography or racist websites will be viewed in inappropriate places such as work or school, or that such material will be accessed by unsuitable users such as children or criminals. Most of the debates center around the need to protect users and networks from malicious software or objectionable material against the need to protect free speech rights. These issues are key drivers of the internet censorship debate. Resolving these issues will require a lot of give and take and both sides, which neither side seems willing to do. Until a compromise can be reached, this debate will rage on, wasting time and money of all those involved or affected by these issues.