Silenced - Asia Profile

21/09/2003

Internet censorship in Asia

For a growing number of people in the Asian region, the Internet has become an important tool for communication and sharing of information and knowledge— Growth of access, particularly in urban centres has been strong and steady, but in many areas the technology to access the Internet is not yet available. At the same time, governments throughout the region are moving to impose various kinds of restrictions on both access and content, endangering the right to privacy and curtailing freedom of information and expression.

Like the other regions, Asia has over the past decade experienced a revolution in information and communications technology. The phenomenal growth of the Internet in most countries in Asia has greatly facilitated information exchange and communication among people. Widespread Internet use in Asia is partially a result of the region’s economic growth levels and consequent improvements in the quality of life of the population. With more people expected to go online due to higher incomes, better communication could lead to further economic growth and an end to poverty that still afflicts many parts of Asia.

Governments across Asia recognise the potential of the Internet for economic, political and social progress, and most of them encourage the development of the infrastructure that would make this possible. The proliferation of Internet service providers and the consistent growth in the number of Internet subscribers in many Asian countries indicate that the ICT revolution has taken hold substantially in Asia.

China’s experience is worth noting. Since the mid-90s, Internet use has vastly expanded to an estimated 45 million people. While this number is small in comparison with the country’s population of 1.3 billion, the Chinese have increasingly connected to the Internet as part of government efforts to propel China’s economic growth.

India has also seen a rapid increase in Internet use recently. With 7 million Internet users out of a total population of 1.2 billion, the Indian government is crafting new regulations to further increase Internet access levels throughout the country.

South Korea, like China and India, recognises the pivotal role of the Internet in economic development. With more than 24 million Internet users, South Korea also has one of the world’s largest concentrations of high-speed Internet connections.

The Philippines has 2 million Internet users, but they are mostly concentrated in the urban areas. Although households with personal computers account for less than three percent of the population, the country has a high density of mobile phone ownership, with an estimated 12 million subscribers sending out a huge volume of text messages daily.

Two of the most economically advanced countries in Asia-Pacific are also heavily wired to the Internet: Australia has between 5 and 6 million users and New Zealand, 1.5 million.

In contrast, Asian societies that have remained closed to the outside world have few Internet users. North Korea has no Internet service providers and only a handful of citizens are allowed to go online.

The picture that emerges from this brief survey is that, like elsewhere in the world, the Internet has grown significantly in Asia. Yet, while the technology has the potential to bring Asian countries closer together, the reality is that disparity in access has also created a digital divide in the region. People living in the more affluent countries are in a better position to benefit from access to information on the Internet than those still trying to get a foot onto the economic ladder. Within societies, the more affluent sections living in the urban areas are more likely to access the Internet than those in the rural areas, where the priority is to feed the hungry rather than get a dial tone. While economically advanced countries like China and South Korea are barreling down the information superhighway at top speed, less developed ones like Burma and North Korea have scarcely recognized the advantages.

Pulling the plug on free expression

Although most governments in Asia recognise the benefits of information and communications technology and do in fact acknowledge the important role of the Internet in the economic, political, social and cultural spheres, a number have over the past decade imposed tight restrictions on its use.

In the aftermath of 9/11, some governments in the region have invoked counter-terrorism initiatives to crack down on Internet content.

Indian authorities are implementing stricter surveillance and monitoring controls over Internet activities, especially after 9/11 and the December 13 attack on the Indian Parliament. The Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance authorises the government to monitor without legal restriction all kinds of electronic communications, including personal e-mail.

The Philippine Congress is presently considering an anti-terrorism bill that proposes sanction arrest and detention without court orders, the sequestering of bank deposits and assets of suspected terrorists and their supporters, and which authorises the government to conduct wiretaps on those even remotely suspected of involvement in terrorist activity. Human rights groups fear that the proposed law, that permits surveillance of the Internet and e-mail, is intended to intimidate critics of the government and could violate the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free expression.

The New Zealand government now has the legal authority to inspect computers and monitor private e-mail as part of a campaign against terrorism and crime. The Crimes Amendment Bill, introduced in November 2000, seeks to prohibit hacking and includes provisions on protecting online privacy. It also requires users to hand over encryption keys and allows the police and intelligence services to hack computers. It has been strongly criticised, however, by many quarters as lacking adequate safeguards against abuses.

Other Asian states cite national security as the primary reason for restricting Internet content. Targeted by some states are those who organise protest actions on behalf of groups or movements whose goals are deemed detrimental to state policies, the national interest, or even “public safety”.

The Chinese government has created perhaps the world’s most blatant and elaborate system for Internet monitoring and censorship. On the one hand, China’s official policy has been to widely promote access, so that people can actively take part in economic construction. On the other hand, the government has also begun to limit Internet usage by way of a combination of new technology and legal rules, as well as traditional techniques of surveillance, intimidation and arrest of critics. Despite these restrictions, people have used the Internet to expose cases of official corruption, negligence and wrongdoing, and to organise protest actions against state repression.

The South Korean government has also become active in censoring Internet content that it considers “dangerous” and “harmful” to national security. In 2002, the government closed down a website for two months that argued against compulsory military service for all Korean males. Later that year, police arrested a member of a political party for uploading materials related to North Korea on the party’s website, claiming that doing so violated national security.

In Kazahkstan, the media and the Internet are tightly controlled by the President and his family. Existing laws allow the government to crack down on websites critical of its authority, and prohibits the release of information detrimental to the state. Web sites are required to be registered with the government.

Some countries have enacted legislation that would deter and punish those responsible for cybercrime, cyberfraud and the dissemination of computer viruses. These laws could have a chilling effect on legitimate advocacy on the Internet.

The Philippines has enacted laws to cover different types of cybercrime, including computer hacking, virus distribution, computer fraud, and computer forgery. In India, cybercafés and the homes of Internet users can be searched at any time without a warrant if cyber crime is suspected. The Information Technology Act of 2000 contains provisions that will allow authorities to crack down on Internet content deemed objectionable.

In Australia, recent amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act spell out the types of material that can be banned from websites and newsgroup servers, including pornography involving children, bestiality, excessive violence, real sex acts and information about crime, violence and drug use. But online content censorship laws such as this have met with opposition from civil liberties groups which argue that this could have a significant effect on the legitimate use of the Internet and may affect the fair reporting of news and current affairs. The Cybercrime Act, approved in October 2001, gives magistrates the power to order Internet users to disclose their decryption keys.

South Korea has censored Internet sites it considers harmful - especially to young people. These include sites dealing with pornography, violence, computer hacking and the spread of viruses, cybercrime, and euthanasia. Later, the list was expanded to include gay and lesbian content.

A handful of countries have moved to impose strict limitations on access to the Internet because they fear that contact with the outside world by their citizens, particularly political dissidents, would erode their hold on power.

The official website of the North Korean government, not unexpectedly, toes the government propaganda line and ignores completely the dire realities of life under the repressive regime of Kim Jong-il. But groups such as the Citizens’ Alliance for North Korean Human Rights, based in South Korea, are using the Internet to assist those who manage to escape from the country and to bring to light what is happening behind the Iron Curtain.

Since the mid-90s, the military regime in Burma has imposed very strict rules on Internet access. Anybody who uses the Internet to “undermine the state, law and order, national unity, national culture or the economy” faces a 15-year prison term. Anyone who creates a link to an unauthorised website also faces a prison sentence. Since January 2000, online political material has been banned and websites can only be set up with official permission.

Conclusion

Asia is characterised by a cultural diversity that allows societies to adopt practices unique to their value systems and historical experience. The right to privacy may be assiduously defended in the West, but it may well be an alien concept in parts of Asia where traditional kinship ties remain strong. Thus, governments justify moves to restrict Internet content by claiming that these are “harmful” or “dangerous” to society when what is considered “harmful” or “dangerous” in one country may be perfectly acceptable in another.

An important issue to consider is the extent to which states can regulate or limit Internet access or content without infringing on fundamental freedoms and basic rights guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

China, for instance, insists that it has the right to clamp down on websites that are clearly anti-government. Other countries in the region are also increasingly imposing restrictions on Internet content, saying that they are merely protecting vulnerable populations, such as women and children.

But the danger here is that when states start to censor content considered unacceptable or harmful, they tend to open the floodgates to regulation or restriction of increasing amounts of Internet content. What is particularly disturbing is that, in the war against terrorism, authorities in Asia are likely to clamp down on Internet users who have legitimate grievances, or who are exercising fundamental freedoms. In Burma, for instance, mere possession of a personal computer is frowned upon by the military regime. Elsewhere, such as in China, the government is moving to curtail political dissent and legitimate criticism of official policies.

The Internet is a powerful communication tool that can be used to promote equitable and just development, and to protect human rights everywhere. It should be an instrument for human advancement and the promotion of the common good of all humanity, not for stamping out the voices of those opposed to authority. At the very least, state policies and regulations with regard to Internet content and access must be the product of democratic dialogue and consultation with the affected sectors.