Internet filtering is drawing a lot of controversy and attention right now in the international press as well as the blogosphere.
- In the United States, Suren Ramasubbu writes on the Huffington Post that “Internet Filtering Software Makers Held to Higher Standard on Sharing User Data.” Ramasubbu expands on the EchoMetrix story to take on the issue of data gathering by filtering companies more generally, including Symantec’s publication of anonymous web surfing data last month. The issue of web filtering data is complicated, because “telemetry” data from users on blocked website is an extremely powerful tool for improving filters, but as Ramasubbu points out, extra care is required to ensure privacy.
- In the United Kingdom, Zack Whittaker on ZDNET asks, “Could Internet filtering cause more harm than good?:”
Because of Pandora’s Box theory – once something happens, it can never be undone and is no doubt deemed to repeat itself in the future. Where does it stop? Should the Internet be entirely monitored and blocked to ensure the safety of its users? When is Internet filtering an abuse of governmental power, and how should it be regulated?
- In Thailand, the Wall Street Journal writes about, “Web Censoring Widens Across Southeast Asia:”
Attempts to censor the Internet are spreading to Southeast Asia as governments turn to coercion and intimidation to rein in online criticism. Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam lack the kind of technology and financial resources that China and some other large countries use to police the Internet. The Southeast Asian nations are using other methods — also seen in China — to tamp down criticism, including arresting some bloggers and individuals posting contentious views online.
- In Canada, legislation has been proposed that would create a CIPA-type law for Canada requiring filters in schools and libraries.
Filed under: Filtering, Filtering Companies, Policy
