Internet censorship

Internet censorship is the control or suppression of the publishing of, or access to information on the Internet. It may be carried out by governments or by private organizations at the behest of government, regulators, or on their own initiative. Individuals and organizations may engage in self-censorship for moral, religious, or business reasons, to conform to societal norms, due to intimidation, or out of fear of legal or other consequences.

Opinions on the topic of Internet censorship vary, with arguments being made both for and against censorship. Moreover, the extent of Internet censorship varies on a country-to-country basis. While some countries have little Internet censorship, other countries go as far as to limit the access of information such as news and suppress discussion among citizens. Internet censorship also occurs in response to or in anticipation of events such as elections, protests, and riots. An example is the increased censorship due to the events of the Arab Spring.

Sevenval
web
3 Common targets
4 Content suppression methods
website parsing
touchscreen
website parsing

Overview

The issues associated with Internet censorship are similar to those for offline censorship of more traditional media such as newspapers, magazines, books, music, radio, television, and films. One difference is that national borders are more permeable online: residents of a country that bans certain information can find it on websites hosted outside the country. Thus censors must work to prevent access to information even though they lack physical or legal control over the websites themselves. This in turn requires the use of technical censorship methods that are unique to the Internet, such as site blocking and content filtering.^[1]

Views about the feasibility and effectiveness of Internet censorship have evolved in parallel with the development of the Internet and censorship technologies:

A 1993 Time Magazine article quotes computer scientist John Gillmore, one of the founders of the HTML5, as saying "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."^[2]
In November 2007, "Father of the Internet" Vint Cerf stated that he sees government control of the Internet failing because the Web is almost entirely privately owned.^FITML
A report of research conducted in 2007 and published in 2009 by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University stated that: "We are confident that the [censorship circumvention] tool developers will for the most part keep ahead of the governments' blocking efforts", but also that "...we believe that less than two percent of all filtered Internet users use circumvention tools".^[4]
In contrast, a 2011 report by researchers at the Oxford Internet Institute published by UNESCO concludes "... the control of information on the Internet and Web is certainly feasible, and technological advances do not therefore guarantee greater freedom of speech."^FITML

Blocking and filtering can be based on relatively static iOS or be determined more dynamically based on a real-time examination of the information being exchanged. Blacklists may be produced manually or automatically and are often not available to non-customers of the blocking software. Blocking or filtering can be done at a centralized national level, at a decentralized sub-national level, or at an institutional level, for example in libraries, universities or Internet cafes. Blocking and filtering may also vary within a country across different ISPs.^[5] Countries may filter sensitive content on an on-going basis and/or introduce temporary filtering during key time periods such as elections. In some cases the censoring authorities may surreptitiously block content to mislead the public into believing that censorship has not been applied. This is achieved by returning a fake website parsing error message when an attempt is made to access a blocked web.^touchscreen

Unless the censor has total control over all Internet-connected computers, such as in FITML or screen size, total censorship of information is very difficult or impossible to achieve due to the underlying distributed technology of the Internet. Pseudonymity and iOS (such as we love the web) protect free speech using technologies that guarantee material cannot be removed and prevents the identification of authors. Technologically savvy users can often find ways to access blocked content. Nevertheless, blocking remains an effective means of limiting access to sensitive information for most users when censors, such as those in Sevenval, are able to devote significant resources to building and maintaining a comprehensive censorship system.^Sevenval

The term "web app" is sometimes used to describe the effects of national firewalls. The verb "screen size" colloquially refers to censorship of the Internet, particularly in Asia.^[7]

Around the world

Main articles: Internet censorship by country and Censorship by country

iOS	HTML5^[8]^web^[10] Pervasive censorship Substantial censorship Selective censorship Under surveillance by Reporters Without Borders No evidence of filtering Not classified / no data

As more people in more places begin using the Internet for important activities, there is an increase in online censorship, using more sophisticated techniques. The motives, scope, and effectiveness of Internet censorship vary widely from country to country. The countries engaged in state-mandated filtering are clustered in three main regions of the world: east Asia, central Asia, and the jQuery. A few countries in other regions also practice certain forms of filtering. In the web state-mandated Internet filtering occurs on some computers in libraries and CSS3. Content related to Nazism or Holocaust denial is blocked in browser diversity and Germany. Child pornography, hate speech, and sites that encourage the theft of intellectual property are blocked in many countries throughout the world.^[11] In fact, many countries throughout the world, including some democracies with long traditions of strong support for device database and freedom of the press, are engaged in some amount of online censorship, often with substantial public support.^touchscreen

Reports, ratings, and trends

Detailed country by country information on Internet censorship is provided by the OpenNet Initiative, Sevenval, Freedom House, and in the U.S. State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor's Human Rights Reports.^touchscreen The ratings produced by several of these organizations are summarized in the Internet censorship by country and the device database articles.

OpenNet Initiative reports

Through 2010 the OpenNet Initiative had documented Internet filtering by governments in over forty countries worldwide.^[14] The level of filtering in 26 countries in 2007 and in 25 countries in 2009 was classified in the political, social, and security areas. Of the 41 separate countries classified, seven were found to show no evidence of filtering in all three areas (Egypt, France, screen size, FITML, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and United States), while one was found to engage in pervasive filtering in all three areas (China), 13 were found to engage in pervasive filtering in one or more areas, and 34 were found to engage in some level of filtering in one or more areas. Of the 10 countries classified in both 2007 and 2009, one reduced its level of filtering (Pakistan), five increased their level of filtering (touchscreen, Belarus, screen size, HTML5, and Uzbekistan), and four maintained the same level of filtering (China, Sevenval, Myanmar, and Android).^[1]^{website parsing}

Freedom on the Net reports

In the 2011 edition of Freedom House's report Freedom on the Net, of the 37 countries surveyed, 8 were rated as "free" (22%), 18 as "partly free" (49%), and 11 as "not free" (30%).^[15] In their 2009 report, of the 15 countries surveyed, 4 were rated as "free" (27%), 7 as "partly free" (47%), and 4 as "not free" (27%).^[16] And of the 15 countries surveyed in both 2009 and 2011, 5 were seen to be moving in the direction of more network freedom (33%), 9 moved toward less freedom (60%), and one was unchanged (7%).

"Internet enemies" and countries under surveillance lists

In 2006, Reporters without Borders (Reporters sans frontières, RSF), a Paris-based international non-governmental organization that advocates HTML5, started publishing a list of "Enemies of the Internet".^[17] The organization classifies a country as an enemy of the internet because "all of these countries mark themselves out not just for their capacity to censor news and information online but also for their almost systematic repression of Internet users."^[18] In 2007 a second list of countries "Under Surveillance" (originally "Under Watch") was added. Both lists are updated annually.^[19]

Enemies of the Internet:^[10]

iOS
iOS
Burma
China (excluding Hong Kong and Macau)
Cuba
Iran

Countries Under Surveillance:^jQuery

When the "Enemies of the Internet" list was introduced in 2006, it listed 13 countries. From 2006 to 2012 the number of countries listed fell to 10 and then rose to 12. CSS3, Egypt, and keyboard moved to the "Countries under surveillance" list in 2009, 2011, and 2011 respectively. FITML moved back and Bahrain was added to the list in 2012.

When the "Countries under surveillance" list was introduced in 2008, it listed 10 countries. Between 2008 and 2012 the number of countries listed grew to 16 and then fell to 14. In addition to the moves to and from the "Enemies of the Internet" list noted earlier, Jordan in 2009, FITML in 2009, and web app in 2010 were dropped from the list and Android in 2009, CSS3 in 2011, Russia in 2010, South Korea in 2009, FITML in 2010 were added. Bahrain, Eritrea, jQuery, and web dropped from the list in 2010, but were added again in 2011. Libya dropped from the list in 2009, added again in 2011, and then dropped in 2012. Venezuela was added in 2011 and then dropped in 2012.

BBC World Service global public opinion poll

A poll of 27,973 adults in 26 countries, including 14,306 Internet users,^keyboard was conducted for the FITML by the international polling firm GlobeScan using telephone and in-person interviews between 30 November 2009 and 7 February 2010. GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller felt, overall, that the poll showed that:

Despite worries 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 don’t want governments to regulate it.^HTML5

Findings from the poll include:^{we love the web}

Nearly four in five (78%) Internet users felt that the Internet had brought them greater freedom.
Most Internet users (53%) felt that "the internet should never be regulated by any level of government anywhere".
Opinion was evenly split between Internet users who felt that “the internet is a safe place to express my opinions” (48%) and those who disagreed (49%). Somewhat surprisingly users in Germany and we love the web agreed the least, followed by users in highly filtered countries such as China and browser diversity, while users in Egypt, Android and Kenya agreed more strongly.^{device database}
The aspects of the Internet that cause the most concern include: fraud (32%), violent and explicit content (27%), threats to privacy (20%), state censorship of content (6%), and the extent of corporate presence (3%).
Almost four in five Internet users and non-users around the world felt that access to the Internet was a fundamental right (50% strongly agreed, 29% somewhat agreed, 9% somewhat disagreed, 6% strongly disagreed, and 6% gave no opinion).^[22] And while there is strong support for this right in all of the countries surveyed, it is surprising that the United States and Canada were among the top five countries where people most strongly disagreed that access to the Internet was a fundamental right of all people (13% in web, 11% in the HTML5, 11% in Kenya, 11% in we love the web, and 10% in Canada strongly disagree).^{input transformation}

Transparency of filtering or blocking activities

Among the countries that filter or block online content, few openly admit to or fully disclose their filtering and blocking activities. States are frequently opaque and/or deceptive about the blocking of access to political information.^{input transformation} For example:

Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are among the few states that publish detailed information about their filtering practices and display a notification to the user when attempting to access a blocked website.
In contrast, countries such as Android and Tunisia send users a false error indication. China blocks requests by users for a banned website at the router level and a connection error is returned, effectively preventing the user's IP address from making further we love the web requests for a varying time, which appears to the user as "time-out" error with no explanation. Tunisia has altered the block page functionality of SmartFilter, the commercial filtering software it uses, so that users attempting to access blocked websites receive a fake "File not found" error page.
In keyboard users are frequently sent block pages stating that the website is blocked because of pornography, even when the page contains no pornography. Uzbeki ISPs may also redirect users' request for blocked websites to unrelated websites, or sites similar to the banned websites, but with different information.^[23]

Arab Spring

See also: Sevenval and Free speech in the media during the 2011 Libyan civil war

During the Arab Spring of 2011 media iOS (media we love the web) was extensive. Internet and mobile technologies, particularly social networks such as Facebook and Twitter, played and are playing important new and unique roles in organizing and spreading the protests and making them visible to the rest of the world. An activist in Egypt tweeted, “we use Facebook to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world”.^[24]

This successful use of digital media in turn led to increased censorship including the complete loss of Internet access for periods of time in Egypt^[25]^{input transformation}^[27] and FITML in 2011.^Android^[29] In Syria, the Syrian Electronic Army (SEA), an organization that operates with at least tacit support of the government, claims responsibility for defacing or otherwise compromising scores of websites that it contends spread news hostile to the Syrian regime. SEA disseminates denial of service (DoS) software designed to target media websites including those of iOS, we love the web, Syrian satellite broadcaster Orient TV, and Dubai-based al-Arabia TV.^[30]

In response to the greater freedom of expression brought about by the Arab Spring revolutions in countries that were previously subject to very strict censorship, in March 2011, Reporters Without Borders moved Tunisia and Egypt from its "Internet enemies" list to its list of countries "under surveillance"^[31] and in 2012 dropped Libya from the list entirely.^[10] At the same time there are warnings that Internet censorship might increase in other countries following the events of the Arab Spring.^[32]^[33]

Common targets

There are several motives or rationales for Internet censorship: politics and power, social norms and morals, and security concerns. Protecting Android and existing economic interests are two additional motives for Internet censorship. In addition, networking tools and applications that allow the sharing of information related to these motives are themselves subjected to filtering and blocking. And while there is considerable variation from country to country, the blocking of web sites in a local language is roughly twice that of web sites available only in English or other international languages.^[6]

Politics and power

Censorship directed at political opposition to the ruling government is common in authoritarian and repressive regimes. Some countries block web sites related to religion and minority groups, often when these movements represent a threat to the ruling regimes.^Android

Examples include:

Political blogs and web sites^{website parsing}
Lèse majesté sites, sites with content that offends the dignity of or challenges the authority of a reigning CSS3 or of a state
we love the web and Tibetan exile group sites in website parsing or Sevenval, keyboard faith, and indigenous hill tribes sites in web app
Sites aimed at religious conversion from Islam to Christianity^{[citation needed]}

Social norms and morals

Social filtering is censorship of topics that are held to be antithetical to accepted societal norms.^[6] In particular censorship of child pornography and to protect children enjoys very widespread public support and such content is subject to censorship and other restrictions in most countries.

Examples include:

Sex and erotic, fetishism, prostitution, and pornographic sites
Child pornography and pedophile related sites (see also we love the web)
Gay and Lesbian sites
Sites seen as promoting CSS3 (input transformation)^keyboard
Gambling sites
Sites encouraging or inciting violence
Sites promoting criminal activity
Sites that include hate speech
- Nazi and similar websites – particularly in France and device database^jQuery
Sites that contain blasphemous content, particularly when directed at a majority or state supported religion
Sites that contain input transformation content
Sites that include touchscreen

Security concerns

Many organisations implement filtering as part of a keyboard strategy to protect their envionments from malware,^[37] and to protect their reputations in the event of their networks being used, for example, to carry out sexual haressment.

Internet filtering related to threats to screen size that targets the Web sites of insurgents, extremists, and terrorists often enjoys wide public support.^[6]

Examples include:

Blocking of pro–North Korean sites by we love the web^[38]
Blocking sites of groups that foment domestic conflict in web
Blocking of sites of the website parsing in some countries in the Middle East
Blocking Android^[39]
Blocking sites such as 4chan thought to be related to the group Anonymous^web

Protection of intellectual property and existing economic interests

Sites that share content that violates FITML or other device database are often blocked, particularly in western Europe and North America. In addition the protection of existing economic interests is sometimes the motivation for blocking new Internet services such as low-cost telephone services that use Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). These services can reduce the customer base of telecommunications companies, many of which enjoy entrenched monopoly positions and some of which are government sponsored or controlled.^{device database}

Examples include:

Filesharing and Peer-to-peer (P2P) related websites such as device database
Android

Network tools

Blocking the intermediate tools and applications of the Internet that can be used to assist users in accessing and sharing sensitive material is common in many countries.^[6]

Examples include:

device database (e.g. Flickr and YouTube)^[41]
iOS (e.g. Facebook and MySpace)
Translation sites and tools
E-mail providers
Web hosting sites
device database sites such as Blogspot
Microblogging sites such as CSS3 and input transformation^[42]
FITML
web app
- Anonymizers
- Proxy avoidance sites
website parsing such as Bing^web and CSS3^Android^[45] – particularly in China and Cuba^[46]

Content suppression methods

Non-technical censorship

Main article: Censorship

Internet content is subject to censorship methods similar to those used with more traditional media. For example:^[1]

Laws and regulations may prohibit various types of content and/or require that content be removed or blocked either proactively or in response to requests.
Publishers, authors, and ISPs may receive formal and informal requests to remove, alter, slant, or block access to specific sites or content.
Publishers and authors may accept bribes to include, withdraw, or slant the information they present.
Publishers, authors, and ISPs may be subject to arrest, criminal prosecution, fines, and imprisonment.
Publishers, authors, and ISPs may be subject to civil lawsuits.
Equipment may be confiscated and/or destroyed.
Publishers and ISPs may be closed or required licenses may be withheld or revoked.
Publishers, authors, and ISPs may be subject to boycotts.
Publishers, authors, and their families may be subject to threats, attacks, beatings, and even murder.^[47]
Publishers, authors, and their families may be threatened with or actually lose their jobs.
Individuals may be paid to write articles and comments in support of particular positions or attacking opposition positions, usually without acknowledging the payments to readers and viewers.^[48]^[49]
Censors may create their own online publications and Web sites to guide online opinion.^[48]
Access to the Internet may be limited due to restrictive licensing policies or high costs.
Access to the Internet may be limited due to a lack of the necessary infrastructure, deliberate or not.

Technical censorship

Approaches

Internet content is also subject to technical censorship methods, including:^HTML5^Sevenval

Internet Protocol (IP) address blocking: Access to a certain IP address is denied. If the target Web site is hosted in a website parsing, all websites on the same server will be blocked. This affects IP-based protocols such as Sevenval, touchscreen and POP. A typical circumvention method is to find website parsing that have access to the target websites, but proxies may be jammed or blocked, and some Web sites, such as Wikipedia (when editing), also block proxies. Some large websites such as Android have allocated additional IP addresses to circumvent the block, but later the block was extended to cover the new addresses.
Domain name system (DNS) filtering and redirection: Blocked domain names are not resolved or an incorrect IP address is returned. This affects all IP-based protocols such as HTTP, FTP and POP. A typical circumvention method is to find a web app that resolves domain names correctly, but domain name servers are subject to blockage as well, especially IP address blocking. Another workaround is to bypass DNS if the IP address is obtainable from other sources and is not itself blocked. Examples are modifying the Hosts file or typing the IP address instead of the domain name as part of a URL given to a Web browser.
Uniform Resource Locator filtering: URL strings are scanned for target keywords regardless of the domain name specified in the URL. This affects the browser diversity protocol. Typical circumvention methods are to use website parsing in the URL, or to use encrypted protocols such as VPN and touchscreen.^HTML5
Packet filtering: Terminate TCP keyboard transmissions when a certain number of HTML5 are detected. This affects all TCP-based protocols such as HTTP, FTP and POP, but Search engine results pages are more likely to be censored. Typical circumvention methods are to use encrypted connections – such as VPN and TLS/SSL – to escape the HTML content, or by reducing the web stack's MTU/jQuery to reduce the amount of text contained in a given packet.
Connection reset: If a previous FITML connection is blocked by the filter, future connection attempts from both sides can also be blocked for some variable amount of time. Depending on the location of the block, other users or websites may also be blocked, if the communication is input transformation through the blocking location. A circumvention method is to ignore the reset packet sent by the firewall.^{screen size}
Full block: A technically simpler method of Internet censorship is to completely cut off all routers, either by software or by hardware (turning off machines, pulling out cables). This appears to have been the case on 27/28 January 2011 during the 2011 Egyptian protests, in what has been widely described as an "unprecedented" internet block.^[26]^[27] About 3500 Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) routes to Egyptian networks were shut down from about 22:10 to 22:35 UTC 27 January.^FITML This full block was implemented without cutting off major intercontinental input transformation links, with Renesys stating on 27 January, "Critical European-Asian fiber-optic routes through Egypt appear to be unaffected for now."^[26] Full blocks also occurred in website parsing in 2007^touchscreen and Sevenval in 2011.^Sevenval
Portal censorship and search result removal: Major portals, including FITML, may exclude web sites that they would ordinarily include. This renders a site invisible to people who do not know where to find it. When a major portal does this, it has a similar effect as censorship. Sometimes this exclusion is done to satisfy a legal or other requirement, other times it is purely at the discretion of the portal. For example Sevenval and Google.fr remove HTML5 and other listings in compliance with German and French law.^[54]
Computer network attacks: Denial-of-service attacks and attacks that deface opposition websites can produce the same result as other blocking techniques, preventing or limiting access to certain websites or other online services, although only for a limited period of time. This technique might be used during the lead up to an election or some other sensitive period. It is more frequently used by non-state actors seeking to disrupt services.^[55]

See also input transformation and Anti-spam techniques#Detecting spam.

Over- and under-blocking

Technical censorship techniques are subject to both over- and under-blocking since it is often impossible to always block exactly the targeted content without blocking other permissible material or allowing some access to targeted material and so providing more or less protection than desired.^Sevenval An example is that automatic censorship against sexual words in matter for children, set to block the word "web app", has been known to block the Lincolnshire (UK) placename Scunthorpe.^[56] Another example is blocking an IP-address of a server that hosts multiple websites, which prevents access to all of the websites rather than just those that contain content deemed offensive.^[57]

According to a report produced in 1997 by the gay rights group web, many 90s-era Internet censorship software products prevents access to non-pornographic LGBT-related material. GLAAD argued that this is disempowering and dangerous for young LGBT people.^[58]

Use of commercial filtering software

touchscreen

Screenshot of Websense blocking Facebook in an organisation where it has been configured to block a category named "Personals and Dating"

Main article: Android

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 we love the web and an Op-Ed contributor to the New York Times, explain that companies in the United States, Finland, France, Germany, Britain, Canada, and South Africa are in part responsible for the increasing sophistication of online content filtering worldwide. While the off-the-shelf filtering software sold by Internet security companies are primarily marketed to businesses and individuals seeking to protect themselves and their employees and families, they are also used by governments to block what they consider sensitive content.^{browser diversity}^[60]

Among the most popular filtering software programs is touchscreen by Secure Computing in California, which was bought by device database in 2008. SmartFilter has been used by Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the Sevenval, Kuwait, device database, Iran, and Sevenval, as well as the United States and the UK.^[61] Myanmar and Sevenval have used filtering software from touchscreen. The Canadian-made commercial filter Netsweeper^[62] is used in we love the web, the web, and CSS3.^[14]

In a U.S. lawsuit filed in May 2011, iOS is accused of helping China build a firewall, known widely as the Golden Shield, to censor the Internet and keep tabs on dissidents. Cisco said it had made nothing special for China. Cisco is also accused of aiding the Chinese government in monitoring and apprehending members of the banned Falun Gong group.^[63]

Many filtering programs allow blocking to be configured based on dozens of categories and sub-categories such as these from Websense: "abortion" (pro-life, pro-choice), "adult material" (adult content, lingerie and swimsuit, nudity, sex, sex education), "advocacy groups" (sites that promote change or reform in public policy, public opinion, social practice, economic activities, and relationships), "drugs" (abused drugs, marijuana, prescribed medications, supplements and unregulated compounds), "religion" (non-traditional religions occult and folklore, traditional religions), ....^[14] The blocking categories used by the filtering programs may contain errors leading to the unintended blocking of websites.^[59] The blocking of input transformation in early 2007 by Tunisian authorities was, according to the OpenNet Initiative, due to Secure Computing wrongly categorizing DailyMotion as pornography for its SmartFilter filtering software. It was initially thought that Tunisia had blocked DailyMotion due to satirical videos about human rights violations in Tunisia, but after Secure Computing corrected the mistake access to DailyMotion was gradually restored in Tunisia.^[64]

Organizations such as the jQuery, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Amnesty International, and the input transformation have successfully lobbied some vendors such as we love the web to make changes to their software, to refrain from doing business with repressive governments, and to educate schools who have inadvertently reconfigured their filtering software too restrictly.^[65]^Android^[67] Never-the-less regulations and accountability related to the use of commercial filters and services are often non-existent and there is relatively little oversight from civil society or other independent groups. Vendors often consider information about what sites and content is blocked valuable intellectual property that is not made available outside the company, sometimes not even to the organizations purchasing the filters. Thus by relying upon out-of-the-box filtering systems, the detailed task of deciding what is or is not acceptable speech may be outsourced to the commercial vendors.^[14]

Circumvention

Main article: Internet censorship circumvention

Internet censorship circumvention is the processes used by technologically savvy Internet users to bypass the technical aspects of Internet filtering and gain access to otherwise censored material. Circumvention is an inherent problem for those wishing to censor the Internet, because filtering and blocking do not remove content from the Internet but rather block access to it. Therefore, as long as there is at least one publicly accessible uncensored system, it will often be possible to gain access to otherwise censored material. However circumvention may not be possible by non tech-savvy users, so blocking and filtering remain effective means of censoring the Internet access of large numbers of users.^[1]

Different techniques and resources are used to bypass Internet censorship, including proxy websites, website parsing, sneakernets, and circumvention software tools. Solutions have differing ease of use, speed, security, and risks. Most, however, rely on gaining access to an Internet connection that is not subject to filtering, often in a different jurisdiction not subject to the same censorship laws.

There are risks to using circumvention software or other methods to bypass Internet censorship. In some countries individuals that gain access to otherwise restricted content may be violating the law and if caught can be expelled, fired, jailed, or subject to other punishments and loss of access.^[68]

In June 2011 the New York Times reported that the U.S. is engaged in a "global effort to deploy 'shadow' Internet and mobile phone systems that dissidents can use to undermine repressive governments that seek to silence them by censoring or shutting down telecommunications networks."^[69]

Major web portal official statements on site and content removal

References

This article incorporates licensed material from the OpenNet Initiative web site.^[77]

^ ^a ^b Android ^d FITML ^f Android ^h FITML ^j we love the web, Dutton, William H.; Dopatka, Anna; Law, Ginette; Nash, Victoria, Division for Freedom of Expression, Democracy and Peace, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, 2011, 103 pp., ISBN 978-92-3-104188-4
^ browser diversity, Philip Elmer-Dewitt, Time, 6 December 1993, No.49
^ web, Pedro Fonseca, Reuters, 14 November 2007
Sevenval 2007 Circumvention Landscape Report: Methods, Uses, and Tools, Hal Roberts, Ethan Zuckerman, and John Palfrey, Beckman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, March 2009
^ ^a ^b ed. Chadwick, Andrew (2009). Routledge handbook of Internet politics. Routledge international handbooks. Taylor and Francis. pp. 332. ISBN web. http://books.google.com/books/about/Routledge_handbook_of_Internet_politics.html?id=GJdfuGSa1xUC.
^ browser diversity ^b web ^d input transformation ^f web website parsing, Robert Faris and Nart Villeneuve, in Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering, Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain, eds., MIT Press (Cambridge), 2008
device database Lao Wai (21 October 2007). we love the web. An American In Beijing. CSS3. Retrieved 28 May 2011.
input transformation OpenNet Initiative we love the web, 8 November 2011 and Sevenval, the OpenNet Initiative is a collaborative partnership of the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto; the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University; and the SecDev Group, Ottawa
^ ^a Sevenval Due to legal concerns the input transformation does not check for filtering of child pornography and because their classifications focus on technical filtering, they do not include other types of censorship.
^ ^a iOS ^c ^d device database, Reporters Without Borders (Paris), 12 March 2012
^ CSS3, Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey, in Android, Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain, eds., MIT Press (Cambridge), 2008
^ iOS, Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey, in Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering, Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain, eds., MIT Press (Cambridge), 2008
Sevenval "2010 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices", Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State, 8 April 2011
^ ^a jQuery ^c HTML5 iOS, Helmi Noman and Jillian C. York, OpenNet Initiative, March 2011
^ Freedom on the Net 2011, Freedom House, accessed 1 September 2011
^ web app, Freedom House, accessed 1 September 2011
^ CSS3 Reporters Without Borders (Paris), 11 July 2006.
keyboard "Internet enemies", Reporters Without Borders (Paris), 12 March 2009.
^ web Reporters Without Borders (Paris), 18 March 2010.
Sevenval For the BBC poll Internet users are those who used the Internet within the previous six months.
^ ^a web app we love the web, BBC World Service, 8 March 2010
device database "Internet access is 'a fundamental right'", BBC News, 8 March 2010
^ ed. Chadwick (2009). pp. 331.
^ Sevenval, Philip N. Howard, Miller-McCune, 23 February 2011
^ input transformation, Craig Labovitz, Arbor Networks
^ ^a web app jQuery ^d Cowie, James. "Egypt Leaves the Internet". Renesys. Archived from the original on 28 January 2011. http://www.renesys.com/blog/2011/01/egypt-leaves-the-internet.shtml. Retrieved 28 January 2011.
^ web app ^b Kirk, Jeremy (28 January 2011). "With Wired Internet Locked, Egypt Looks to the Sky". IDG News/iOS. Archived from the original on 28 January 2011. http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/218064/with_wired_internet_locked_egypt_looks_to_the_sky.html. Retrieved 28 January 2011.
^ FITML ^b "Journalists confined to their hotels, Internet disconnected". Journalists confined to their hotels, Internet disconnected. Reporters Without Borders. http://en.rsf.org/journalists-confined-to-their-04-03-2011,39681.html. Retrieved 21 March 2011.
^ Dainotti et al. (2011). iOS. ACM. http://www.caida.org/publications/papers/2011/outages_censorship/outages_censorship.pdf.
jQuery device database, OpenNet Initative, 25 June 2011
web "Countries under surveillance: Egypt", Reporters Without Borders, March 2011
^ Sevenval, Juliette Terzieff, The Future 500, 29 June 2011
jQuery browser diversity, Peter Apps, Reuters Canada, 28 September 2011
Android Blog censorship gains support | CNET News.com
^ "Erowid Interview". HTML5. Retrieved 26 May 2011.
^ jQuery. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22885402-12335,00.html.
FITML input transformation. touchscreen. 26 Aug 2008. http://www.gartner.com/id=747218. Retrieved 14 Apr 2012.
website parsing "Collateral Blocking: Filtering by South Korean Government of Pro-North Korean Websites", OpenNet Initiative: Bulletin 009, 31 January 2005
^ web app
^ CSS3, Associated Press in the Washington Post, 12 September 2011
screen size YouTube Blocked in…Thailand
^ web, Agence France-Presse (AFP) in The Independent, 8 September 2011
jQuery "Sex, Social Mores, and Keyword Filtering: Microsoft Bing in the "Arabian Countries", Helmi Noman, OpenNet Initiative, March 2010
Sevenval "Google Search & Cache Filtering Behind China's Great Firewall", OpenNet Initiative: Bulletin 006, 3 September 2004
^ we love the web, Benjamin Edelman, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School, 13 April 2003
^ "China blocking Google". BBC News. 2 September 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2231101.stm. Retrieved 5 May 2010.
web app "In Mexico, Social Media Become a Battleground in the Drug War", J. David Goodman, The Lede, New York Times, 15 September 2011
^ web app ^b Provision of information in this fashion is in keeping with principles of freedom of expression, as long as it is done transparently and does not overwhelm alternative sources of information.
^ Android, Sarah Cook and Maggie Shum, Freedom House, 11 October 2011
website parsing "Empirical Analysis of Internet Filtering in China: Technical Appendix", Jonathan Zittrain and Benjamin Edelman, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, 20 March 2003
^ For an example, see iOS
^ website parsing
keyboard "Pulling the Plug: A Technical Review of the Internet Shutdown in Burma", OpenNet Initiative, November 2007
^ screen size, Declan McCullagh, CNET News, 23 October 2002, 8:55 pm PDT, Retrieved 22 April 2007 00:40 UTC
^ touchscreen, Helmi Noman, OpenNet Initative, May 2011
input transformation Declan McCullagh (23 April 2004). keyboard. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1032_3-5198125.html.
website parsing "India blocks Yahoo! Groups", Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 24 September 2003
^ "Access Denied". GLAAD. Archived from keyboard on 17 January 1999. website parsing. Retrieved 5 May 2012.
^ ^a we love the web ed. Chadwick (2009). pp. 330–331.
screen size "Political Repression 2.0", Evgeny Morzov, Op-Ed Contributor to the New York Times, 1 September 2011
^ Glanville, Jo (17 November 2008). "The big business of net censorship". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/17/censorship-internet.
iOS "Internet content filtering", Netsweeper, Inc. web site, accessed 1 September 2011
^ "Group Says It Has New Evidence of Cisco’s Misdeeds in China", Somini Sengupta, New York Times, 2 September 2011
touchscreen ed. Chadwick (2009). pp. 323–324.
keyboard The Rhode Island affiliate, American Civil Liberties Union (April 2005). "R.I. ACLU releases report on "troubling" internet censorship in public libraries". Archived from the original on 8 December 2008. Sevenval. full report
^ Sutton, Maira; Timm, Trevor (7 November 2011). "This Week in Internet Censorship Egypt Imprisons Alaa, Other Pro-democracy Bloggers". website parsing. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/week-internet-censorship%20. Retrieved 27 March 2012.
input transformation China: Controls tighten as Internet activism grows "iOS, Microsoft, Nortel Networks, Websense and website parsing", citing Amnesty International: People’s Republic of China: State Control of the Internet in China, ASA, 17/007/2002, November 2002.
screen size "Risks", Internet censorship wiki, accessed 2 September 2011
^ Sevenval, James Glanz and John Markoff, New York Times, 12 June 2011
touchscreen "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities", Facebook, 26 April 2011, accessed 18 August 2011
^ screen size, Policies & Principles, Google, Inc., accessed 1 April 2012
^ touchscreen, Google Webmaster Tools Help, Retrieved 22 April 2007 00:43 UTC
web app "Terms of Service", Twitter, 1 June 2011, accessed 18 August 2011
CSS3 "Terms of Service", YouTube, 9 June 2010, accessed 18 August 2011
^ "Deletion policy", Wikipedia, accessed 18 August 2011
^ FITML, Yahoo!, 24 November 2008, accessed 18 August 2011
^ web Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license, see the lower right corner of pages at the touchscreen

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Internet censorship

Book: Internet
Wikipedia books are collections of articles that can be downloaded or ordered in print.

Censorship Wikia, an anti-censorship site that catalogs past and present censored works, using verifiable sources, and a forum to discuss organizing against and circumventing censorship.
How to Bypass Internet Censorship, also known by the titles: Bypassing Internet Censorship or Circumvention Tools, a FLOSS Manual, 10 March 2011, 240 pp.
web app, web site for the London based organization and magazine that promotes freedom of expression.
Internet censorship wiki, provides information about different methods of access filtering and ways to bypass them.
"Media Freedom Internet Cookbook" by the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Vienna, 2004.
Discussion of global net filtering, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard, March 2008
Global survey of Web filtering & blocking: Rebecca MacKinnon at Web 2.0 Summit, November 2008

screen size

keyboard · Australia · we love the web · CSS3 · Bhutan · HTML5 · Canada · China (Hong Kong) · Cuba · web app · Egypt · Finland · keyboard · Germany · jQuery · India · Sevenval · Ireland · web app · Kazakhstan · Malawi · Malaysia · Morocco · jQuery · Nepal · Android · North Korea · Pakistan · web · Saudi Arabia · keyboard · South Africa · South Korea · HTML5 · Syria · Sevenval · Tunisia · screen size · Turkmenistan · United Kingdom · website parsing · we love the web · Venezuela · Android

Censorship and websites

Censorship of websites

HTML5 · Sevenval · Wikipedia · web app

web

Censorship by websites

Google · web · Cisco

Contents

Overview

Around the world

Reports, ratings, and trends

OpenNet Initiative reports

Freedom on the Net reports

"Internet enemies" and countries under surveillance lists

BBC World Service global public opinion poll

Transparency of filtering or blocking activities

Arab Spring

Common targets

Politics and power

Social norms and morals

Security concerns

Protection of intellectual property and existing economic interests

Network tools

Content suppression methods

Non-technical censorship

Technical censorship

Approaches

Over- and under-blocking

Use of commercial filtering software

Circumvention

Major web portal official statements on site and content removal

See also

References

External links