What happens when a government orders the Internet to be used as part of a repressive regime? Events of the past few weeks have given us some answers.
The first instance came in China a few weeks ago, when the government announced its "Green Dam" policy -- a mandatory process by which computer manufacturers and retailers would be required to include filtering software with the equipment they sold, software that would be directed primarily at pornography and adult content, but that would also allow the government to block content critical of Chinese authorities or policies.
The Green Dam project was to go into effect July 1, but with just hours to go before the deadline, the government decided to postpone the launch, although it isn't clear whether the proposal is being cancelled, or whether it has just been delayed.
A statement from the official newswire service Xinhua said that computer makers complained they needed more time to implement the software behind the Green Dam policy.
There were other concerns, however, that might have convinced the Chinese authorities to postpone or possibly even cancel the requirement. One was an outcry from computer makers and distributors at being forced to become an extension of the government's censorship policy. Until now, China has censored the Internet primarily through direct controls on Internet service providers and Websites.
An international group of business organizations -- including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the European-American Business Council, and the Information Technology Industry Council -- sent a strongly-worded letter to Chinese premier Wen Jiabao, and the U.S. government sent letters arguing that China's policy might breach its obligations as part of the World Trade Organization.
There were also claims by one U.S. company that the filtering software PC makers were required to install was a copy of its own technology and therefore a breach of copyright laws. And a Chinese technology consultant said that its investigation of the software showed that it contained security holes that would make users' PCs vulnerable to hackers.
As some observers have pointed out, the Green Dam project threatened to extend the range of companies affected by -- and implicated in -- China's repression of its citizens, from just the Big Three search companies (Google (Nasdaq: GOOG), Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) and Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO)) to every computer maker and distributor inside or outside the country.
China isn't the only repressive government to stir up these kinds of issues by turning to technology as a way of extending its reach: Iran has also been in the news recently because of its Internet-filtering technology.
According to a recent article in The Wall Street Journal, the Iranian government has developed highly sophisticated censorship technology that is based on software and equipment from several European companies, including Nokia Corp. (NYSE: NOK). The Finland-based company's involvement has sparked outrage from a number of quarters, and it prompted an Internet petition aimed at forcing Nokia to stop selling its technology to Iran.
The company, meanwhile, has said that it only sold Iran standard voice-monitoring software, not anything that provides Deep Packet Inspection capabilities or Internet monitoring.
While the situation in Iran remains unclear, the postponing and potential cancellation of China's Green Dam project shows -- as Rebecca MacKinnon of Global Voices notes -- that if companies and organizations and foreign governments stand together, it is possible to get even the most intractable of governments to bend.
— Mathew Ingram, technology writer for The Globe and Mail in Canada
Has anyone suggested that we leave it to the government "to determine the breadth of such a right, and how that right exists?"
I missed that in this thread. I think for the most part (except for the "xxx" delrailment by myself) that we're discussing the interference by governments to free speech.
"We the people" are supposed to be the ones with the ability to change, but when only approximately 50% of us turnout to vote and an even smaller number than that take part in any political action on a more regular basis than every four years, that's not so simple.
In fact, I would say business has a greater influence on the government than "We the people" do. That being said, I'm not sure I trust business any more than I trust the government to look after my best interests.
I always find it interesting that in a country where we have so much freedom we still find ways to complain about it. While there are others in countries less fortunate that are criminalized for expressing their opinions. There are people in countries that to even support their religious leader is an act of treason. To complain about a government program can land you in prison in some countries. These people would give up so much to have just a portion of the freedoms we enjoy, and for the most part take for granted on a daily basis.
My concern with a business protecting my free speech is what happens when my freedom has an impact on the bottom line for the business - which way will the business lean?
Yes, they are very different. I apologize for digressing off the main topic in response to Mashka's post. I thought I had brought it back on track.
Today China put a stop to twitter and other social networks and put a slowdown on Internet connectivity as a whole in response to the violence that erupted in the Xingjian between the Chinese police and the Uighurs (wee-gers).
Why would we want/allow the Government to be the determining body when it comes to our freedom, most notably, the inalienable human right to free speech? The implementation of such an essential right through James Madison's words in the 1st Amendment to the Bill of Rights were penned with the intention that this freedom, above all, would protect us from dictorial/tyrannical rule of any kind. The right of free speech is deemed so necessary due to the potential for it alone to guide and protect a democracy.
So why on earth are we looking towards the Government to determine the breadth of such a right, and how that right exists? The United States Constitution and the amdendments in the Bill of Rights thererin were written from the perspective of and directed towards "We, the People", and as Abraham Lincoln once warned, "Do not interfere with anything in the Constitution, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
The potential for social media to have enormous effects politically, socially, commercially, etc in our world is being recognized more and more with each tweet. But instead of looking to government to protect/censor or free speech on the internet as they seem fit, I think we should look towards capitalism.
Imagine "We, the People" personified through the usage of a social media network intended to give it's users a platform for the enactment of their right to free speech. Instead of trusting the government to ensure our freedoms, I'm going with Abe on this one. We have the right to free speech, and any question otherwise is the first sign of worse (dictorial, tyrannical) things to come.
I am developing www.My1stAmendment.com, Your Personal Free Speech Platform. A social network that will serve as the personified embodiment of Americans' free speech, protected not by the government, but a company , who is aligning their strategic plan with increased social justice.
Thanks for your comments, everyone. Jason, I agree that there should be some protections available online for people who don't want to see objectionable content -- and possibly the .xxx domain would be one way to accomplish that. But I think there's a vast difference between those kinds of approaches, which are entirely voluntary and can be opted out of, and a state-controlled machinery that prevents everyone from seeing certain information by default, particularly if that information impacts freedom of speech as it does in China.
The more insecure a person/Organization/Govt is the more actively they Social Network;Its just an extension of their insecurity..
Whose ever heard of people like Bill Gates,Warren Buffet,Mohammed Yunus,etc-Social Networking(These are immensely succesful people in their various fields) ??
I agree that people have a fundamental right to freedom, however, that is not absolute.
Someone once said, "The right to swing your arm ends at where my nose begins." In other words, one's freedom should not interfere with another's freedoms.
Slavery is the most egregious example.
Buddhist beliefs state that we're all the same fundamentally. We all want one thing - happiness. The problem is that we don't know how to achieve it. Dictators, fraudsters, and even murders are seeking happiness, but they choose the wrong path to get there.
The Internet and the resulting methods of communication it offers provides for a greater freedom of information. Despite the controls that are put in place, it only takes one person to get the ball rolling. Once out there, it is virtually impossible to contain.
This can have both positive and negative effects. Knowing what information to believe can become difficult.
Dictatorships can use the Internet to put information out there to support their cause. We see a lot of this on Twitter now with regards to Iran (#IranElection).
I loved your post,especially the line,"Dictatorships realize the biggest threat to their control is "hope." Hope is developed through communication. Control the communication you can control the level of hope.
It really sums up the problem that elites have always had in controlling people and especially in Dictatorships.Enough studies have shown that only Dictators and their cronies benefit in a Dictatorship so I am not going there.
People have a fundamental right to Freedom ;everyone wants to be free to do their own thing and express themselves-If this upsets some Elites at Top levels of Govt. they can de damned for all I care.[Its a different matter once they start holding a gun to your head...]
Jason_13, I agree with you about some politics on censorship. It is nessesary. The thing is the censorship may be really different. Here in Russia, no one can criticize the president or the goverment anymore, though one can easily find naked body images in the newspapers and magazines , and adult content in the movies, that are shown during the day. I am not a hypocrite, but I find it unacceptible. So, your idea with xxx domain sounds reasonable. And I do think that censorship should be logical but not absurd.
While I am not a censor freak, I do feel that a certain amount of segregation of content is needed.
Perhaps I'm being naive, but I have always felt there should be an "xxx" top-level domain for adult sites. While Europe may be more understanding about nudity than the U.S. or other countries, I think there is a difference between nudity and porn.
It would be great if pornography sites were forced into an "xxx" domain so that ISPs could offer home users the ability to block that top-level domain in its entirety.
I realize the complexities in this. There would be a big task to monitor for pornography outside of this domain and issue cease and desist letters, fines, and eventual domain name revocation. Perhaps search engines could assist in that task.
Ok, so there is my Utopian view.
China has always been crafty (though rarely believable) in their attempts at control. Take the "liberation of the Tibetan people" for an example with massive impact. It's not surprising that they would now be looking to protect the innocent sensitivity of their citizens from the vile pornography, which no doubt id a "free world problem."
Dictatorships realize the biggest threat to their control is "hope." Hope is developed through communication. Control the communication you can control the level of hope.
Mathew! I think censorship makes everything more interesting in a certain point. We really do not value easy access that we have. We take for granted that we can obtain any information we want. Take porn for example. 15 years ago if somebody wanted porn, this person should go to a special place with embarassment, dropped the eyes and asked for the adult video. Now, one-two- three, one can get any video of any content , he/she wants. An easy access makes porn a part of everyday routine, it almost detabooed sex and porn. So my point is inspite of all attempts of goverments to censor the Internet content, people will find the way to evade the censorship and get everything they want- they will only value this:))))
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
The idea that the Internet might be used for scientific collaboration shouldn't come as much of a surprise, since the Web's predecessor was originally created as a way to connect researchers at different institutions so they could solve problems together.
Not that long ago, blogs were a mysterious animal that most reputable companies shied away from, an untrustworthy medium populated by cranks in their pyjamas.
The battle between eBay Inc. (Nasdaq: EBAY) and Skype Ltd. is escalating, and in the end, users of the Web-based phone-calling application could be the ultimate losers.
In 1891, Nicola Tesla held up a discharged light bulb and showed how it could be lit up anywhere in a room with a specialized magnetic field. More than a century later, businesses and consumers may soon be able to tap into commercial wireless electrical services, if a couple of entrepreneurs have their way.
Should Facebook and Google users in the U.S. thank the Canadian government for protecting their privacy? A pretty good case could be made that they should.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
With the number of mobile broadband users more than doubling in 2009, and soon to exceed fixed broadband, the Internet saw a historic transition this year – and the long-term effects are incalculable.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
It is 20 years since the invention of the World Wide Web, and the Internet has changed beyond recognition since then. Steve Saunders peers into the future to predict what the Web will look like in another 20 years time – and he doesn’t like what he sees.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
More companies are trolling social networks to find and vet potential job candidates. Beware the pitfalls of blurring the line between personal and professional lives.
How do you recognize an Internet bubble when you see one? Saunders explains how all bubbles have four symptoms in common – and takes a swipe at Google and Twitter into the bargain.
Research shows that the youth of today like Facebook – but not blogging or Twitter. Does that mean Facebook has won, or just that it's not yet out of favor? Will all the services we see today fade into Ovaltine-or-Wheaties status in just a few years?
What kinds of companies are doing the most innovation in the data center? Turns out it's midtier enterprises that are taking the "Just Right" approach.
Ray Kurzweil's Blio and Apple's iPad tablet will make it easier than ever to have books "read" to us, says Dr. Kim, who believes that talking tablets will become interwoven into our consciousness as we "merge" with the increasingly elegant machines we hold in our hands.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
