Is all Internet Censorship the same? If not, how do the different types differ? Many individuals may not know; however, the United States also participates in Internet Censorship for national security purposes. A recent article on Tech Dirt briefly explores internet censorship, showing where and how censoring occurs. Within the article is a venn diagram that highlights the reasons countries have for censoring data. The three reasons are to maintain: 1) Political Stability 2)Traditional Social Values 3) National Security. Many of the countries overlap between two reasons or even all three.
Most censorship that's in the news today has to deal with countries completely blocking websites out; which most of us can agree (at least in our society) is unethical. China is currently blocking the word "Jasmine" from being viewed due to fear of anti-government protests starting like in Egypt and Tunisia. And some internet censorship isn't even initiated by countries but by "Cyber Terrorists" like recently in Canada. But what about when censorship (like in the USA) is used for National Security?
What do you think... is it ethically correct for a government to participate in censoring for safety reasons?
It is not surprising at all that China belongs to the most overlapped area in that venn diagram. In fact,there is a term "sensitive words" that categorizes those words that are being blocked online, and "Jasmine" is now one of them.Almost all websites have the functionality to censor these sensitive words and replace them with *** or ???. However, people figured out a strategy to against this censorship by using initial of Pinyin, for example, MLH to represent "Jasmine". Then the information you want to impart can also be expressed. Of course, its life cycle may be short depending on when the website administrators find it inappropriate and decide to delete it.
ReplyDeleteNo matter for what reasons, censorship is doing similar things:find whatever the government does not like and block it from its people. I think censoring for safety reasons is just a start and others may come later.
I think it's also important to define what is censorship. Censorship merely the government looking in keeping tabs on citizens, or is it the unethical means of restricting access to some form of media. Completely agree that China is censoring is its people, however I don't think the United States participates in these actions. Nor do I think United States will ever participate in these actions. I remember watching some of the fallout on TV of what happened in Egypt and Pres. Obama addressed the nation and asked that the president of Egypt would turn back on communications and not interfere with natural order or communications between its people. I feel that the United States would never do this type of thing due to many constitutional boundaries it would break..
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I think the act of censorship for national security could result to be effective, yet we should consider the side affects that result from it.
ReplyDeleteConsider what Hui emphasized about how people can usually find ways to get around the censorship and communicate. In a way, should we look at the effectiveness of what we do, is it really working? If we think about the situation such as limitation on alcohol and cigarettes, censorship perhaps can be another form. When there is definitely an advancement in control for safety, there is also a back movement associated with it.
If we do an analysis on censorship, we can briefly have a pros/cons table. While in terms of media, censorship can result in discouragement of producers, and reduce the incentives of the buyers. It can hurt the industry. But at the same time, the advantage is that we are less exposed to materials that potentially do greater harm.
In my opinion, it is an on going battle between these pros and cons regarding to censorship. Whenever we find a middle point that compromise, that may be ideal.
Why do you think the U.S. would not participate in censorship? Just because we advocate free speech doesn't mean we don't curtail speech too. The media is not allowed to say what they think because large corporations own them and don't want them to talk about certain issues. The words that people use are censored. Some websites are curtailed (e.g., wikileaks). The reason is always national security, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking we aren't (1) monitored, and (2) prevented from seeing everything, or hearing/reading different viewpoints. Maybe that's what twitter is for... but even there, you can get fired for what you say there, too.
ReplyDeleteIf you don't believe me, check out Brendan Miller's blog. It's full of details about the things the U.S. does to censor data/news/etc to get out.
ReplyDeletehttp://cyber-warfare-update-2011.blogspot.com/