Internet Censorship - Coursework Example

Internet Censorship Introduction The rapid advancement in technology in the last decades generated major development especially in the information and communications segment. The rapid evolution of the internet brought about the rapid expansion of information easily available at the world’s fingertips. The entire globe has become one connected world enveloped by one virtual network. Information became easily accessible. The internet has become the “main sources of information and social interaction” (Aberavon, 2009). Histories, data, facts and figures are available anytime and with just one click of the mouse. More and more people turned to the internet for almost anything and everything they need, whether for academic research, for checking celebrity activities, for commerce such as buy and sell, ordering and ticketing online and the likes. Even real time communications have found its way into the homes connecting two or more people from different parts of the world through email, chat, web calls, video conference, etc. As the usage and the advantages of the internet to information and communications technology could not be undermined, it also became susceptible to misuse and abuse by unscrupulous individuals who also saw the opportunity to perpetuate crime and evil through the world wide web and prey on unsuspecting victims usually children even from half way round the world. “Child pornography, bestiality, excessive violence or sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use, and/or material that advocates (and incites) terrorism acts” (Foo, 2009) are among the common types of abuse in the internet. Often, the victims are minors or those who are under 18 years old. This became the foundation of the clamour of some citizens to censor some information available in the internet and to filter the content of websites. This is basis of the Australian government’s move to filter the information that comes in to the Australia through the information network. And the debate about internet censorship has ensued. The advocates of internet censorship promotes that this is the only way to protect the citizens from the malevolent crimes that abound the internet. They are specifically targeting the welfare of the children and the minors who are more susceptible victims because of their innocence and naiveté. The pro-censorship group claims that the internet has been made safer for the users because of the commonwealth government’s Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999. The other side of the argument counters that all indications to this claim is to the contrary. They argue that filtering could not effectively provide the solutions to internet crimes. It only rebounded with other pressing issues that the pro-censorship never considered including human rights violation and morality clause because of the restriction to freedom of individuals through controlling the access to information, putting a dent on the economy because of the economic impact of filtering and its perceived negative effect to business and the likes. Those who lobby for the rejection of the internet censorship acts claim that the government has been misinforming about the facts and misguiding the public towards this particular issue. However, Wallace (2009) declared that “Our dependence on the internet makes us all very sensitive to anything that might degrade its performance and opponents of filtering have mounted a shamelessly misleading campaign to exploit this fear”. Resolutions a. Technological As far as the technological aspect is concerned in the issue of internet filter, even Stephen Conroy, the Minister of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy or DBCDE has admitted that the Australian government “understands that the potential extent of ISP filtering is inherently related to the technical capabilities of filtering solutions” (Crozier, 2008). Thus, it could be necessarily assumed that there could not be an established fool proof filtering of content still. Although this new technology already addresses the initial concerns that internet filter is limited to blocking the content only when most of the pornographic materials in the web are sent and shared via peer-to-peer networks or delivered through other protocols and applications other than web sites such as virtual private networks, email, newsgroups or instant messenger (Crozier, 2008). Previous monitoring only included standard HTTP and HTTPS traffic. Heunemann stated that the “limitations of what could be filtered under the current government’s scheme would water down its effectiveness in tackling growing issues like cyber-bullying (Crozier, 2008). The internet filter that would take effect includes peer-to-peer traffic monitoring. Crozier (2008) reported that Conroy admitted that “Technology that filters peer-to-peer and BitTorrent traffic does exist and it is anticipated that the effectiveness of this will be tested in the live pilot trial,” (Crozier, 2008). b. Moral Included in the UNDHR or the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is the freedom of speech from article 19 which states that: “ Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers” (UNDHR). It was also one of the concerns pushed forward by the opposition to the internet filter. Heunemann (as reported by Crozier, 2008) accused the Australian government of imposing a terrible injustice on the Australian public by pushing ISP-side net filters. If filtering is implemented based on software vendors decisions about whether content is sexually explicit, rather than on the Classification Boards judgments, this will decrease the Australian citizens ability to have a voice in what they can access online (Syvret, 2009). This is then a clear indication of restriction of the citizen’s freedom to choose for himself and therefore a curtailing of his freedom and ability to voice his choices. One of the main concerns is that the concept of filtering would be easy to block access to “material that is almost universally condemned such as child pornography, extreme violence or incitements to terrorism” (Syvret, 2009). However, this could not be the real solution that the Australian government is seeking for as it could only contribute the means or the avenue to the solution and not the end or the solution itself. However, at the other side of the argument about the moral aspect of the censorship is Conroy’s denial that content filtering plan would impinge on Internet users’ rights to freedom of speech. Conroy stated (as cited by Crozier) that Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society and there was never any suggestion that the Australian Government would seek to block political content. In this context, claims that the Governments policy is analogous to the approach taken by countries such as Iran, China and Saudi Arabia are not justified” (Crozier, 2008). c. Business (Entrepreneur/Organisation) Although this issue on the impact on the economy of the internet censorship is debatable because of the claimed misreporting of facts and figures as well as the misguiding the general population just to sway the public opinion, the effect of this Act to business is still undeniable. One cause is the added cost of the filter to the total cost of an internet connection which is a necessary part of the net filter. The additional cost would either be born by the end users or consumers or by the business organisations specifically the ISP’s. Riley (2009) stated that the Australian ISP’s would most likely pass on the cost to the users even if the government has assured its citizens that there were ISP’s which offer parental filtering controls without additional cost to the end users as they require the providers to provide the necessary filters at cost or below cost to the internet subscribers (Internet censorship in Australia, 2006). Specifically for the providers, this extra cost when accumulated and multiplied by the number of subscribers would still result to additional cost that is borne economically and which could affect the over all operations of the business enterprise. “No hard figure has been proposed by the industry, but even a small increase in internet charges would create a negative impact on the Australian economy” (Riley, 2009). Yet the cost of non-compliance of companies is enough deterrent as “breaching the codes can be fined up to $27,500 per day of the breach” (ISP’s keeping compliant, 2006). Riley also reported that apart from the direct and indirect cost of the internet filter, there are inverse benefits and repercussions brought about by the competitiveness in the market. Riley cited a report of the Australian Local Government Association by consultants National Economics that slower internet speeds which is a direct result of the internet filter would lose Australia’s competitiveness with the other country’s markets. If Australia falls behind, an increasing number of exporters may well feel that they cannot operate as efficiently in the supply chains as other firms elsewhere in the world who do have access to best practice infrastructure. This will result in the enterprise being dropped from the supply chain at the cost to the nation’s export performance (Riley, 2009). Especially in this time of economic crisis, no country can afford to lose its competitive advantage as it will amount to further disintegration of the economic stability. d. Psychological and Sociological One of the main ironies in the world is the natural curiosity and inquisitiveness of man about restrictions. It becomes natural then for man to seek whatever is considered as taboo or confidential or restricted. Thus, the more that the Australian government is bent on the internet censorship, the more that the citizens, especially the children or the minors will continue to be curious and seek out the restricted site. The more that the government insist on the mandatory internet filtering, the more that the opposition heightens their campaign against the censorship. The sociological aspect must also be considered for the internet censorship as this will be the basis of the communities approach about the censorship. If the community is exposed to too much thoughts and ideas about censorship, they are more inclined to push for internet censorship. However, for communities where the opposition is stronger, the citizens and the residents are more likely to resent the mandatory content filtering and will rally with the main point of the opposition that internet censorship will naturally impinged on the rights of the citizens especially in the area of freedom of expression. Conclusion and Recommendation More than the government regulations on internet censorship, the real issue about cyber crimes is the socio-cultural perspective of the citizens of the particular nation or the entire world in general. The internet, because of its ubiquitousness, impacts everyone and everything in our contemporary world. It follows then that the regulation for usage, together with the ugly face of its misuse and abuse must be a holistic approach pulling together all the responsible and accountable entities for effective control. As was the result of the sociological perspective, the mind-set of the society must first be turned around that the solution to the problems of internet crimes do not lie solely in the regulations from the government or the restriction from the ISP’s or ICH’s. It must be a collective approach and must even start within the family. Charles Heunemann, Webroot’s managing director for Asia Pacific operations stated, as cited by Crozier (2008) that “having parental controls on the desktop is part of the answer”. He also declared that the problem with the current set up is that the internet filters were designed to assume the responsibility for child supervision which could be the same as having cyber parents when in fact, monitoring and supervising the kids, whether in the web or the real world are the parent’s responsibility (Crozier, 2008). Another perspective that is brought forward that is still part of this umbrella approach of a socio-cultural dimension is the role and responsibilities of schools and the importance of education in prohibiting internet related abuses. According to Greig (as reported by Colley, 2003), the only way to combat Internet pornography is through education. The better informed and well educated citizens, especially the young could be the catalyst for this shift in socio-cultural mind set or paradigm. Conroy acknowledged this when he stated that because the young (Australians) are “well immersed in the digital world, they understand the great potential of the internet and are perfectly positioned to guide the development of effective responses to cyber-safety risks” (Crozier, 2008). The third wheel in the implementation of this holistic approach towards making the internet safe for all users is the role of the government regulations together with technological capabilities. EFA or the Electronic Frontiers Australia has reported that other countries have other solutions to the problem with internet abuses without stomping on the freedom of the citizens by restricting the flow of information through filters. Instead of the mandatory filter, it offers self-regulation and end-user voluntary use of filtering/blocking technologies so as not to impinge on the rights of its citizens. It also demonstrated that there are also other regulatory means which focused on the perpetrators rather than on the end users. The problem is cut off at the root rather than on its fruit through the criminal law penalties (fines or jail terms) to content providers who make content "unsuitable for minors" available online. Public online access is also regulated so that minors who are restricted and monitored in their homes and schools would not find access in public internet cafes (Internet censorship, 2002). There are other alternatives of addressing the issues and problems about internet abuses and cyber crimes than the mandatory internet filtering by the ISP’s as mandated by the government laws which could be perceived as impugning the freedom of expression of the citizens which is against the universal human rights. The important bottom-line is to make the world wide web safer to all internet users and to translate this security into the real world by not allowing the influences and the dictates of the internet content to be perpetuated. Bibliography Aberavon and Neath liberal democrats, 2009. Liberals in European parliament defeats internet censorship. [Online]. 17 May 2009. Available at: http://aberavonneathlibdems.blogspot.com/2009/05/liberals-in-european-parliament-defeat.html . [Accessed 19 May 2009]. Colley, A., 2003. Fur flies as Internet censorship debate continues. Zdnet Australia. [Online]. 12 Sept. 2003. Available at: http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Fur-flies-as-Internet-censorship-debate-continues/0,130061744,120278513,00.htm. [Accessed 19 May 2009]. Crozier, R., 2008. Net filters not given a chance: Webroot. It News. [Online]. 17 Dec. 2008. Available at: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/91359,netalert-filters-not-given-a-chance-webroot.aspx. [Accessed 19 May 2009]. Crozier, R., 2008. Conroy expands ISP filter tests to examine P2P and BitTorrent traffic. It News. [Online]. 22 Dec. 2008. Available at: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/91593,conroy-expands-isp-filter-tests-to-examine-p2p-and-bittorrent-traffic.aspx. [Accessed 19 May 2009]. Crozier, R., 2008. Conroy goes back to school on Internet content filters. It News. [Online]. 8 Dec. 2008. Available at: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/90656,conroy-goes-back-to-school-on-internet-content-filters.aspx. [Accessed 19 May 2009]. Electronic frontiers Australia, 2002. Internet Censorship: Law & policy around the world. [Online]. Last updated 28 March 2002. Available at: http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens3.html. [Accessed 19 May 2009]. Electronic frontiers Australia, 2006. Internet Censorship Laws in Australia. [Online]. Last updated 26 March 2006. Available at: http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens1.html. [Accessed 19 May 2009]. Foo, F., (2009). ISPs clustered for filtering trials. Australian IT. [Online]. 28 Jan. 2009. Available at: http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,,24975071-15306,00.html. [Accessed 19 May 2009]. Libertus.net, 2005. The State of Censorship – Australia. [Online]. 8 Jan. 2005. Available at: http://libertus.net/censor/. [Accessed 19 May 2009]. Riley, D., 2009. The Economic Cost of Internet Censorship in Australia. The Inquisitr. [Online]. 5 feb. 2009. Available at: http://www.inquisitr.com/17448/the-economic-cost-of-internet-censorship-in-australia/. [Accessed 19 May 2009]. Syvret, P., 2009. Rudds web filter wont work. Couriermail.com.au. [Online]. 13 Jan. 2009. Available at http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24902335-5012475,00.html. [Accessed 19 May 2009]. The Sydney morning herald, 2008. Government defends internet censorship technology. [Online]. 24 Dec. 2008. Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/government-defends-internet-censorship-technology/2008/12/24/1229998578450.html. [Accessed 19 May 2009]. United Nations declaration of human rights. Available at: http://www.udhr.org/UDHR/default.htm. [Accessed 19 May 2009]. Wallace, J., 2009. Filtering filth will not tangle the net. Smh.com.au. [Online]. 26 Jan. 2009. Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2009/01/25/1232818241442.html. [Accessed 19 May 2009]. Read More