The issue of whether the Internet can be censored and how governments are trying to do it continues to be fought around the world.
The OpenNet Initiative (opennet.net), a collaborative partnership of four leading academic institutions, has produced a book-length analysis — Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering (tinyurl.com/4v5ofh). It’s a primer in methods and an atlas of studies. The first sections provide an analytical framework. Then prohibitions are examined across dozens of countries. The results show that far from the earlier idea of the Internet destroying nations, nations are, arguably, domesticating the Internet (or at least trying hard). As one telling sentence puts it: “A key aspect of control online ... is that states have, on an individual basis, defied the cyberlibertarians by asserting control over the online acts of their own citizens in their own states.”
DOUBLETHINK
Back in 1996, during that year’s conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy, I literally talked myself hoarse trying to convince civil libertarians that censorware (a more accurate term than “filters”) would be a serious threat to freedom of speech (sethf.com/pioneer).
Prevailing viewpoints of the time were an odd doublethink — that censorware should be touted as a solution for parents who wanted to prevent their kids reading forbidden material, but that the Internet couldn’t be censored by governments. More than a decade on, this book details how extensively governments have been attempting Internet censorship.
The book’s very existence is a milestone. Over time an issue can work its way up the political food chain, from often-ignored grassroots activists, to marginal but significant mentions in white papers by think tanks, to full-scale consideration by policymakers.
And the issues here encompass everything from the complicity of US censorware companies with censorious regimes to the collaboration of information storage giants like Google and Yahoo with repressive state actions.
Censorware never was just about teens looking at porn or employees goofing off. When I speak about censorware, I often try to impress on people that technical architectures are different from personal values. That is, if parents can limit what teenagers can see, then governments can limit what citizens see. And the other side is if citizens can circumvent governments, teenagers will be able to circumvent parents.
But there’s a refinement I usually don’t have room to discuss. That is, it’s arguably futile to try to eliminate sexual material in general owing to its sheer amount and possible interest by virtually all (male) adolescents and adults. But the number of people interested in, say, the independence of Tibet from China or dissent in Burma is orders of magnitude smaller. And that difference may make for a far more manageable banning problem. The details of how human rights reports or opposition sites have been blocked are putting this speculation to a practical test.
However, it would be ironic if, at ground level, pornography-seeking uses of projects such as the Psiphon (psiphon.civisec.org) social networks-based program or the Tor anonymity system (torproject.org) ended up popularizing the programs for political uses.
NEW ERA
Some have suggested that we are entering a new Internet era with blogs and syndication feeds and massive digital sharecropping sites that will on the whole be more difficult to censor.
My response to this idea is to remind people that essentially identical rhetoric was heard at the start of the Internet’s popularization. And we’re seeing now how those predictions were wrong.
Indeed, there’s every reason to expect that similar trends such as centralization, willingness of corporations to collaborate, the power of the market for repression and so on will be applied to these forms of communication. The failure of technological determinism just a short while ago should argue strongly against such baseless optimism.
Access Denied will certainly become a standard reference. But it’s sadly not clear whether it will be more as a foundation for anti-censorship efforts — or as an initial chronicle of how visions of freedom turned into realities of control.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry