the i-witnesses

It’s Yemen’s turn for censorship

It transpires that Yemen has blocked the newspaper websites of Al-Shoura (still unavailable for readers inside the country) and Al-Eshteraki (back online now), as well as SMS news services.

There is some confusion over the precise situation: according to the Yemen Observer, the websites are blocked for readers inside Yemen but not for those outside (and that doesn’t say much – does it?). Last week saw protests by journalists and activists in 'Freedom Square'.

Apparently a press release was issued by the Ministry of Information (its website is helpfully 'under construction') which stated that mobile providers need to apply for a special license to provide news via SMS services. Journalists and opposition parties claim these companies have been denied such a license.

This issue is no longer about media freedom but is a fundamental question of freedom of expression. Those countries with token media freedom are threatened by so-called 'last mile' dissemination: the fact that new technologies are enabling information to be shared more widely than ever before.

Indeed, many governments (including those of liberal and democratic countries) are seemingly uncomfortable when citizens actually begin to talk to each other!

Clashes over censorship

Yesterday’s session on openness resulted in some energetic discussions. Corporate representatives were inevitably quizzed on their ethical principles, particularly their tendency to adjust business plans to accommodate authoritative governments – perhaps most notably the self-censored version of Google for China.

Amnesty International – which is running a campaign opposing efforts to control and censor the internet – also accused the Cisco representative of colluding with the Chinese government by selling surveillence software technologies to its police force.

In their defence, the corporations argued that they had to respect local laws and regulations when they conduct business, and blamed the governments for being closed. And the internet evangelist Vint Cerf – who is now working for Google Inc – argued that the company had at least partially won its battle with China.

Although the moderator, Nik Gowing, tried to take things in hand, much of the session was devoted to China-bashing. Although these criticisms are valid, I fear that this ‘naming and shaming’ approach is potentially detrimental to the mutli-stakeholder process. Rather, shouldn’t we be trying to develop a consensus on how to deal with internet censorship?

[Image: Panos Pictures]