Censoring the Internet

The internet is full of criminal activities that range from fraud and scams to terrorism and child pornography. The Internet Crime Complaint center reported a total of 262,813 complaints for the year 2013 alone (Internet Crime Center, 2014). The number of internet crimes has been rising steadily hence increasing the necessity for a control point for internet activities. Internet censorship should be incorporated into every government system to discourage internet crimes and other crimes that may be approved over the internet. This paper champions the thesis that internet censorship should be conducted for public and state protection.

There are three primary reasons why censorship should be encouraged. The most dubious of these classifications is for political reasons. This is usually in nations that don’t have free and reasonable democracy and where rulers are attempting to hold on to power. The control is typically to constrain access to information that would call for a rebellion within a nation. In a few cases, this can likewise incorporate oversight of websites that are religious in nature. Generally this sort of oversight is about verifying that information that could be a danger to the authorities does not get seen by the individuals.

The second reason why the web may be censored is to ensure social standards. In a few cases this kind of control gets extensive backing like laws against hate speech and child pornography. However this kind of oversight can also be stretched out to issues where there is far less agreement. For example, some countries censor sites that are known to advertise or encourage homosexuality. Religious views may also be censored in cases where they are not aligned with the predominant religion. Oversight to ensure societal standards is regularly accepted even in countries that encourage free speech (Hamade 34).

The third reason that the web may be controlled is for security reasons. This is by and large done to block websites that have a place with terrorist groups and different radicals. It can additionally be stretched out to verifying that classified information is not made accessible to general society. To a certain degree all nations participate in this kind of control albeit to different degrees. It may be further exploited to improve on internet security and reduce cyber crimes. Bodies such as the Internet Crime Complaint Center are often used to protect the population from illegal online activities. With experience, the pattern of criminal activities is determined and such websites blocked from access by the public. Once such a website has been blocked, its statistics can be sued to nab future criminal activities before they develop (Internet Crime Center, 2014).

It ought to be understood that most manifestations of censorship can fall into more than one classification. This could be an issue since it gives the powers a reason to expand their oversight. Individuals may well help a few manifestations of oversight yet the risk is that it will be so natural it is not possible grow it past the first expectation. For instance in the United States, rights that were originally given to officials to control sites that are generally associated to terrorism have often been used to shut down gambling websites. In the event that this can happen in a nation that takes extraordinary pride in the freedom that it gives to its subjects then it can surely happen practically anyplace (Liang, and Lu 23).

There is a need for radical actions to be made to avert children being exposed to disturbing material on the internet. The larger part of today’s guardians know less about technology than their children do, and have little control over the web content their youngsters can get access to. It’s not simply pornography that is an issue; the internet is brimming with improper material, including material on self-harm, anorexia, suicide and bomb making websites.

Parents’ right to “hold power” over their kids is undermined by the fast and exponential growth of the web empowered innovation, and few parents feel certain that they are sufficiently ensuring their kids as they browse through the internet. Their only hope is the presence of a censorship system that governs what content is available online and how accessible detrimental content is for their children. Without such regulations, the future of future societies is uncertain. There ought to be a scope of decisions on what content to block, from pornography and suicide to weapon making sites. Grown-ups browse a mixed bag of providers and pay for the web services they utilize, so ought to have the capacity to change it without restraint. ISPs could also introduce different passwords for different members of the family as well.

One of the innovative ways this has been done is by Talktalk, who recommend a “Homesafe” administration to folks which permits diverse filter levels for a various forms of content, and is totally alterable and convenient for the end client. The other way that things could be changed is with a move far from the standard .co.uk and .com Top Level Domains (TLD) for more disturbing content, to particular totally inappropriate areas of the web. As of now there is a .xxx TLD accessible for explicit sites, which would imply that a guardian would basically must be given the choice to block all sites which incorporate this end. An alternate option would be a “.18” TLD, pertinent to any age-sensitive media (Hamade 34).

There is a view that the web needs a filter for obscene and adult sites. Outside of the internet, we have bodies that persistently work to guarantee the youth are not exposed to the wrong things. This could be executed somehow on the web, whereby a site would need to have its content “appraised” before being available on the web. While it seems like a huge jump, most new sites experience testing when they are hosted to verify that a site is intact and that records and content are free of viruses. This would basically be adding an extra check to the list, and in all actuality it is a load officially carried comfortably by film producers.

Content should also be checked for security reasons. If a government can use its systems to protect the peace of its citizens by merely accessing certain content especially based on keywords, it should go ahead and employ them. This will of course mean probing into the affairs of others to ensure that content that holds information that may interrupt security within its borders is exploited. This way, the government will be maximizing its technological capacity to protect itself from harm (Liang, and Lu 23).

The issue of censorship is surrounded by controversy. Indeed, only about 25% of internet users support it censorship. The main controversy is however dependent on the content type. The bigger population holds that certain information should be censored to protect the community from ruining its moral standing and protect it from harm. The fear however is usually on the depth of censorship and the possibility of abusing the authority granted to certain officials. This authority risks being misused by wayward individuals for their own benefits and this can only be avoided by putting up clear guidelines on the level of access one is allowed to have to other people’s rights and at the same time protecting the public.

Many people advocate for a democratized network. A democratized network is one that is decentralized, universally accessible, censor-proof, surveillance-proof, secure and scalable. It should also be permanent, fast independent and evolvable (Sinnreich, Graham and Trammell 338-339). Such steps would take a lot of resources to implement, manage and control. It would however be very important for nations to implement means to balance between human rights, moral standards and security.

The internet should be censored to combat various issues. It would be advisable for countries to put up standards that censor websites on grounds that allow for human rights up to the point where web content does not bring harm to the society and to the state that supports it. Censorship should be a societal rather than an individual affair. Countries that do not promote democracy should first employ democracy and then seek to censor activities that are detrimental to the society.

In conclusion, content should always be censored to ensure that content is not given to the wrong audiences and to prevent threatening information from being shared on any websites. Regulations regarding the people who get access to sensitive media should also be well monitored to ensure private information is not abused. The internet should however not be censored to remove content that is legally acceptable for the sake of ensuring that important information about poor government performance does not reach its audience.

Works Cited

Hamade, Samir N. “Internet Filtering and Censorship.” (2008): Print.

Liang, Bin, and Hong Lu. “Internet Development, Censorship, and Cyber Crimes in China.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice (2010): n. pag. Print.

Sinnreich Aram, Nathan Graham, and Aaron Trammell. ‘Weaving A New ‘Net: A Mesh-Based Solution For Democratizing Networked Communications’. The Information Society 27.5 (2011): 336-345. Web. 16 Jul. 2014.

Internet Crime Center, (2014), 2013 Internet Crime Report. Retrieved from: http://www.ic3.gov/media/annualreport/2013_IC3Report.pdf