State Control in Authoritarian Regimes

Perhaps the most prominent and blatant form of Internet censorship are the sweeping measures invoked by governments that control not just the availability of information on the Internet but also the ability of its citizens to participate in the global discussions that take place on-line. A host of measures have been invoked by authorities, particularly in several authoritarian regimes in Asia, which has become a hot-bed for this type of censorship.

China is a prime example, as it has, more than any other country, probably imposed the strictest controls on the Internet. In June 1995, China's telecommunications minister stated that "as a sovereign state, China will exercise control on the information" entering the country from the Internet. The regime was responding to the spread of Internet use that year, particularly among university students. Subsequent controls on the Internet announced by China in February 1996 stated that existing computer networks would be required to "liquidate" and "re-register," and to use only international channels provided by certain ministries of the government. As a result, all traffic on the Internet was configured to be routed through two major gateways in Beijing and Shanghai, where the communications system is designed to pass through a few key "choke points", making censorship relatively easy. As well, Chinese police actively patrol cyberspace and keep track of Internet users in the country.

Working from this system, Chinese authorities have managed to block access to a number of sites and areas on the Internet that they believe offer material unsuitable for its citizens or that run contrary to its rigid culture. Over 100 sites have been screened out by Beijing, including those which express dissident viewpoints from Hong Kong and Taiwan; major media organizations from the United States of America, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the Cable News Network (CNN); sexually explicit sites such as Playboy; and politically-sensitive sites dealing with Tibetan independence and human rights issues.

State Control in Democratic Countries

Whereas the authoritarian regimes of the above-mentioned countries restrict access to the Internet in the name of either politics, national security or cultural values, other countries that are generally considered to be at least nominally democratic have attempted to impose their own form of control, usually in the form of a state monopoly on service. This trend is apparent in countries whose governments are manoeuvring to assume complete control of the new technology so as to maintain sole economic benefit and advantage of its development as well as, for some, to exert a measure of control over users. In these instances, free expression is also adversely affected.

Corporate Control

Beyond the realm of government, the ability of free expression to thrive on the Internet is being thwarted in societies where private sector control of the Internet has led to corporate domination - even monopolization - of the new technology.

In 1995, the Internet became a commercial operation when the U.S. government pulled out of the business of supporting its major transcontinental telephone lines, which transmitted information on the Internet, and handed over its operation to private corporations such as American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T), British Telecom and Deutsche Telekom. In spite of this, small, independent Internet service providers still operate in the market and are able to offer access rates at a reasonable price - generally ranging from US$20-30 a month. Nevertheless, as use of the Internet grows and more servicing capability is needed, these small ISPs will see their profit margins shrink. Fears are widespread that the big communications conglomerates could underprice them and force them out of the market, leading to greater concentration. In doing so, many non-mainstream views, which are often given a voice through these small service providers, could find themselves marginalized on-line or even silenced completely, and many important issues could be subject to a one-sided, even non- existent debate.

Fear of corporate control of the Internet is also manifested when assessing the role of the biggest player in the computer software market, Microsoft. The U.S. giant controls well over 80 per cent of the software industry and is currently attempting to dominate the web browser market where its main rival, Netscape, still retains a healthy share. Microsoft is attempting to change that. It forces computer manufacturers to whom it licenses the Windows 95 operating system also to pre-install its browser, Internet Explorer. In 1996, when Compaq removed Internet Explorer from some of its personal computers, Microsoft ordered the company to restore its browser to a series of precise locations on the computer screen. If not, Microsoft would withdraw Compaq's Windows 95 licence - a virtual death sentence in the world of personal computers. Compaq capitulated and, today, Microsoft's Internet Explorer is the sole web browser on the company's computers.

Already in possession of a virtual monopoly in the computer operating systems and software market, what are the implications for free expression as well as the diversity of information if Microsoft controls the Internet and its accessibility? Could Microsoft conceivably control all information in the future? What would be the effects on free and open communication on the Internet? These questions need to be expressed when the danger is real that one person, group or corporation could have such complete control on power and information in the so-called Age of Information.

Regulation of Internet users

A common form of regulation are official edicts by governments controlling the extent to which users may access and participate in the Internet. In 1996, for example, Digicom, the largest provider of electronic services in Pakistan, asked its clients to sign agreements that imposed a number of restrictions on the use of the Internet. Under the terms of the agreement, users were to be prohibited from using any sort of data encryption and to agree that their electronic communications might be monitored by government agencies. The agreement terms also prohibited the use of the Internet for voice transmission, apparently in order to preserve the monopoly over telephone and telex communications of the government-owned Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC). As well, users of Internet services would have to provide Digicom with copies of their National Identity Card (NIC) while foreign nationals would have to submit copies of their passport. Those refusing to do so would face disconnection of their services.

In the United States, in late 1997 the major ISP America Online (AOL) shut down a site that featured writings by serial killers. The action came in response to customer threats to boycott AOL as well as criticism by politicians. The site was hosted by a Florida writer who said she created it because of an interest in how serial killers think. The site included writings by serial killers about their murders as well as a "serial killer kit."

To what extent, then, are ISPs liable for material posted by their users? There is as yet no definitive answer as to whether ISPs should not be responsible for material posted by third parties on their sites, or whether they ought to act like a publisher by regulating their users and demanding removal of content that they deem objectionable.

Regulation of Internet Service Providers

Government officials have recently tabled measures to regulate ISPs so that they assume some responsibility for supposedly objectionable material that is circulated on the Internet using their network. In Canada, a private member's bill was introduced in 1997 which would require that ISPs be licensed. The bill would give the Minister of Justice broad and unprecedented powers to regulate the Internet, ostensibly to "minimize the use of the Internet for the publication or proliferation of child pornography." The bill would also require ISPs to block access to identified portions of the Internet that carry child pornography. As well, no ISP would be able to permit in a knowing fashion the use of its service for the placing of child pornography on the Internet or the viewing, copying, or recovery of child pornography from the Internet. The legislation would also empower judicial authorities to fine or even imprison offenders.

Legislation

Closely related to attempts by governments to regulate the Internet are moves to enforce specific legislation that is currently on the books or to draft and pass bills in order to combat a perceived threat on-line. In the United States, ACLU vs. Reno, a case which has already become a touchstone in discussions of Internet censorship, came about as a result of one section of the 1996 U.S. Telecommunications Reform Act (TRA). This fifth section, known as the Communications Decency Act (CDA), contained two subsections: 223(a) and 223(d), which respectively outlawed the knowing transmission and display of obscene or "indecent" materials to minors over the Internet. Immediately after U.S. President Bill Clinton had ratified the TRA in early 1996, over 20 plaintiffs filed suit against the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Justice Department, challenging the constitutionality of 223(a) and 223(d). One week later, a federal court issued a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of 223(a), claiming that the subsection did indeed violate the principles of freedom of expression guaranteed under U.S. law. Soon thereafter a second suit resulted in similar legal action taken against 223(d). Not satisfied with these two decisions, the U.S. government filed for an appeal and the case was taken to the U.S. supreme court. The appeal opened early 1997, and was decided, in favour of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) et al., in June of that year.

In their decision, the Supreme court judges isolated the concept of free speech as the central civic liberty undermined by subsections 223(a) and 223(d) of the CDA. "We presume," they explained, "that governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The interest of encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship." Refusing the government's various arguments to the contrary, the supreme court concluded that the 1996 CDA cast a "far darker shadow over free speech" than proponents of the act were willing to concede. Unlike the majority of legal precedents set to date concerning internet censorship, ACLU vs. Reno comes out against the government and its proscription of unwanted communication.

Privacy and Free Expression

Since the Internet is a decentralized network that was not specifically designed with security in mind - communication on the Internet is a lot like sending on-line postcards in which anyone can read the message between sender and receiver - questions about security therefore emerge, since many individuals and organizations are concerned that the privacy, ease and integrity of Internet communication be preserved.

Encryption technology makes this possible. Encryption is the process of encoding, or scrambling, the contents of any data or voice communication with an algorithm, known as a "key." Only the intended recipient of the communication, who is in possession of the key, can decipher and access the information. Essentially, then, encryption tools are the locks and keys of the Information Age that enable individuals and groups to protect sensitive information as it is sent over the Internet.

Unfortunately, certain governments have attempted to access private and encrypted information communicated via the Internet. In spite of explicit protection of privacy in international treaties/documents (for example, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,) this right is being infringed upon, with serious consequences for the free and unhindered flow of information.

Government initiatives against encryption technology are rooted primarily in a desire to counter criminal and terrorist activity. Following such events as the bombings in Oklahoma in 1995 and at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, governments have called for restrictions on information that can be related to terrorism. For example, in 1995, the G7 group of nations, which met in Paris to discuss terrorism, endorsed several controls on the Internet. Among the measures was the imposition of a "key escrow" system, in which the keys required to gain access to encrypted communications or records are deposited with a third party. The G7, in effect, called for a way by governments to read all messages sent by alleged terrorists. In order to do this, however, governments must be able to read messages sent by anyone on the Internet. In other words, the privacy and integrity of all communications would be compromised in the fight against terrorism.

The shortcomings of the fight against terrorist activity on the Internet are many and well-known. The allegedly offensive material targeted by authorities, such as information on how to make bombs, is readily available in libraries and bookstores. Privacy and free speech advocates assert, since this on- line information is no different from printed material - which itself is legal and cannot be censored - then it, too, ought to be held in the same light.

Access

It has almost become a clichó by now to say that the Internet has made the world smaller by making communication between people on opposite parts of the world easier and instantaneous. In the Age of Information, the planet has become a global village for communication. Unfortunately, the clichó is not quite accurate. While millions of people all over the world are indeed hooked up to the Internet, a closer look at who those people are reveals a not quite faithful picture of the people who live on this planet. The Internet continues to be the domain of a privileged, Western-dominated and primarily- male minority. Thus, in addressing the more "traditional" problems facing the Internet in terms of censorship, discussion therefore centres on how they impact on this minority only. However, issues of free expression and the Internet must address the fundamental fact that the remaining majority, by not having access to the new technology, is being effectively silenced.

North-South imbalances

The most troubling aspect of access and free expression on the Internet concerns the imbalances that exist between the countries of the developed North and those of the developing South. Statistics would seem to bear out this disparity. A report by the International Telecommunications Union in 1995 showed that, in regions of the world where the income is lowest, the number of phone lines per 100 people was roughly 1.5, while the number of personal computers was 0.14 Contrast these figures with those for regions with the highest level of income - 51.9 telephone lines and 18.2 personal computers per 100 people. Even when statistics are compiled according to countries, the same result is reflected: the prosperous, industrialized countries of the West dominate. According to the World Economic Forum, in 1995, the United State had 35 personal computers per 100 people, and countries like Canada, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom all had rates in the low to high 20s. However, a country like Ghana, in Africa, scored only 0.11 computers per 100 people. These statistics seem to indicate that the majority of the world's population - nearly all located in the South - are being shut out in the evolution of the new technologies.

Why does such an information gap exist? For one, access to the Internet is significantly simpler in the North. For instance, "host" computers - those which link up directly to the Internet through high-speed connections - abound in the countries of the North. The opposite is largely true for the South. Some countries of the South lack direct access to the Internet; that is to say, they lack domestic host computers. As a result, users in those countries must pay for expensive international communications in order to connect to the Internet.

A concerted effort to address this imbalance is occurring around the world. In Africa, for instance, less than ten countries on the continent were directly connected to the Internet in 1995. Today, over three- quarters of the capital cities in Africa - 43 out of 54 - have developed some form of Internet access, and it is expected that many of the remaining capitals will also have Internet facilities soon. On the surface, these statistics sound promising, but can what is happening in Africa be deemed a success story for the continent, indeed, for the South?

Gender diversity

The gap between North and South is not the only division impeding universal access to the Internet: a gender gap still exists. Surveys consistently show that the percentage of female users of the Internet hovers around 30%, markedly less than the percentage of females in general. Why there are relatively few women using the Internet can be explained by discussing a few key factors.

Many women find the "culture" of the Internet intimidating. Men tend to dominate bulletin boards and usenet group conversations. Such outlets for on-line conversation and expression are often the exclusive domain of men. Some will resort to sexist, provocative statements to "shout down" any woman who attempts to join the conversation or offer a rejoinder to a previously-expressed statement critical of women. Lack of protocol and agreed-upon codes of conduct are perhaps needed in order to bring not just a degree of decorum to on-line expression but also to ensure that women can enter this territory on an equal basis where fair play can be assured.

Conclusion

Even in its short lifespan, the Internet is living up to its potential as being quite possibly the most vibrant and egalitarian form of communication in the media. Its interactivity converts ordinary citizens into publishers who can reach thousands and even millions of people around the world in a relatively easy and inexpensive manner. By becoming active producers of information rather than passive consumers, citizens are also engaging in a high degree of on-line political discussion and education and grassroots organizing to influence public policy. In addition, the increasing availability of the Internet around the world can allow individuals in authoritarian regimes not only to access information on-line that has been banned elsewhere by authorities but also to get the word out on internal repression. Indeed, the positive implications of the Internet are enormous.

Nevertheless, this potential of the Internet can only succeed if governments work collectively to ensure that the right to free expression on the Internet is guaranteed and that attempts to control on-line content are abandoned. Perhaps more than this, however, efforts should be made by everyone interested in encouraging the populist features of the Internet to work toward ensuring that as many individuals as possible are able to hook up to it. In this way, there will be so many people of both genders, of all ethnic makeups and from all corners of the globe using the Internet and realizing its potential that they will not stand for any kind of censorship or control of this dynamic medium of communication. It would constitute not only a profound affront to their universally-recognized right to free expression but also to their status as active and informed citizens in the world's largest electronic democracy.

© The Canadian Committee to Protect Journalists (ccpj@ccpj.ca)