Censorship and Privacy: Effecting Political Expression
The creation of the World Wide Web and developments in technology, has seen a major shift in the global political landscape. For many years, citizens from around the world have relied on various media to express opinions and exchange ideas with one another. However, through the use of online communication tools, people have gained a new and dramatically faster way to network. The political voice of individuals and groups can now be heard through the various platforms of social media. People can share information over great distances, effectively breaking down the borders between countries and creating an international dialogue that can result in political change. However, this freedom of expression can only exist if governments allow it. With the introduction of new legislation threatening privacy, and governments enforcing the censorship of important information, the future of individuals rights and freedom is in jeopardy.
The dangers of citizens expressing political views in countries controlled by totalitarian governments can be extreme. Afghani freedom campaigner Malalai Joya, explains how freedom of speech can have a high price in her home country.
Untitled from TweetForAChange on Vimeo.
Image sourced from: http://wakeup-world.com/2012/01/17/us-government-attempting-to-censor-scientific-journals/
Internet has no fixed address, therefore the responsibility of publishing content and it's distribution falls on the various social media networks, which themselves have to adhere to the guidelines of their country of origin. Due to the varying laws and policies that govern individual countries. As governments attempt to combat issues of privacy and censorship in their own countries, their actions, although designed to impact on their own citizens, will intern effect those in other countries wishing to access the same content. In the United States, the House of Representatives introduced a controversial bill known as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) to fight piracy. According to The Library of Congress, the "Stop Online Piracy Act - Authorizes the Attorney General (AG) to seek a court order against a U.S.-directed foreign Internet site committing or facilitating online piracy to require the owner, operator, or domain name registrant, or the site or domain name itself if such persons are unable to be found, to cease and desist further activities constituting specified intellectual property offences under the federal criminal code including criminal copyright infringement" (Smith 2012, para.1).
Originally, the House of Representatives attempted to sue individual users, and requested internet service providers intervene by taking action against subscribers. However, this had little effect on the overseas websites allegedly infringing copyright, as they are not governed by the same law. Because websites such as Pirate Bay are owned and operated outside the US, they remained unaffected by such attempts of legal action. Similarly, the Protect IP Act (PIPA), was also introduced by the US Senate for the same reasons - attempting to block the websites of those who commit online piracy (Newman 2012, para 3.).
By attempting to increase the ability of law enforcers to combat the infringing of online copyrighted goods, both SOPA and PIPA bills were met with fierce opposition from some of the biggest internet companies such as Wikipedia, Google, Wordpress and Mozilla. These giants of the Web, along with 7,000 additional sites, "engaged in acts of peaceful protest against the two bills by blacking out their websites, censoring their names, or disabling their domain name server (DNS)" (Deluca 2012, para. 4).
SOPA and PIPA were drafted in such a way that "if the bills were to pass legislation, people would be denied their right to freedom of speech as any content they read or write would be subject to censorship or disablement by the government"(Deluca 2012, para. 4). Ultimately, this was the catalyst for the many companies and private Internet users who opposed the bills, to challenge the authorities, ensuring through protest that neither would be passed through the US Congress and become part of US law.
Creating content, through the use of social media platforms like You Tube and Twitter, allows groups and individuals to form and share political views, providing them with an avenue for worldwide expression. In democratic countries, freedom of expression for the most part has been allowed to exist. However, the introduction of a bill that would allow the censorship of that content, would be seen by many as a violation of Freedom of Speech, directly infringing on a law stated in the United Nations Declaration of Humans Rights (United Nations 1948, para.27).
In some cases, the censorship of groups and individuals who use and access social media networks may not always be negative. There are instances where mass violence has been organised through social media platforms, as was the case in the 2011 London Riots - which took place between the 2nd-6th of August. UK Prime Minister, David Cameron stated that "everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organised via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill", and when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality"(Cameron 2011, para. 6).
It is evident that a review of how new technology is used by individuals needs to be conducted to achieve a fair and balanced, democratic approach to the use of social media. There is a fine line between peoples ability to communicate with good intentions, and those who intentionally misuse the medium to do harm. In principle, social media is no different from other forms of media, in a democratic society you would not expect films or books to be censored, so why should social media be governed any differently? On the other hand, with no ability to censor content, how do parents block pornographic images on social networks and avoid their children accessing such material? Authoritarian governments abuse their power and silence social networks when threatened. However, if democratic countries do the same, they would likewise be viewed as a barrier to democracy.
Since the SOPA and PIPA bills were both unsuccessful in their attempt to be passed through the U.S. congress, another bill has been drawn together to essentially take their place. Similar to it's predecessors, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is the U.S. Senates newest bill designed to allow "elements of the intelligence community to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities and to encourage the sharing of such intelligence" (Roger & Ruppersberger 2011, para. 20). If the bill was to pass through the U.S. Congress, it would mean that affected Internet companies would be required to collate confidential information from their users, and supply the government with the private data when requested. The similarities to SOPA and PIPA are evident in the bills lack of concern for the privacy of Web users. However, CISPA goes one step further by rewarding social media providers for collecting users information, and supplying it to the government. This is achieved by shifting the legal responsibility from social media providers to the government - in cases where individuals want to sue for breach of privacy. Social media giant Facebook, has been listed by the House of Representatives as a supporter of this bill, along with 100 other backers as of April 6th, 2012.
The passing of a bill such a as CISPA, would have dramatic effects on the privacy of not only U.S. citizens, but for users worldwide. One of the main issues with the bill is that is states that private information may be shared, "notwithstanding any other provision or law" (Roger & Ruppersberger 2011, para. 7). By using the word 'notwithstanding', it extends the capability of it's purpose far beyond any other federal and state law currently legislated. If engaged in a case where private information was used unjustly, this legislation is able to bypass other laws, offering the government full immunity to legal action. The effect of such a bill would extend past the U.S. borders thought the world. Major Internet companies based in the U.S. would have to abide by such new legislation, as too would those who use the services outside the country, potentially threatening the privacy of millions of people.
FACEBOOK: FRIEND OR FIEND? (Next Page)
Originally, the House of Representatives attempted to sue individual users, and requested internet service providers intervene by taking action against subscribers. However, this had little effect on the overseas websites allegedly infringing copyright, as they are not governed by the same law. Because websites such as Pirate Bay are owned and operated outside the US, they remained unaffected by such attempts of legal action. Similarly, the Protect IP Act (PIPA), was also introduced by the US Senate for the same reasons - attempting to block the websites of those who commit online piracy (Newman 2012, para 3.).
By attempting to increase the ability of law enforcers to combat the infringing of online copyrighted goods, both SOPA and PIPA bills were met with fierce opposition from some of the biggest internet companies such as Wikipedia, Google, Wordpress and Mozilla. These giants of the Web, along with 7,000 additional sites, "engaged in acts of peaceful protest against the two bills by blacking out their websites, censoring their names, or disabling their domain name server (DNS)" (Deluca 2012, para. 4).
SOPA and PIPA were drafted in such a way that "if the bills were to pass legislation, people would be denied their right to freedom of speech as any content they read or write would be subject to censorship or disablement by the government"(Deluca 2012, para. 4). Ultimately, this was the catalyst for the many companies and private Internet users who opposed the bills, to challenge the authorities, ensuring through protest that neither would be passed through the US Congress and become part of US law.
Creating content, through the use of social media platforms like You Tube and Twitter, allows groups and individuals to form and share political views, providing them with an avenue for worldwide expression. In democratic countries, freedom of expression for the most part has been allowed to exist. However, the introduction of a bill that would allow the censorship of that content, would be seen by many as a violation of Freedom of Speech, directly infringing on a law stated in the United Nations Declaration of Humans Rights (United Nations 1948, para.27).
In some cases, the censorship of groups and individuals who use and access social media networks may not always be negative. There are instances where mass violence has been organised through social media platforms, as was the case in the 2011 London Riots - which took place between the 2nd-6th of August. UK Prime Minister, David Cameron stated that "everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organised via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill", and when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality"(Cameron 2011, para. 6).
It is evident that a review of how new technology is used by individuals needs to be conducted to achieve a fair and balanced, democratic approach to the use of social media. There is a fine line between peoples ability to communicate with good intentions, and those who intentionally misuse the medium to do harm. In principle, social media is no different from other forms of media, in a democratic society you would not expect films or books to be censored, so why should social media be governed any differently? On the other hand, with no ability to censor content, how do parents block pornographic images on social networks and avoid their children accessing such material? Authoritarian governments abuse their power and silence social networks when threatened. However, if democratic countries do the same, they would likewise be viewed as a barrier to democracy.
Since the SOPA and PIPA bills were both unsuccessful in their attempt to be passed through the U.S. congress, another bill has been drawn together to essentially take their place. Similar to it's predecessors, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is the U.S. Senates newest bill designed to allow "elements of the intelligence community to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities and to encourage the sharing of such intelligence" (Roger & Ruppersberger 2011, para. 20). If the bill was to pass through the U.S. Congress, it would mean that affected Internet companies would be required to collate confidential information from their users, and supply the government with the private data when requested. The similarities to SOPA and PIPA are evident in the bills lack of concern for the privacy of Web users. However, CISPA goes one step further by rewarding social media providers for collecting users information, and supplying it to the government. This is achieved by shifting the legal responsibility from social media providers to the government - in cases where individuals want to sue for breach of privacy. Social media giant Facebook, has been listed by the House of Representatives as a supporter of this bill, along with 100 other backers as of April 6th, 2012.
The passing of a bill such a as CISPA, would have dramatic effects on the privacy of not only U.S. citizens, but for users worldwide. One of the main issues with the bill is that is states that private information may be shared, "notwithstanding any other provision or law" (Roger & Ruppersberger 2011, para. 7). By using the word 'notwithstanding', it extends the capability of it's purpose far beyond any other federal and state law currently legislated. If engaged in a case where private information was used unjustly, this legislation is able to bypass other laws, offering the government full immunity to legal action. The effect of such a bill would extend past the U.S. borders thought the world. Major Internet companies based in the U.S. would have to abide by such new legislation, as too would those who use the services outside the country, potentially threatening the privacy of millions of people.
FACEBOOK: FRIEND OR FIEND? (Next Page)