“Internet is pulling ahead of censors”

It is not the first time that the Internet was gagged, and certainly not the
last. Far too many governments, regimes, authorities, and others have at one
time or the other soiled their hands while attempting to restrict the free-flow
of information in the cyberspace.

It could be under the guise of religious tolerance, pornography, patriotism,
or many such pretexts. Thus, if China blocked websites that talked about Taiwan
or Tibet, or Pakistan blocked blogs displaying the controversial Danish
cartoons, not many eyebrows were raised.

But when, the Indian government starting giving diktats to ISPs on which
websites and blogs should be blocked, it came as a rude shock. After all,
censorship and democracy hardly go together, and the world's largest democracy
doing something like this was simply not acceptable. There was a huge uproar.
And the battle against the ban was carried on multiple fronts.

Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF) founded in 1990 is a group that fights against
censorship defending free speech, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights. With
the aid of lawyers, policy analysts, activists, and technologists, EFF has
achieved considerable success and clout in its battle for freedom.

Shashwat Chaturvedi from CyberMedia News interacted with the
co-founder of EFF and board member, John Gilmore on the various issues
that surround the debate of Internet and censorship. Gilmore describes himself
as an entrepreneur and civil libertarian. He is a technology veteran and quite
an authority on issues related to, well, technology and liberty as well.
Excerpts:



Is it really possible to ban or block any content on the Internet?

If there are dedicated people who wish to publish the information, it is
quite hard to ban
or block information. This is true of any kind of information (as was seen
in the erstwhile USSR where typewriters and copying machines were banned, yet
hand-copied smuggled information was widely distributed). It is even harder on
the Internet, because computers are very good at making copies, and because
there are so many jurisdictions from which those copies can be legally
published.

Often, the attempt to ban particular information produces publicity that
causes tens of thousands of people to seek out and/or republish the very
information that was being censored.



Do you think, as a trend, Internet censorship is increasing over the past few
years?

People who wish to control what other people are allowed to read or think
have not given up those wishes. I think that Internet censorship is increasing,
but I think it is increasing less than the growth of the Internet. Thus, the
Internet is pulling ahead of the censors despite their efforts.



What according to you are the ethical concerns involved? For instance, is it
not "appropriate" to ban child pornography or content that might stoke
religious fervour?

I do not think it is appropriate to ban any information from adults. The cure
for bad information is more information. Teach people why they should not be
religious fanatics; teach them why they should not molest children. Let us hear
the stories and see the pictures of those people who are the victims of these
excesses -- as well as the stories and pictures of the fanatics and molesters.

A computer or a network cannot make a moral choice; that choice is for
humans, and is best done by educated and informed humans. Hiding these ugly
sides of humanity will not help to cure them. As a US Supreme Court justice
(judge) said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."



Proponents for censorship
often debate that if given a free reign, the Internet might be totally taken
over by subversive and pervert elements and some form of control is necessary,
what are your views?

It is obvious that the vast majority of information on the Internet is
innocent or informative. By definition, "subversive" information is a
minority (if it was the majority belief, it would be the dominant way of
thinking). Perversion is defined only in a context in which some other, much
more popular, action or belief is "normal." A little thought will
evaporate this myth about an explosion of perversion.

The reason that some kinds of information, such as sexual information, or
factual information about illegal drugs, are more prevalent on the Internet than
in other media, is because that information is banned from appearing in those
other media, such as broadcast television, or censored newspapers. One of the
interesting rules of new media is that every new medium starts with a burst of
material that had no available outlet in the old media. For example,
pre-recorded video cassettes' initial market in the US was for pornography,
because porn could not be seen on broadcast TV or in most movie theatres. Only
after that market was established, did the major movie vendors start selling
ordinary movies on video cassettes. Similarly, "pirated" music became
prevalent on the Internet long before major companies were willing to release
music legally on the Internet.



While we all know that China and Saudi Arabia are in the forefront when it
comes to banning Internet websites. Do you see progressive and democratic
countries indulging in such practices?

Yes, the particular form of government does not seem to determine whether a
country will attempt to control the minds of its citizens; they all do, to one
extent or another. And many so-called democratic countries, my own especially,
have seized on 9/11 as an excuse for authoritarian excesses.



Are not big Internet companies willing to partner with anti-democratic
governments for the sake of commercial gains, for instance, Yahoo had helped in
the prosecution of a blogger
in China, and Google also agreed to filter its content. In such an atmosphere,
can democracy really flourish on the Internet?

Even Google's founder, Sergey Brin, now thinks that Google may have made a
mistake in agreeing to censor their results in China. Sometimes the answer is
that some people and some countries will have to make mistakes in order for all
of us to learn from those mistakes. I am heartened that people from all over
India and all over the world have objected to the current round of Indian
government censorship.



What do you think will be the scenario in the future? Will Internet have to
submit to the diktats of the authorities like any other medium like television
and print?

Every person is responsible to follow the laws of their own country; yet we
can all work to change those laws. And when those laws are reprehensible, then
passive or active opposition may be required. Mahatma Gandhi provided many
useful lessons in how a populace can nonviolently free itself from oppressive
rules and rulers. And many technologists have developed ways for citizens to
evade information controls that they think are inappropriate.



How does EFF help in the fight against censorship?

EFF publicizes attempts at censorship, to help rally opposition to those
attempts. It has litigated against several such national laws in the United
States, succeeding each time in overturning the attempted censorship. It has
also litigated against various attempts to hold people responsible for
publishing information that others do not want to be published (such as DVD copy
control information; information about unreleased Apple products; and more than
a dozen cases in which employers try to identify an anonymous poster who
criticizes the company so that they can fire that person if they are an
employee). In general we have been successful in the courts on these topics.

We could not succeed in this work without the broad support of good people.
Because the Internet community -- and the community of mankind in general -- is
supportive of freedom of information and freedom of communication, we are not a
lone voice when we oppose censorship. Instead, we are the thin point of a wedge
-- a focus of a much broader social movement.



Are there plans to open an Indian chapter in the near future?

We do not have a plan to open an Indian chapter soon, unfortunately. However,
in the last few years, we have become much more active internationally, with
employees working in England, Canada, and Latin America. As we learn more about
working throughout the world, I am sure that you will see us in India sometime
or other. We hope that India does not need us any sooner than we can find the
funding to arrive there!

© CyberMedia News