Feasibility of Censoring the Internet in the US - Report Example

Feasibility of Censoring the Internet in the US Name: Institution: 2nd April, 2013 Table of Contents 1. Report Abstract...........................................................................................................3. 2. Introduction ................................................................................................................4. A. Definition, Description, and Background. ........................................................4. B. Purpose of the Report and Intended Audience..................................................4. C. Method of Inquiry.............................................................................................5. D. Limitations of the Study....................................................................................5. E. Scope of the Analysis........................................................................................6. F. Conclusion of the Analysis...............................................................................6 3. Body..............................................................................................................................7. A. Relationship between Internet Censorship and ......................................................7. B. Advantages of Internet Censors..............................................................................8. C. Disadvantages of Internet Censors........................................................................12. D. Public Responses to Internet Censors by the US Government.............................13. E. Internet Censorship and Breach of Patriot Act......................................................14. F. Breach to Freedom of Information and Internet Censoring..................................14. 4. Conclusion and Recommendations..........................................................................15. 5. References..................................................................................................................17. Report Abstract This essay seeks to address the possibility of employing internet censors in the United States. It does so by narrowing down its area of focus to employing internet sensors in the government of United States, in the Department of Defence (DOD). It does the analysis by looking at the roles or responsibilities of the US department of defence to the citizens or nationals of the United States. In the process of analysis, the report looks at how the internet came to be associated with the department of defence or the military in that matter as a form of introduction. Within the text, several documented evidences that relate to human rights and fundamental freedoms are stated as reasons that necessitate the controversies surrounding the internet censorship action. Such enactments and amendments to the constitution that support and disapprove of actions implemented together with the internet censors include the Freedom of Information Act of 2001, Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, Communications Decency Act of 1996, Guide to the Freedom of Information Act 2009 and the Rights of a Child. In addition governments documents are used to build arguments that highlight some of the advantages and disadvantages of the internet censures. A general view of how the public responded to these governmental enactments to the US law and the groups or units that they deformed to oppose these motions are also mentioned in the text. Finally, the essay closes up with an over view of certain relevant recommendations that are arrived at based on the sentiments discussed in the introductory bits and body of the report. Feasibility of Censoring the Internet in the US 1. Introduction A. Definition, Description and Background Internet censorship is the move taken or an action taken in order to take control of or suppress the publishing or access of information on the internet or that is published on the internet. It is basically executed on the removal of information or materials that are socially thought of as obscene or alternatively morally open to discussion or dubious. It can similarly be applied to contexts that are more specific such as the military, politics and also corporate or organizations of which in each case it is referred to as military censorship, political censorship and corporate censorship respectively. A general thought is thus drawn that censorship mainly entails the absence of something, its removal, or cancellation by a group of personalities intending to protect it (the information) for themselves or for the benefit or good of other individuals. For instance, a society may censor a habit or a behaviour that they consider inane or unacceptable such as nudity and fetid language. Similarly, companies may also censor their goods to make sure that they are seen in the best illumination or purpose for which they are deserved. An example is when a car company refuses to allow the use of their car products in shooting a movie such as transformers because they do not want it to be perceived as meant for war. The military, on the other hand, many a time employ censorship on its protection, usually censoring large groups of data that may or may not even be that critical. B. Purpose of the Report, and Intended Audience In this given regard, the internet censorship in this particular essay is looked at in consideration to the United States Department of Defence, thus military censorship. The internet exists in a free and creative nature and therefore is often exposed or is more of a primary target to be censored because more and more content has become accessible over it. The United States Department of Defence mainly uses internet censoring to stop or prohibit its personnel from accessing particular IP addresses as is outlined in their report to the congress with the title “Department of Defence Personnel Access to the Internet.” This essay seeks to establish whether or not military censorship is a viable or non viable project in the United States. C. Method of Inquiry The analysis is based on a research that was conducted by use of a survey. They survey involved the use of questionnaires that were given to the general public or civilians in the United States, corporate or organizational employees, military personnel, and certain governmental officials or congress men. The questionnaires majorly sort to establish how military censorship may or may not affect the different groups that are mentioned, which areas the military deploy their censorship and how, whether they think it has benefits and demerits to them, how it may affect businesses in corporations and how they generally felt about the action of military censorship. Similarly, reports of personal interviews of certain military personnel and managers in corporations and governmental organisations were also used in arriving at the conclusion after a proper analysis. D. Limitations of the Study It is important to note that the end result or the recommendations of this finding are based on personal opinions from United States Citizens and not written literature of past records. Literature reviews or references that are used in this essay are mainly applicable to records such as acts and bills that may be mentioned in the text. The findings may not be accurate since they involve personal opinions of respondents from different cultural backgrounds, different age groups or age sets and organisations which may be playing party to the military censorship project. Therefore, some of the responses may be prejudiced due to self interests or have varied views because the recommendations are arrived at after an analysis of personal opinions which may be limited to an individual’s own point of view, ability to reason constructively and develop an understanding of complicated issues that may have a lot of controversies such as this. There has been a lot of controversy that has clouded the implementation of rules to censure the internet in the US. In an attempt to draw a line on whether it is right or wrong to censure the internet in the US, this particular essay looks into a general reason why the US department of defence could be applying the use of internet censuring to ensure security of their citizens. E. Scope of the Analysis The essay starts with an introductory view of how internet censuring and the department of defence are related, the advantages of internet censures to the general public, the disadvantages of internet censuring, how the public responds to such censures, and finally the possible ways in which the internet censures will breach the patriot act and freedom of information. F. Conclusion of the Analysis The research concludes that as much as internet censures may be infringing in certain basic human rights, it is a necessary tool that is used in order to protect the general public despite the negativities associated with its implementation. It is therefore inevitable in running political, social, governmental and economic issues. 2. Body A. Relationship between Internet Censorship and the US Department of Defence 1. Definition The United States department of defence is generally responsible for the security of all the citizens including the country, United States. They also oversee all branches of the army, armed forces, air force, and Marine Corps together with all the other Special Forces and the system of weapons (Kleinrock, 2005). To understand how the internet and the US department of defence are related, it is first necessary to understand how the internet came to be and how it works. 2. Findings The first linking of the internet came to existence in the United States in 1969 that encompassed a network of four servers namely, ‘APRANET’. ARPA (the Advanced Research Projects Agency), a unit of the Department of Defence, developed ARPANET mainly for military research so that information within the network could be decentralized and could endure a nuclear strike. As technology developed over the next two decades, the network grew in terms of speed and size. Several other standards begun to appear in the market such as the TCP/IP protocol for network relay of information. Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP) had been created by 1990 in order to make standard the ways in which documents were received and sent. Later in 1994, APRANET was done away with and the internet thus became a public network that connected more than three million computers in the whole world. Commercial institutions begun to offer services via the internet, for instance the online order of pizzas. 3. Analysis of Findings Currently many major companies offer software, hardware, books, games and adult oriented photos as online products. Since the internet developed so fast to the interest of the public, many individuals were caught off guard and several concerns begun to arise. Because the internet’s access is only limited to those that are using it, the need to protect those who are vulnerable to being exposed to adult oriented, inappropriate and tasteless subjects therefore arose. The misgivings associated with the internet by companies, individuals, or other states are referred to as cyber crimes and as such, the department of defence being solely responsible for the security of members of the United States, have roles to protect any individual from abuse or exposure to any of the above mentioned materials. B. Advantages of Internet Censors 1. Definition The establishment of the advantages of internet censures was arrived at based on the different positive responses that were obtained from the different categories that gave answers in the questionnaires and the interviews that mainly involved officials or personnel in governmental organisations, divisions in the department of defence, and the general public. It mainly looks at the positive fundamentals that are associated with internet censors (Derek, 2009). 2. Findings Amongst this findings, members of the general public and more so parents responded by saying that internet censoring was important in protecting children from exposure to pornographic materials. 3. Analysis of the Findings Because there is no limit to how much information an individual can have access to in the internet, many children in the US, particularly those under the age of 18 years (non adults) are vulnerable to accessing adult rated data that may have been posted in the internet by companies that deal in such material or products, the department of defence and other community organisations are charged with the responsibility to ensure that rules and regulations such as the Children’s Internet Protection Act, 2000 passed by U.S. Congress are established and implemented fully though the congress to help protect the children from being exposed to such materials that may be considered nude or abusive to their fundamental rights. This will see governmental funded schools and public libraries acquire or establish internet filters or blocking software that hinder access to such sites. In addition, they can help influence the process of establishing and implementation of the Communications Decency Act, 1998 of the U.S congress that restricts online speech for minors. Similarly, the U.S department of defence can sensor material that is in the internet that may appear to be insulting to a particular group, race or religion in their society. This will help maintain societal peace or harmony (Warf, 2013). In this given manner, then the department of defence would be seen to be protecting the society as whole or other particular segments of the society from a material that may deemed as or viewed as offensive in nature. Such offensive materials may lead to racist clashes, religious clashes or inter organizational clashes which as an end result would jeopardize the state of peace in the country (Bidgoli, 2004). War within communities of a particular society in the U.S due to exposure to offensive materials is a sign of weakness or failure by the U.S department of defence to ensure that there is peace within their boundaries. Further to this, the U.S department of defence has a core role to preserve national security. Without the use of censorship tactics, there is no way in which it would be possible to maintain the level of secrecy required to handle information that may be meant to protect the U.S as a nation. This particular function of censorship helps protect the military of a state or security intelligence agency from its enemies. If enemies access information that is considered a secret to the security agencies, they may use them instead to attack or counter their security plans. This function is particularly relevant when it comes to controlling the level of access or limit of reach that the media personnel can have about political deals in the government or military operations during war. Several policies that were discussed with some military officials during their interviews are that the media can be both a threat and a weapon of use in the military during war. As a weapon, the media is considered as a tool for ensuring public support for the military during war. As they cover the images, videos and military operations, they help avoid the relay of scenes that are considered dangerous or destructive in nature. If the media do not share plans of military operations for attacking enemies, direction of movement of military war ships (navy) and direction maps that are intended to be used in an operation, then they act as a weapon for keeping secrets and it is in very minimal chances that a military plan would leak to an enemy, thus causing a counter attack plan. Similarly, if the media only share images of secure boundaries, advanced technologies used in the military, non-violent scenes in areas where the U.S militias are participating in war, then they help maintain peace in their country. An initiative by the U.S department of defence to ensure that the media only airs what is worth public consumption acts as a tool to reduce panic within its borders, keep secrets within the military concerning its plans and operations and protects any information from the political scenes or governmental dealings from reaching the public. As such, they protect the civilians in the United States from information that may be considered violent or destructive in nature. This also ensures that the public keeps supporting their military squads because they would only be associated with their undying quest to ensure that their boundaries are secure and that they give a number one priority to the security of its citizens. As the media only share the progress of their militias during war, the public will always have hope that their military team is up to the task of protecting them, thus a continued public support. Military will always suppress information that is in terms of politics, inconvenient, thus protecting the intelligence of its agencies and government. This act by the military or department of defence or government to hold back data that may be considered detrimental to its citizens helps gain some control over the general population or populace therefore preventing the free expression that may cause or foment rebellious actions. In a third sense, as recollected from the responses of corporate managers, there are corporations that may market their products in such a way that may lead to end users or consumers of such products as better off than others. They may take advantage and portray products from other international companies or local manufacturing industries as injurious in nature over the internet. As much as their products may gain economic advantages over the products they portray negatively, the degree of negative perception may end up stirring some kind of hostility towards the producing companies by the U.S citizens (ACLU, 2002). The end result of this is market hostility or rejection from local markets which signifies a possible source of instability in terms of security in the country (GovTrack, 2011). In order to control such malicious antics, the department of defence should set rules or policies that only allow particular rated and authenticated amounts and types of information to reach the public thus preventing hostility in the markets (Bidgoli, 2004). From this information, the roles of the department of defence in internet censorship can therefore be grouped in five major categories that include moral censorship, military censorship, political censorship, corporate censorship and religious censorship. C. Disadvantages of Internet censorship 1. Definition Any action that has a merit cannot fail to have a demerit. And as the interviews and analysis of the questionnaires that were submitted were going on, there were elements that mainly came up that indicated certain levels of dissatisfaction or disapproval of actions by the U.S department of defence to implement policies that encouraged internet censoring. This mainly came from the public and the media personnel that interacted with the research team. It therefore outlines the main demerits or costs of internet censors in the United States. 2. Findings and Analysis of the Findings The first disadvantage that was pointed out is the fact that it strangles creativity. Those that produce videos for entertainment have a difficult time in displaying full justice to their ideas and creativities. Similarly, because internet censorship objects to issues that discuss sensitive topics such as sex, it has become very difficult to educate those that they call minors (under 18 years of age) about the negative sides or hidden sides of sex. This is a big challenge because the bans even apply to educational segments that discuss the society as a whole. Thirdly, in many occasions, the censor boards and in this particular case the department of defence may travel out of their course and misuse this power at its disposal. They may go way over board and deny the public the chance of knowing the truth about particular issues in the political scenes and businesses thus a tad too laid off. As such it acts as an encouragement to lie which acts in opposition to traditional values that the U.S citizens are taught to always say the truth. In addition, some individuals in the U.S have a belief that they should be allowed to watch and read what they feel like. This bit particularly acts directly in contrary to what the U.S government believes in allowing its citizens read and see what they essentially deem fit for them. Internet censorship also plays a direct critical role in denying the press their obvious role of enjoying the freedom of coverage that in rightful senses it should. They limit what they can cover and manipulate what kind of information goes out to the public hence the information that is communicated is far from being representative of the truth. Finally, according to the standards of being human, each and every individual, in particular U.S citizens, have a right to access knowledge or to know. Censorship, in certain special occasions prevents people or personalities from accessing knowledge that in real sense should not be restricted (Theohary & Rollins, 2009). As such, it is evident that the implementation of internet censors in the United States may in certain individual views fringe into rights of citizens despite the good motives put behind them. D. Public Responses to Internet Censors by the US Government. Definition, Findings and Analysis In response to the implementations of internet censors, the public through free speech advocates in the U.S sort to rejects amendments that were done to the United States constitution in regard to the Communications Decency Act, 1998 and the Deleting Online Predators Act and the U.S military policy: Department of Defence Personnel Access to the Internet. Similarly, certain community groups or bodies such as Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC) and American Civil Liberties Union have gone to the Supreme Court pointing out at these attempted or proposed amendments to law and policies in favour of internet censorship as infringing human rights. E. Internet Censorship and Breach of Patriot Act Definitions, Findings and Analysis The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by the congress in response to the terrorists’ attacks of the 11th September, 2001. This particular act gave the federal officials the mandate to mainly track and intercept communications, in the interest of enforcing laws and foreign intelligence gathering reasons. The action of military internet censoring mandated by the US military policy: Department of Defence Personnel Access to the internet, that denies military officials access to specific IP addresses is an indication of an action that is arguably unconstitutional because its establishment cam much later after the US constitution came into existence. Thus the amendment may be considered as a violation of the constitutional rights of the military personnel. F. Breach to Freedom of Information and Internet Censoring Definitions, Findings and Analysis Internet Censoring in the US as earlier discussed involves suppressing or denial of the right to access certain information that the US government may consider abusive or secretive in nature. The U.S Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a governmental law of freedom of information that grants the full or partial disclosure of the initially unreleased information and documents as controlled by the government of the United States. The internet censors particularly contravene the Electronic Freedom of Information Act 1996, under this law that requires that all agencies of the government provide room for U.S citizens to use and have access to online records of the agency within 20 days (Zuchora-Walske, 2010). In certain cases, the public may demand to use these records but due to amendments to these Acts owing to internet censors, they may not have the right to view these documents again which are considered as part of their constitutional right. Therefore the right access information of public interest and general knowledge is denied. 3. Conclusion and Recommendations As indicated by the analysis above information, it is evident that the pros of internet censoring include barring content that may be considered obscene, violent and questionable from reaching vulnerable individuals, suppression of religious conflicts, protecting long standing tradition and cultures from western influence, national security, protection from using illegal historical events in a celebration, protection of business from competitive market malice, restoration of peace and stability in a country, protection from false hoods in businesses and preservation of values in a society. The cons associated with internet censoring include oppression because it precedes propaganda, is a form of denial as it does not solve problems, goes against the wishes that parents are willing to teach children in relation to always telling the truth, loss of culture, rebellion towards censorship, and a strain to international relationships as opined by liberal states. As such, it is clear that internet censors are done in order to ensure peace and protection from detrimental information. As much as there are both positive and negative implications of implementing internet censors and more so military censorship, it is imperative to note that the negativities and positive attributes of this subject matter of contemplation are both contributing in one way or the other towards protecting a certain human right. Therefore, it is viable to implement censors in the U.S but with proper caution and taking into consideration the human rights and constitutional guarantees of the people of United States. As such, no controversies will arise and the citizens will understand that it is for their interest that such policies are developed and implemented to ensure their own security from external and internal attacks in a cultural, social, political and economical perspective. References Smith Reintroduces the Global Online Freedom Act, OFFICE OF U.S. REP. CHRIS SMITH, March. 3, 2013, available at http://www.house.gov/list/press/nj04_smith/gofareintro.html ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUND., EFF Analysis of the Provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, Oct. 27, 2003, http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analy s.php. Kleinrock 's, Leonard. "Personal History/Biography; The Birth of the Internet. " The History of the Internet. 09 MAR 2005. UCLA Computer science Department. 5th April 2013 http://www.lk.cs.ucla.edu/personal_history.html. "US Code Collection." LII/ Legal Information Institute. 5 MARCH 2013 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000 .html. "Rights of the Child." 25 APR 2001. 5 MARCH 2013 http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.RES.2001.75.En?O endocument. ACLU, (2002). Online Censorship in the States, Retrieved 5th March, 2013, http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/online-censorship-states . Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act [USA PATRIOT Act] of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–56. Theohary, C. A., & Rollins, J. (2009, September 30). Cybersecurity: Current legislation, and options for Congress (Congressional Report No.R40836). Washington DC: Library of Congress Congressional Research Service. U.S. Justice Department. (2009). Guide to the Freedom of Information Act 2009. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Zuchora-Walske, C. (2010). Internet Censorship: Protecting Citizens Or Trampling on Freedom? Minneapolis, Minnesota: Twenty-First Century Books. Bidgoli, H. (2004). The Internet Encyclopedia G-O. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Warf, B. (2013). Global Geographies of the Internet. NY: Springer Publishing. Derek E. B., (2009). “Cybersieves”. Duke Law Journal, vol. 59 (2009. United States federal law. (1996). "Communications Decency Act of 1996" Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub.L. 104–104, 110 Stat. 133-139, enacted February 8, 1996 Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, Part I of the U.S. Code, Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School United States federal law, "Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998" located at 15 U.S.C. pp.6501–6506 (Pub.L. 105–277, 112 Stat. 2581-728, enacted October 21, 1998) GovTrack. "S. 968: Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011". Retrieved April 5, 2013. Read More

An example is when a car company refuses to allow the use of their car products in shooting a movie such as transformers because they do not want it to be perceived as meant for war. The military, on the other hand, many a time employ censorship on its protection, usually censoring large groups of data that may or may not even be that critical. B. Purpose of the Report, and Intended Audience In this given regard, the internet censorship in this particular essay is looked at in consideration to the United States Department of Defence, thus military censorship.

The internet exists in a free and creative nature and therefore is often exposed or is more of a primary target to be censored because more and more content has become accessible over it. The United States Department of Defence mainly uses internet censoring to stop or prohibit its personnel from accessing particular IP addresses as is outlined in their report to the congress with the title “Department of Defence Personnel Access to the Internet.” This essay seeks to establish whether or not military censorship is a viable or non viable project in the United States. C. Method of Inquiry The analysis is based on a research that was conducted by use of a survey.

They survey involved the use of questionnaires that were given to the general public or civilians in the United States, corporate or organizational employees, military personnel, and certain governmental officials or congress men. The questionnaires majorly sort to establish how military censorship may or may not affect the different groups that are mentioned, which areas the military deploy their censorship and how, whether they think it has benefits and demerits to them, how it may affect businesses in corporations and how they generally felt about the action of military censorship.

Similarly, reports of personal interviews of certain military personnel and managers in corporations and governmental organisations were also used in arriving at the conclusion after a proper analysis. D. Limitations of the Study It is important to note that the end result or the recommendations of this finding are based on personal opinions from United States Citizens and not written literature of past records. Literature reviews or references that are used in this essay are mainly applicable to records such as acts and bills that may be mentioned in the text.

The findings may not be accurate since they involve personal opinions of respondents from different cultural backgrounds, different age groups or age sets and organisations which may be playing party to the military censorship project. Therefore, some of the responses may be prejudiced due to self interests or have varied views because the recommendations are arrived at after an analysis of personal opinions which may be limited to an individual’s own point of view, ability to reason constructively and develop an understanding of complicated issues that may have a lot of controversies such as this.

There has been a lot of controversy that has clouded the implementation of rules to censure the internet in the US. In an attempt to draw a line on whether it is right or wrong to censure the internet in the US, this particular essay looks into a general reason why the US department of defence could be applying the use of internet censuring to ensure security of their citizens. E. Scope of the Analysis The essay starts with an introductory view of how internet censuring and the department of defence are related, the advantages of internet censures to the general public, the disadvantages of internet censuring, how the public responds to such censures, and finally the possible ways in which the internet censures will breach the patriot act and freedom of information. F. Conclusion of the Analysis The research concludes that as much as internet censures may be infringing in certain basic human rights, it is a necessary tool that is used in order to protect the general public despite the negativities associated with its implementation.

Read More