Obstacles to the free flow of information online
- From: pluto <pluto@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:15:00 +0800
http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=433
Obstacles to the free flow of information online
A call for vigilance
The Internet has a bad reputation. With authoritarian regimes, that?s no
surprise. It?s to be expected the enduring dictatorship in Beijing (and we
must call it that, whatever the fans of the Chinese "economic miracle"
think) has set up a big Internet police force. Dozens of Internet users
languish in Chinese prisons for imaginary crimes - for looking at banned
websites or, even "worse," daring to post news online about forbidden
topics such as the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre and repression in Tibet.
China is unfortunately not the only country where dissident Internet
messages are tracked down. In Vietnam and Tunisia, big shots (official or
otherwise) are distinctly unenthusiastic about this vast discussion forum
and information exchange they have so much trouble controlling.
In this very long list of regimes opposed to freedom, we find habitual
human rights violators such as Burma, Ukraine and Belarus but also
countries that are places people dream about - tropical holiday
destinations beloved of Western tourists. The Maldives, for example, where
the other side of the picture postcard is shabby and two Internet users
have been sentenced to life imprisonment for criticising a dictatorship in
paradise that has been in power for the past 40 years.
This is all very logical. No surprise that Fidel Castro gives orders about
the Internet as he does about everything else in Cuba, except of course for
those "useful idiots" (as Lenin used to say) - the package tourists with
cigars and obliging local girls thrown in.
What?s more worrying, at first sight anyway, is the distrust of the
Internet among the supposedly solid democracies of Europe and North
America. Why the United States, France and the United Kingdom take their
place in this report alongside the thugs that are quick to lock up the
merest opponent calls for an explanation.
First there are the universally-condemned child-porn, xenophobic and racist
websites found everywhere. Even though a very tiny part of the Internet -
less than 3 per cent of online activity according to experts - they are
rightly disturbing. The authorities cannot and should not ignore them, even
if that offends the purists who advocate an Internet free of all monitoring
and interference. Calls for violence and appeals to hatred must be fought.
But by respecting civil liberties and avoiding abuses. These pages
highlight those who have failed to do that.
But this isn?t the most commonly-cited reason for Internet surveillance in
traditionally democratic countries. It?s the fight against terrorism that
governments say justifies repressive controls and laws. With some reason,
too, in view of the e-mails exchanged by the authors of the 11 September
2001 attack on the World Trade Center in New York. It?s understandable that
the price of our safety is some encroachment on our freedom. But only as
long as parliaments approve all such measures, which doesn?t always happen,
and police always act only at the request of judges, which sometimes isn?t
done.
This report describes a wide range of circumstances, none of them
comparable. Routinely authoritarian regimes and those that may make
mistakes (which can be corrected) cannot be lumped together. The report
should not be seen as a kind of ranking of regimes by their repression of
the Internet, but more as an appeal for vigilance in countries where, as in
democracies, it?s still possible to exposes abuses and flaws. And also an
appeal for solidarity with those who are flagrantly deprived of freedom,
such as the 70 or so cyber-dissidents currently in prison around the world.
Robert Ménard
Secretary-General, Reporters Without Borders
==================================================
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=10785
Malaysia
Population : 23,965,000
Internet users : 7,841,000 (2002)
Average charge for 20 hours of connection : 7 euros
DAI* : 0.57
Situation** : difficult
The government says the Internet is hugely important for the country and
communications and mulmtimedia minister Chia Kwang Chye has stressed that
it will not be censored. In practice, harassment and threats make
webmasters censor online material.
Minister Chia Kwang Chye said in late 2003 that the 1998 Communications and
Multimedia Act needed adapting to the Internet and that principles would
have to be applied to online activity. He said he favoured "positive usage"
of an Internet that was free of "false news which could cause negative
impacts on social harmony" - remarks that were a sign of the strict control
of the Internet the government really wants.
Making online publications "responsible"
The elections commission said in July 2003 it would prosecute the authors
of "defamatory" material on websites or in e-mail and text-messages.
Election candidates would also be held responsible during campaigning for
the online behaviour of their supporters and would have to promise in
writing not to raise "sensitive issues." The commission did not define
"defamatory" or "sensitive issues." The government wanted to avoid what
happened at the 1999 elections, when the opposition made extensive use of
the Internet.
The March 2004 parliamentary election campaign involved much online
activity, with heated debate and rivalry conducted through party websites
and on discussion groups and blogs. Hacking into sites increased and
visitors to the online publication of the Rakyat Malaysia party were
briefly redirected to a pornographic site.
Harassment of Malaysiakini continues
The government has harassed the country?s only independent online daily,
Malaysiakini (www.malaysiakini.com.my) since 2002 with verbal threats to
its staff and searches of their homes.
The website was ordered on 22 January 2003 to leave its offices before the
end of February by its landlord, the firm PC Suria, which is close to the
government. The eviction order was eventually dropped and the site was able
to stay in its offices.
Malaysiakini is also the regular target of hackers. Just before the March
2004 elections, the site was knocked offline for several hours by a hacker
working from Kuala Lumpur?s main college of new technology and overwhelming
the site with bogus traffic. The website?s staff said this kind of attack
was common, especially after sensitive material had been posted, and that
the country?s hackers were regularly recruited to do it. The head of
Malaysiakini, Premesh Chandran, said "everybody should respect the
democratic process, which includes a free press and access to information,"
so citizens could make "an informed decision."
An online journalist freed
One of Malaysiakini?s journalists, Hishamuddin Rais (also a documentary
filmmaker), was arrested along with five political dissidents on 10 April
2001 and jailed without trial for two years under the Internal Security Act
for "attempting to overthrow the government." He was freed on 4 June 2003.
Two websites blocked by a British Internet host
The British website host Easyspace blocked access to www.freeanwar.com and
www.black14.com on 11 December 2003 because of allegedly libellous content.
The sites had campaigned for the release of former deputy prime minister
Anwar Ibrahim, who was jailed in 1998 for supposed corruption and sodomy.
The sites were cut off after the host got an e-mail from someone living in
Australia accusing them of libel and threatening to sue in an Australian
court, noting that Australian law allowed such action, an implicit
reference to the so-called Gutnick ruling of 1992. This ruling said that
since the same online material could be seen anywhere in the world,
webmasters responsible for it could also be prosecuted in any country, not
just the one from which it was posted.
The Easyspace example is a striking illustration of the dangers posed by
the Gutnick ruling. Rather than face prosecution in Australia, Easyspace
chose to remove the offending material without even investigating the
validity of the complaint. It was only when the case got publicity after
the intervention of organisations such as Reporters Without Borders that it
looked at the details of the complaint and decided to put the two websites
back online.
The danger is that individuals and pressure groups may rush to cite the
Guttnick ruling in an effort to censor online material they do not like.
Links
The online daily Malaysiakini
www.malaysiakini.com.my
The human rights organisation Aliran
www.aliran.com
La Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission
www.mcmc.gov.my/mcmc
Ministry of energy, communications and multimedia
www.ktkm.gov.my
* The DAI (Digital Access Index) has been devised by the International
Telecommunications Union to measure the access of a country?s inhabitants
to information and communication technology. It ranges from 0 (none at all)
to 1 (complete access).
** Assessment of the situation in each country (good, middling, difficult,
serious) is based on murders, imprisonment or harassment of
cyber-dissidents or journalists, censorship of news sites, existence of
independent news sites, existence of independent ISPs and deliberately high
connection charges.
===============end quote/cross/w/wo/comment============
pluto
.
- Prev by Date: Malaysian govt. backs Islamic university on headscarf for non-Muslim women
- Next by Date: Re: I'm 49 handsome wealthy and I want to marry an asian woman who is more than 30
- Previous by thread: Malaysian govt. backs Islamic university on headscarf for non-Muslim women
- Next by thread: Sex in the jungle
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
