Group items tagged

Internet censorhip and interenet surveilance in South Korea have been very harsh in recent years; therefore, the freedom of speech and the public's right to know has been restricted. Internet surveilance has been less tolerant on not only violent and explicit content but also on the political issue-related online discussion. After the South Korean government has arrested the netizens for posting personal and critical views on the goverment, internet users in South korea are now silenced. South Korea is allegedly a "democratic country."

The increasing use of 'free' webmail services, and indeed full office suites, from online providers by business and governments means an increasing amount of funding for encryption and ad free internets. This potentially leads to a new digital divide. The corporate or private internet of the wealthy, and the hyper surveilled commercial internet of the many.

Police crowdsource to find perpetrators of the Oakleigh riot, asking the public to send in mobile phone footage, and also sourcing from internet, cctv, and news crews. Changing nature of public surveillance and law enforcement.

Governments say they need Internet censorship, surveillance of the Internet, internet filtering system and so on to protect their citizens. But they should know that they are taking the freedom of choice away from the individual and also taking the responsibility away from the individual.

The article looks at the growing global trend for net regulation. Our interest is where Australia, as a result of our drafted internet filtering system, fits in this global picture of regulation. Reporters Without Borders has drawn up lists which groups nations in terms of their level of regulation. Appropriately as a democracy Australia is not listed under "Enemies of the Internet" which names China, North Korea, Egypt and Cuba. Yet disconcertingly we are given the label of "Under Surveillance" which lists us alongside Turkey, Russia, South Korea and the UAE.

A media rights watchdog has listed Australia in a report on countries that pose a threat of internet censorship.

Why does everyone get so worked up with the word "censorship"? In some cases, like with child porn, if a medium is used to violate a human right or indeed foments a crime, then there should be some sort of control. Why look at it from a b&w perspective when there are so many grey areas?

Is this really where Australia's future in censorships is heading?

South Korea, the world's most wired country, has been listed as one of the few democracies where the Internet is "under surveillance" by the government. People have talked about protecting the rights of Netizens to criticize the government and the right to know. But ,so far, the goverment's effort to silence individuals who aired criticisms of government on the Internet seems more buzz than that.

Reporters without boarders has set up the new enemes of the Internet 2010. Australia and South Korea where draconian laws are creating too many specific restrictions on Web users by challenging their anonymity and promoting selfcensorship. they are democratic countries under surveillance and their upcoming implementation of a highly developed Internet filtering system is very controversial.

Nobel prizewinner Shirin Ebadi accused German engineering giant Siemens and Finnish telecoms firm Nokia of supplying Iran with technology to help it suppress democratic dissent. The European Parliament also supports that arguement and strongly criticised international companies, in particular Nokia Siemens for giving Iranian authorities the tools needed for censorship and surveillance. Both companies argue that they could not be blamed for the misuse but that their technologies "play a significant role in the development of societies and the advancement of democracy"

US court rules that tracking once in public is public information but tracking over time in public is accumulating information usually unavailable to 'the public' therefore requiring a search warrant.