Internet censorship

src: i.ytimg.com

Internet censorship is the control or oppression of what is accessible, published, or viewed on the Internet as enacted by regulators, or on their own initiative. Individuals and organizations may engage in self-censorship for moral, religious or business reasons, to adapt to social norms, for intimidation, or for fear of law or other consequences.

The level of Internet censorship varies by country-to-country. While most democratic countries have moderate internet censorship, other countries go so far as to limit access to information such as news and suppress discussions among citizens. Internet censorship also occurs in response to or in anticipation of events such as elections, protests, and riots. An example is the increase in sensors due to the Arab Spring events. Other areas of censorship include copyright, defamation, harassment, and obscene material.

Support for and opposition to Internet censorship also varies. In the Internet Community survey 2012, 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 human right" and 86% agreed that "freedom of expression should be guaranteed on the Internet". According to GlobalWebIndex, more than 400 million people use virtual private networks to avoid censorship or enhance user privacy.

Video Internet censorship

Ikhtisar

Many of the challenges associated with internet censorship are similar to offline sensors for more traditional media such as newspapers, magazines, books, music, radio, television, and movies. One difference is that national borders are more permeable online: the citizens of a country that prohibit certain information may find it on websites hosted abroad. So the censors must work to prevent access to information even though they have no physical or legal control over the website itself. This in turn requires the use of unique technical sensor methods for the Internet, such as site blocking and content filtering.

The view of the feasibility and effectiveness of Internet censorship has evolved in parallel with the development of internet technology and censorship:

The 1993 article Time Magazine quotes computer scientist John Gilmore, one of the founders of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who says "The Net interprets the sensors as damages and routes around them."/li>
In November 2007, "Father of the Internet" Vint Cerf stated that he saw government control over the Internet fail because the Web was almost entirely privately owned.
A research report conducted in 2007 and published in 2009 by Berkman Center for Internet & amp; People at Harvard University stated that: "We are confident that device developers [censorship sensors] will remain largely ahead of government blocking efforts", but also that "... we believe that less than two percent of all filtered internet users use circumvention tool ".
In contrast, the 2011 report by researchers at the Oxford Internet Institute published by UNESCO concluded "... the control of information on the Internet and the Web is certainly viable, and technological advances do not guarantee greater freedom of speech."
Dr Shashi Tharoor in a quarterly lecture program hosted by a think tank based in India, the Center for Public Policy Research states that "the way to express our reinforcedly reinforced viewpoints and opinions through digital media, freedom of expression is a big responsibility "

Blocking and filtering can be based on a relatively static blacklist or more dynamically determined based on real-time checks of information exchanged. Blacklists can be produced manually or automatically and are often not available to non-customer blocking software. Blocking or filtering can be done at a centralized national level, at a decentralized sub-national level, or at the institutional level, for example in libraries, universities or internet cafes. Blocking and filtering may also vary in a country at different ISPs. Countries may sustain sensitive content on an ongoing basis and/or introduce temporary filtering over major time periods such as elections. In some cases, censorship authority covertly blocks content to mislead the public into believing that censorship has not been implemented. This is achieved by restoring the "Not Found" error message when attempts are made to access blocked websites.

Unless the sensors have full control over all computers connected to the Internet, such as in North Korea (which uses intranets accessible only to citizens), or Cuba, the total censorship of information is extremely difficult or impossible to achieve because of the underlying distributed Internet technology. Pseudonyms and data shield (such as Freenet) protect free speech using technology that ensures the material can not be removed and prevent the author's identification. Users who master the technology can often find ways to access blocked content. Nevertheless, blocking remains an effective way to limit access to sensitive information for most users when sensors, such as those in China, are capable of devoting significant resources to building and maintaining a comprehensive sensor system.

The term "splinternet" is sometimes used to describe the effects of a national firewall. The verb "rivercrab" colloquially refers to Internet censorship, especially in Asia.

Maps Internet censorship

Content suppressor method

Technical sensor

Approach

Internet content is subject to technical sensor methods, including:

Internet Protocol (IP) address blocking : Access to a specific IP address is rejected. If the target website is hosted on a shared hosting server, all websites on the same server will be blocked. It affects IP-based protocols such as HTTP, FTP, and POP. The typical circumvention method is to find a proxy that has access to the target website, but the proxy may be stuck or blocked, and some Web sites, such as Wikipedia (while editing), also block proxies. Some large websites like Google have allocated additional IP addresses to avoid the block, but then the block is expanded to include new addresses. Due to challenges with geolocation, geographic blocking is usually implemented through IP address blocking.
Domain name system (DNS) filtering and redirection : Blocked domain names not resolved, or incorrect IP addresses returned via DNS hijacking or otherwise. It affects all IP based protocols such as HTTP, FTP, and POP. The typical circumvention method is to find an alternative DNS resolver that resolves the domain name correctly, but the domain name servers can also experience blockages, especially IP address blocking. Another solution is to bypass DNS if IP addresses can be obtained from other sources and are not automatically blocked. Examples are modifying Host files or typing IP addresses instead of domain names as part of URLs assigned to a Web browser.
Uniform Resource Locator Filtering (URL) : URL string is scanned for the target keyword regardless of the domain name specified in the URL. This affects the HTTP protocol. The typical circumvention method is to use characters that pass in the URL, or use encrypted protocols such as VPN and TLS/SSL.
Package filtering : Stops sending TCP packets when a number of controversial keywords are detected. This affects all TCP-based protocols such as HTTP, FTP, and POP, but the search engine result pages are more likely to be censored. Typical circumvention methods are using encrypted connections - such as VPN and TLS/SSL - to avoid HTML content, or by reducing TCP/IP stack MTU/MSS to reduce the amount of text contained in certain packages.
Connection reset : If the previous TCP connection was blocked by the filter, future attempts on both sides of the connection may also be blocked for some time. Depending on the location of the block, other users or websites may also be blocked, if communication is routed through blocking locations. The circumvention method is to ignore the reset packets sent by the firewall.
Network disconnection : The technically simpler method of Internet censorship is actually cutting off all routers, either by software or by hardware (turning off the machine, unplugging cables). This seems to have happened on 27/28 January 2011 during the 2011 Egyptian protest, in what has been widely described as an "unprecedented" internet block. Around 3500 Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routes to the Egyptian network are closed from about 22:10 to 22:35 UTC January 27. This full block is implemented without cutting the major fiber-optic link between continents, with Renesys saying on January 27, "The Critical Europe-Asia fiber optic route through Egypt seems unaffected for now." Full blocks also occurred in Myanmar/Burma in 2007, Libya in 2011, and Syria during the Syrian civil war. The circumvention method can use a satellite ISP to access the Internet.
Portal sensor and removal of search results : The main portal, including search engines, can exclude websites they normally include. This makes the site invisible to people who do not know where to find it. When the main portal does this, it has the same effect as censorship. Sometimes these exceptions are made to meet legal or other requirements, at other times it is purely at the discretion of the portal. For example, Google.de and Google.fr remove Neo-Nazis and other lists that comply with German and French law.
Computer network attacks : Denial-of-service attacks and attacks that damage an opposition website may produce similar results with other blocking techniques, preventing or restricting access to certain websites or other online services, though only for a limited period of time. This technique may be used during lead up to elections or other sensitive periods. This is more often used by non-state actors who seek to disrupt service.

Over and under-blocking

Technical censorship techniques are subject to excessive and under blocking because it is often impossible to always block the targeted content appropriately without blocking other permitted material or allowing some access to the targeted material and thereby providing more or less protection than desired. An example is that automatic censorship of sexual words in the material for children, set to block the word "cunt", has been known to block the Lincolnshire placename Scunthorpe. Another example is blocking server IP addresses hosting multiple websites, which prevents access to all websites, not just sites that contain content that is considered offensive.

According to a report made in 1997 by the GLAAD gay rights group, many of the 1990s internet censorship software products prevented access to material unrelated to LGBT pornography.

Use of commercial filtering 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 New The York Times , explains that companies in the United States, Finland, France, Germany, Britain, Canada and South Africa are partly responsible for the increasing sophistication of online content filtering worldwide. While off-the-shelf filtering software sold by Internet security firms is primarily marketed to businesses and individuals who want to protect themselves and their employees and families, they are also used by governments to block what they perceive as sensitive content.

Among the most popular screening software programs is SmartFilter by Secure Computing in California, purchased by McAfee in 2008. SmartFilter has been used by Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iran and Oman, as well as the United States and English. Myanmar and Yemen have been using filtering software from Websense. Commercial filters made in Canada Netsweeper are used in Qatar, UAE, and Yemen. The Canadian organization CitizenLab has reported that Sandvine and Procera products are used in Turkey and Egypt.

On March 12, 2013 in the Special Report on Internet Supervision , Reporters Without Borders mentions five "Enemy Internet Companies": Amesys (France), Blue Coat Systems (USA), Gamma (UK and Germany), Team Hacking (Italy), and Trovicor (Germany). The company sells products that can be used by the government to violate human rights and freedom of information. RWB said that the list is incomplete and will be expanded in the coming months.

In a US lawsuit filed in May 2011, Cisco Systems is accused of helping the Chinese Government build a firewall, widely known as the Golden Shield, to censor the internet and oversee dissidents. Cisco says nothing special for China. Cisco is also accused of assisting the Chinese government in monitoring and arresting members of the forbidden Falun Gong group.

Many screening programs allow blocking to be configured based on dozens of categories and subcategories like this from Websense: "abortion" (pro-life, pro-choice), "adult material" (adult content, underwear and swimsuits, nudity, sex, sex education ), "advocacy groups" (sites promoting change or reform in public policy, public opinion, social practice, economic activity and relationships), "drugs" (drug abuse, marijuana, prescribed drugs, supplements and unregulated compounds) , "religion" (non-traditional religion of occult and folklore, traditional religion),.... Blocking categories used by screening programs may contain errors leading to unintentional web site blocking. Blocking DailyMotion in early 2007 by the Tunisian authorities, according to the OpenNet Initiative, as Secure Computing incorrectly categorizes DailyMotion as pornography for its SmartFilter filtering software. Initially it was thought that Tunisia had blocked DailyMotion because of a satirical video about human rights abuses in Tunisia, but after Secure Computing repaired mistakes access to DailyMotion was gradually restored in Tunisia.

Organizations such as the Global Network Initiative, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Amnesty International, and the American Civil Liberties Union have successfully lobbied several vendors such as Websense to make changes to their software, refrain from doing business with repressive governments, and educate schools inadvertently reconfigure their filtering software too tightly. However, rules and accountability regarding the use of filters and commercial services are often absent, and there is little oversight from civil society or other independent groups. Vendors often consider information about which sites and what content is blocked by valuable intellectual property that is not available outside the company, sometimes not even for organizations that purchase filters. So by relying on an out-of-box filtering system, the detailed task of deciding what or non-transferable speech to commercial vendors is.

Non-technical sensors

Internet content is also subject to censorship methods similar to those used with more traditional media. As an example:

Laws and regulations may prohibit any type of content and/or require that content be removed or blocked proactively or in response to a request.
Publishers, authors, and ISPs may receive formal and informal requests to remove, alter, tilt or block access to certain sites or content.
Publishers and authors may accept bribes to enter, withdraw, or tilt the information they provide.
Publishers, authors, and ISPs may be subject to arrests, criminal charges, fines, and imprisonment.
Publishers, authors, and ISPs may be subject to civil suits.
Equipment can be seized and/or destroyed.
Issuers and ISPs may be closed or the required licenses may be withheld or withdrawn.
Publishers, authors, and ISPs may be subject to a boycott.
Their publishers, authors, and families may be subjected to threats, attacks, beatings, and even murders.
Their publishers, authors, and families may be threatened or actually lose their jobs.
Individuals can be paid to write articles and comments to support a particular position or attack an opposition position, usually without recognizing payment to readers and viewers.
Sensors can create their own online publications and websites to guide online opinion.
Access to the Internet may be limited due to a limiting or high cost permissions policy.
Access to the Internet may be limited due to lack of necessary infrastructure, intentional or otherwise.

Official web portal's official statement and deletion of content

Most of the web service providers reserve for themselves extensive rights to remove or pre-screen content, sometimes without providing a specific list or just an unclear public list of reasons that allow removal. The phrases "at our sole discretion", "without prior notice", and "for other reasons" are common to the Terms of Service agreement.

Facebook: The Facebook Rights and Responsibility Statement says: "You will not post content that: hatred, threatening, or pornography, incites violence, or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence," "You do not will use Facebook to do anything illegal, misleading, dangerous, or discriminatory, "We may remove any content or information you post on Facebook if we believe that it violates this Statement", and "If you are in an embargoed country by the United States, or on the US Special Affairs Special Department list that you will not engage in commercial activities on Facebook (such as advertising or payments) or operate Platform apps or websites. "
Google: Google's general Terms of Service, updated on March 1, 2012, states: "We may suspend or terminate our provision of the Services to you if you do not comply with our terms or policies or if we investigate alleged infringement", "We may review content to determine whether it is illegal or violate our policies, and we may remove or refuse to display content that we believe violates our policies or laws ", and" We respond to notices of alleged copyright infringement and terminate the accounts of repeat infringers according to the process specified in Digital Millennium Copyright Act AS.
- Google Search: Google Webmaster Tools Help includes the following statement: "Google may temporarily remove the site from the index and search if it believes that it is required to do so by law, if the site is not meet Google's quality guidelines, or for any other reason, se if the site reduces the ability of users to search for relevant information. "
- YouTube: YouTube's Terms of Service include the following statement: "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, pornographic, obscene, or excessive duration of YouTube at any time, prior notification and in its sole discretion, remove such Content and/or terminate the user's account to submit such material in violation of these Terms of Service "," YouTube will remove all Content if properly notified that the Content infringes the other party's intellectual property rights ", and" YouTube reserves the right to remove Content without prior notice ".
- Wikipedia: Content in Wikipedia articles may be modified or removed by any editor as part of the normal process of editing and updating articles. All editing decisions are open for discussion and review. The Wikipedia Deletion Policy describes the circumstances in which the entire article can be deleted. Any editor who believes a page not to be included in the encyclopedia can file a removal. Such pages may be removed by any administrator if, after seven days, no one objected to the deletion being submitted. Quick deletion allows the removal of articles without discussion and is used to remove pages that are clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia so they do not have a chance to survive the deletion discussion. All deletion decisions can be reviewed, either informally or formally.
src: atltomgirl.files.wordpress.com

Evasion
Internet censorship is a process used by tech savvy Internet users to bypass the technical aspects of Internet filtering and gain access to censored material. Evasion is an inherent problem for those who want to censor the internet because filtering and blocking do not remove content from the Internet, but block access to the Internet. Therefore, as long as there is at least one publicly accessible, uncensored system, it is often possible to gain access to the censored material. But circumvention is not possible for users who do not understand the technology, so blocking and filtering remain an effective way to censor Internet access from a large number of users.
Different techniques and resources are used to bypass Internet censorship, including proxy websites, virtual private networks, sneakernets, and circumvention software. Solutions have different ease of use, speed, security, and risk. Most, however, rely on gaining access to Internet connections that are not subject to filtering, often in different jurisdictions not subject to the same sensor laws. According to GlobalWebIndex, more than 400 million people use virtual private networks to avoid censorship or enhance privacy. The majority of circumvention techniques are not suitable for everyday use.
There is a risk of using circumvention software or other methods to bypass Internet censorship. In some countries, people who gain access to other restricted content may be unlawful and if caught can be expelled, fired, imprisoned, or subject to other penalties and loss of access.
In June 2011, the New York Times reported that the US was involved in a "global effort to spread the 'shadow' of the Internet and mobile phone systems that dissenters could use to undermine repressive governments that try to silence them by censoring or shutting down telecommunications networks. "
Another way to avoid internet censorship is to physically go to an area where the internet is not censored. In 2017, an "Internet refugee camp" was established by IT workers in the village of Bonako, just outside the Cameroon region where the Internet is regularly blocked.
src: i1.wp.com

Common target
There are several motives or reasons for Internet filtering: political and social power, norms and morals, and security issues. Protecting existing economic interests is an additional motif that appears to filter the Internet. In addition, network tools and applications that allow sharing of information associated with these motives themselves undergo filtering and blocking. And while there are many variations from one country to another, the blocking of websites in the local language is approximately twice that of websites available only in English or other international languages.
Politics and power
Censorship directed at political opposition to the ruling government is common in authoritarian and repressive regimes. Some countries block websites related to religion and minority groups, often when these movements are a threat to the regime in power.
Examples include:
- Political blogs and websites
- LÃƒÆ'Ã‚Â¨se majestÃƒÆ' Ã‚ Â© , sites with content that offends or challenges a sovereign or state authority
- Falun Gong and Tibetan group travel sites in China or Buddhism, Cao Dai's trust, and traditional hill tribal sites in Vietnam
- Sites devoted to conversion of religion from Islam to Christian
- Sites that criticize governments or authorities in countries
- Sites that comment on political parties that are against the current state government
- Sites that accuse authorities of corruption
- Sites that comment on minority or LGBT issues
Social norm
Social screening is the censorship of topics that are considered contrary to accepted societal norms. In particular, censorship of child pornography and for the protection of children enjoys widespread public support and the content is subject to censorship and other restrictions in most countries.
Examples include:
- Sites that include words that trigger hate, racism, sexism, homophobia, or other bigotry forms
- Sites are considered to promote illegal drug use (Erowid)
- Sex and erotic sites, fetishism, prostitution, and pornography
- Child pornography and related pedophile sites (see also CIRCAMP)
- Gambling sites
- Sites encourage or incite violence
- Sites that promote criminal activity
- Communist symbols and imagery in Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, Latvia, Moldova, and Hungary
- Nazis and similar websites, especially in France and Germany
- Sites that contain blasphemous content, especially when directed to majority or supported countries
- Sites that contain libelous, defamatory, or libelous content
- Sites that include political satire
- Sites that contain information about social issues or "online protests, petitions, and campaigns"
Security worries
Many organizations implement filtering as part of defense in an in-depth strategy to protect their environment from malware, and to protect their reputation if their network is used, for example, to engage in sexual harassment.
Internet filtering is linked to threats to national security that target websites of rebels, extremists, and terrorists often enjoys widespread public support.
Examples include:
- North Korea's pro-North blockade by South Korea
- Blocks group sites that cause domestic conflict in India
- Blocking of Muslim Brotherhood's websites in some Middle East countries
- Block WikiLeaks
- Blocking sites like 4chan are considered to be associated with anonymous groups
Protection of existing economic and copyright interests
Protection against existing economic interests can sometimes be a motivation to block new Internet services such as cheap phone services that use Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). This service can reduce the customer base of telecommunication companies, many of whom enjoy a deeply rooted monopoly position and some of them are sponsored or controlled by the government.
Christian EngstrÃƒÆ'Ã‚Â¶m's anti-copyright activist Rick Falkvinge and Oscar Swartz have alleged that censorship of child pornography is used as a pretext by a copyright lobbying organization to get politicians to apply the same site blocking laws against copyright-related piracy.
Examples include:
- File sharing 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
Network tools
Blocking intermediate tools and Internet applications that can be used to help users access and share sensitive material is common in many countries.
Examples include:
- Media sharing websites (such as Flickr and YouTube)
- Social networks (eg Facebook and Instagram)
- Sites and translation tools
- Email provider
- Website hosting
- Blog hosting sites like Blogspot
- Microblogging sites like Twitter and Weibo
- Wikipedia
- Censorship sensing site
  - Anonymizers
  - Proxy evasion site
- Search engines like Bing and Google - especially in Mainland China and Cuba
Information about individuals
The right to be forgotten is a concept that has been discussed and practiced in the EU. In May 2014, the European Court ruled against Google at Costeja , a case filed by a Spanish man requesting removal of links to digital articles 1998 in the newspaper's La Vanguardia auction her foreclosed home, for the debts that were then paid to her. He initially attempted to remove the article by complaining to the Spanish data protection agency - Agencia EspaÃƒÆ' Ã‚ Â± ola de ProtecciÃƒÆ'Ã‚Â³n de Datos - who dismissed the claim on the ground that it was valid and accurate, but received a complaint against Google and asked Google to remove the result. Google sued in Spain and the lawsuit was transferred to the European Court. The court decides at Costeja that search engines are responsible for their designated content and as such, Google must comply with EU data privacy laws. It started compliance on May 30, 2014 where it received 12,000 requests to have personal details removed from its search engine.
Index on Censorship claims that " Costeja is in power... enables individuals to complain to search engines about information they do not like without legal oversight.This is similar to marching into the library and forcing it to shrink the book. private people, this opens the door for anyone who wants to cover their personal history.... The Court's decision is a step backwards that misunderstood the roles and responsibilities of search engines and the wider internet, yearning for the spine of everyone in the EU believe in the importance of freedom of expression and freedom of information. "
src: www.thetruthseeker.co.uk

Worldwide
As more and more people in more places start 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. Countries involved in state-mandated screening are grouped into three major areas of the world: East Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East/North Africa.
Countries in other regions also practice some form of screening. In the United States state-mandated Internet filtering occurs on multiple computers in libraries and K-12 schools. Content related to Nazism or Holocaust denials are blocked in France and Germany. Child pornography and hate speech are blocked in many countries around the world. In fact, many countries around the world, including some democracies with a long tradition of strong support for freedom of expression and freedom of the press, are involved in a number of online censors, often with great public support.
Internet censorship in China is among the most stringent in the world. The government blocked Web sites that discussed the Dalai Lama, the 1989 suppression of Tiananmen Square protesters, the Falun Gong practice of forbidding Falun Gong, as well as many public Internet sites. The government requires Internet search companies and state media to censor officially considered "sensitive" issues, and to block access to foreign websites including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. According to a recent study, censorship in China is used to suppress those outside the government who seek to spur mass creation for any reason - contrary to, to support, or unrelated to government. The government allows Chinese people to say whatever they like about the country, its leaders, or their policies, because the subject matter that is not related to collective action is not censored. The value found by Chinese leaders in enabling and then measuring criticism by hundreds of millions of Chinese people creates actionable information for them and, as a result, also for academic academics and public policy analysts.
There are international agencies that oppose Internet censorship, such as "Internet censorship is open to challenge at the World Trade Organization (WTO) because it can restrict trade in online services, an upcoming study believes.
Reports, ratings, and trends
Country details based on country information on internet censorship are provided by the OpenNet Initiative, Reporters Without Borders, Freedom House, and the US State Administration Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights and Human Rights Reports. Ratings generated by some of these organizations are summarized in the censorship of the internet by the state and Censorship by state articles.
OpenNet Initiative Report
Throughout 2010 the OpenNet Initiative has been documenting Internet filtering by governments in over forty countries around the world. The level of screening in 26 countries in 2007 and in 25 countries in 2009 was classified in politics, social, and security. Of the 41 separate countries classified, seven were found to have no evidence of screening in all three areas (Egypt, France, Germany, India, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and the United States), while one was found to engage in pervasive screening in all three regions (China) 13 were found to be involved in pervasive screening in one or more areas, and 34 were found to be involved in several levels of screening in one or more areas. Of the 10 countries classified in 2007 and 2009, one reduces the filtration rate (Pakistan), five increases their filtration rate (Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, South Korea and Uzbekistan), and four maintain the same level of screening (China, Iran, Myanmar , and Tajikistan).
Freedom on the Net report
In the 2011 edition of the Freedom House Freedom on the Net report, from 37 countries surveyed, 8 were rated "free" (22%), 18 as "partially free" (49%), and 11 as "no free "(30%). In their 2009 report, out of the 15 countries surveyed, 4 were rated as "free" (27%), 7 as "partially free" (47%), and 4 as "non-free" (27%). And of the 15 countries surveyed in 2009 and 2011, 5 were seen moving toward more network freedom (33%), 9 moving toward less freedom (60%), and one 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, some countries show gains in Internet freedom, and recorded improvements reflect less robust implementation of existing controls rather than new measures taken by the government to actively increase internet freedom. The biggest increase this year was recorded in India, where content and access restrictions relaxed from what was imposed in 2013 to cripple unrest in the northeastern states. Significant improvements are also recorded in Brazil, where MPs approve the Marco Civil Bill of the Internet, which contains significant provisions governing net neutrality and safeguarding privacy protection.
RWB "Enemy of the Internet" and "controlled state" list
In 2006, Reporters Without Borders (RSi), an international Paris-based non-governmental organization that supports press freedom, began publishing a list of "Enemies from the Internet". The organization classifies a country as an internet enemy because "all these countries mark themselves not only because of their capacity to censor news and information online but also to their almost systematic repression of Internet users." In 2007 the second list of countries "Under the Watch" (the original "Under the Watch") was added.
When the "Enemy of the Internet" list was introduced in 2006, 13 countries were registered. From 2006 to 2012, the number of registered countries dropped to 10 and then rose to 12. The list was not updated in 2013. By 2014, the list increased to 19 with an increased emphasis on surveillance other than censorship. This list has not been updated since 2014.
When the list of "State under supervision" was introduced in 2008, listed 10 countries. Between 2008 and 2012 the number of registered countries increased to 16 and then fell to 11. This list was last updated in 2012.
RWB Custom Reports on Internet Supervision
On March 12, 2013, Reporters Without Borders published the Special Report on Internet Supervision . This report includes two new lists:
- list of "Enemy Countries of the Internet", countries whose governments are engaged in active supervision and disrupt news providers, resulting in severe violations of freedom of information and human rights; and
- list of "Internet Enemy Companies", companies that sell products that can be used by governments to violate human rights and freedom of information.
Fifth "Internet Enemy Countries" named March 2013 are: Bahrain, China, Iran, Syria, and Vietnam.
The five "Enemy Companies of the Internet" named March 2013 are: Amesys (France), Blue Coat Systems (USA), Gamma International (UK and Germany), Hacking Team (Italy), and Trovicor (Germany).
BBC World global public opinion poll
A poll of 27,973 adults in 26 countries, including 14,306 internet users, was conducted for BBC World Service by the GlobeScan international polling firm using telephone and individual interviews between November 30, 2009 and February 7, 2010. GlobeScan chairman Doug Miller felt, overall , that polls show that:

Despite concerns 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 do not want the government to organize it.

Findings from the poll include:
- Almost four out of five (78%) of internet users feel that the internet has given them greater freedom.
- Most Internet users (53%) feel that "the internet should not be governed by any level of government".
- Opinions are evenly shared between internet users who feel that "the internet is a safe place to express my opinion" (48%) and those who disagree (49%). Somewhat surprisingly users in Germany and France agree the fewest, followed by users in highly filtered countries like China, while users in Egypt, India and Kenya agree stronger.
- The most worrying aspects of the Internet include: fraud (32%), violent and explicit content (27%), threats to privacy (20%), state content censorship (6%), and as far as company presence (3% ).
- Almost four out of five internet users and non-users worldwide feel that access to the Internet is a fundamental right (50% strongly agree, 29% somewhat agree, 9% somewhat disagree, 6% strongly disagree, and 6% not give opinion). And while there is strong support for this right in all the countries surveyed, it is surprising that the United States and Canada are among the top five countries where most people disagree that access to the Internet is everyone's fundamental right (13% in Japan, 11% in the US, 11% in Kenya, 11% in Pakistan, and 10% in Canada strongly disagree).
Internet Internet Global Society User Survey
In July and August 2012, the Internet Society conducted online interviews of over 10,000 Internet users in 20 countries. Some of the results relevant to internet censors are summarized below.
Transparency filtering or blocking activity
Among the countries that filter or block online content, some openly acknowledge or fully disclose their filtering and blocking activities. The state is often unclear and/or deceptive about blocking access to political information. As an example:
- Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are among some countries that publish detailed information about their filtering practices and show notifications to users when trying to access blocked websites. Most blocked websites are Pornography and are in conflict with states and/or Islam.
- Instead, countries like China and Tunisia send users indications of false error. China blocks requests by users for websites that are blocked at the router level and connection errors are restored, effectively preventing the IP addresses of users making further HTTP requests for varying times, which users seem to be "time-out" errors without explanation. Tunisia has changed the function of the SmartFilter block page, the commercial filtering software it uses, so that users who try to access blocked sites receive a fake "File not found" error page.
- In Uzbekistan, users often send pages that say websites are blocked because of pornography, even when the page does not contain pornography. The Uzbeki ISP may also redirect a user's request for a blocked website to an unrelated website, or a site similar to a forbidden website, but with different information.
Arab Spring

See also: Internet Crisis in the Arab Spring, 2011 Egyptian Internet Closure, and freedom of speech in the media during the Libyan civil war

During the Arab Spring 2011, media jihad (media struggle) is vast. Internet and mobile technologies, especially social networks like Facebook and Twitter, play and play a new and unique role that matters in organizing and spreading protests and making them visible to the rest of the world. An activist in Egypt tweeted, "we use Facebook to schedule protests, Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to let the world know."
The successful use of digital media in turn led to an increase in censorship including loss of overall Internet access for a period of time in Egypt and Libya in 2011. In Syria, the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA), an organization operating with at least silent support from the government , claims responsibility for damaging or compromising a number of websites deemed to be spreading news hostile to the Syrian government. SEA deploys denial of service (DoS) software designed to target media websites including Al Jazeera's website, BBC News, satellite broadcaster Syria Orient TV, and Dubai-based Al Arabiya TV.
In response to the broader freedom of expression brought about by the Arab Spring revolution in countries that were previously subject to censorship is very strict, in March 2011 Reporters Without Borders moved Tunisia and Egypt from the list of "Internet enemies" to the list of countries "below supervision "and in 2012 dropped Libya from the list entirely. At the same time, there is a warning that Internet censorship may increase in other countries after the Arab Spring events. However, in 2013, Libyan communications company LTT blocked pornographic websites. It even blocks family videos that are filtered from regular websites like Dailymotion.
src: safervpn-blog.s3.amazonaws.com

See also

src: mcmims.files.wordpress.com

References
This article incorporates licensed material from the OpenNet Initiative website.
src: c8.alamy.com

External links
- Censorship Wikia, an anti-censorship site that catalogs past and present censored works, uses verifiable sources, and a forum to discuss organizing against and avoiding censorship.
- "Index on Censorship", a website for organizations and magazines promoting freedom of expression in London.
- Internet censorship wiki, provides information about various filtering access methods and ways to bypass it.
- "Online Survival Devices", We Fight Reporters Without Borders Censorship Project.
- "Media Freedom Internet Cookbook" by the OSCE Representative on Media Freedom, Vienna, 2004.
- Discussion about global clean filtering, Berkman Center for Internet & amp; Society, Harvard, March 2008.
- How to Cut the Internet Censorship , also known as: Over the Internet Censorship or Disposal Tools , FLOSS Manual, March 10, 2011, 240 pp.
- "How to bypass internet censorship: Current internet censorship status", The Times of India , November 14, 2013.
- "Free Speech in the YouTube Era" at New York Times , September 22, 2012.
Source of the article : Wikipedia

Internet censorship

Kamis, 05 Juli 2018