Rising Trend of Government Media Censorship Programs into the Internet - Essay Example

Rising trend of government media censorship programs on the Internet Introduction: Internet has become a very important part in the lives of the 21st century people. This century is an epoch of virtual networks. It has made our world a much easier place to live in and acts as one of the best companions at times of boredom. Therefore on one hand it makes our daily work easier and cheaper and on the other, it can serve as a source of entertainment. By enabling us in getting news, music, contacting long distance friends, booking tickets for traveling, ordering food, sending gifts and many more activities, with just few clicks, Internet has entered and penetrated deep into our lives. Internet has a role to play in whatever activity we are interested in, be it banking, shopping, reading, entertainment or research. It is no more just a luxury but has become an obligation in today’s world. With the passage of time the face of Internet has undergone a sea change; it has developed into a double-edged sword and has been under the scanner for censorship and control. With the increase in popularity of the Internet, the cases related to Internet crimes have also increased substantially. Statistically speaking, “there are about 20,000 pornographic photographs posted on the Internet each day.” (Bells, 2010). Internet has many ill effects on its users. Owing to its free accessibility, it has been misused and mishandled. Internet has become easy medium to commit crimes and express emotions, which are embarrassing and risky to carry out in the real world. The anonymity that the virtual world offers has added fuel to such activities. There had been innumerable instances of people being influenced by Internet to commit heinous crimes. A student playing long hours of online shooting games might set out on a shooting spree in the university in his real life. This is only one of the thousands of possibilities that might take place on a regular basis all around the world. As observed by a freelance content writer, “The Internet has become counter productive not for what it offers but because of what it causes” (Otter, July 2006). As the Internet offers the facility of easy and hassle free banking and financial transaction facilities it also provides an added risk of hacking and controlling of personal information for financial gains by some unscrupulous individuals. Internet has become an easy medium for individuals to commit crimes like scams, fooling people by alluring them for job, lottery prizes and even lead to committing sexual assaults. (Hinders, 2003). The social networking sites have made life of an individual very predictable to any spying person. The onset of these crimes has called for a supervision and control by the authorities. The best weapon against these cyber space criminals is “international regulation of cyber space”. The censorship aims at controlling and modulating the content available on the Internet, the issues would bring in legal implications, the censorship would differ from one nation to another and controlled by the government of the respective nations. (Guerra, 2009) As derived from different sources, “Level of fraud has increased significantly in the last 12 months.” (Guerra, 2009). The global meltdown has witnessed a considerable increase in the cyber crime activities, people turned to illicit and fraudulent measures to make easy money. Officials tracking the cyber crimes have also confirmed the escalation of scams and online crimes in the past year. "Quite a few messages we see are from job agencies and spiritual publications that referenced the current economic climate quite heavily. The Spam related to employment typically targets job seekers who have recently lost their jobs; the spiritual publications attempt to take advantage of peoples despair at facing financial trauma to peddle their wares," says Andrew Browne, Lavasoft malware analyst, thus supporting the evidence of increase in the cyber crimes in the global downturn times. (Early, March, 2009). The people who are unemployed or who have been recently laid off are very susceptible to such frauds and can be easily trapped. “Brazil and India were becoming hot spots of cyber crime,” said Mr Osborn. (Sekhar, 2010) With the arrival of recession the number of such people has increased and so has the crimes involving them. A country whose economy is doing poorly will face more cyber crime instances, the clear reasons being unavailability of employment to trained youth, dissatisfied and angered people, lack of resources among the citizens to meet their needs. The business houses, governments and individual citizens are not in a position to invest largely on security, even though the threats are more. (Guerra, 2009) Despite the age of information and globalization there has been a need for a conservative approach through an increasing trend of imposing censorship on the Internet by the government. Internet censorship programs: Internet is a medium that supports all kinds of contents. The censorship aims upon controlling the content and usage of the freedom of the Internet users. The idea of censorship has been an issue of debate and discussion among different groups and countries. Few people support it while some are of the view that censorship is like imposing ban on one’s expression. The motivation behind censorship ranges from desire to protect children from exposure to a virtual world, unsuitable and harmful for them, keep a track of the security of personal and national information and to protect it from undesirable access. The result is control over the content published and blocked access to pages, which are considered to be undesirable. (Strickland, n.d). Sometimes censoring is also done to protect the intellectual property rights. Filtering of information and blocking of website is often translated as violation of “freedom of speech and free access to information” (Coleman, October 2009). Censorship can be of many forms, from personal to a national level. Parents can add filters to their child’s computer to prevent the child from viewing or accessing unwanted content. Companies may block certain websites to prevent their employees from wasting their productive time surfing the Internet. Censoring can be done at the national level by blocking websites at public schools and colleges. Few countries like Korea and China have filters on contents of websites, which have ideas that contradicts the beliefs of the government in any way. The anti-censorship groups claim that these websites have information on “human rights and religious movements”. (Coleman, October 2009). Different people and organizations practice censorship in diverse ways, which correspond to their motive behind the censorship. Censorship can be practiced, using firewalls, in the form of hardware or software, blacklisting or blocking sites. Organizations practice censorship through web filtering software. Censorship at the national level is practiced through regulations imposed on the ISP’s and restricting the search engines like Google and Yahoo by instructing them to practice self-censorship through not showing results, which are undesirable to the government. (Strickland , n.d). Media role, responsibility and censorship: In the modern world the media plays a vital role in formation of opinions. The scope of media is so large that it can even influence the course of public discussions on the international economy, politics and society. Kumar (Feb 2008) observes, “When the media’s relation to power is at the forefront of political discussion and news reporting can lead to decisions on whether or not to go for war.” Media is the voice of democracy and is free to criticize any established institution. They act as the supporters in the process of self-examination, which is very important for self-realization. Along with power, the media has a lot of responsibilities. It should not enslave itself by becoming dependent upon the sponsorships of the states, organizations and autocrats. Media has a tremendous importance and is used for political marketing in the times of conflicts, history has witnessed that leaders like Hitler have used the media to broadcast doctrines of “one nation, one leader and one race.” (Kumar, Feb 2008). The role of media in the society is huge and so is the concern for it about responsible action. Whether to impose censorship on the media is another question that is been discussed all over. Censorship of the media however does not merely imply curbing of freedom; rather it’s a way of drawing a line between ‘freedom and unrestrained deviltry.’ (Manohar N.d). The censorship acts as a reminder for the people in the media who have crossed the boundary of civilization and ethics, in the name of freedom and right to expression - “Media censorship is necessary to see to it that media is not being used as a tool to attack someone’s character or to discriminate and humiliate people.” (Manohar N.d). Media censorship is necessary in today’s world, as it seems that the print and the visual media channels have forgotten the ethics and humanity in their rat race of TRP’s. Censorship should be about keeping the media transparent enough to reflect the real picture of the society in a manner that it is benevolent. Rowley (Nov 2009) remarks in this context, “We live today in a far more conservative world than the world Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir were striving for. These are censorious times”. With the advent of censorship and increasing trends of it, the Internet has also fallen under the scope of censorship and control. France from the years of 1950 follows strong censorship policies. In the recent past the French government has decided to follow an authoritarian step to repress the Internet. It has ignored all the objections to its plans of filtering sites, which it thinks has content that is controversial for the French society. It is reported that the French government in the discussion in its parliament “opposed all the amendments seeking to minimize the risks attached to filtering Internet sites.” (Neal Feb 2010). Following the suite the Australian government has also ‘proposed mandatory Internet filtering scheme’ that would block access of all Australians to certain sites. This move of the government aims at protecting the children from being vulnerable and accessing objectionable websites. The government has even planned to impose heavy fines on the ISP’s if they fail to comply with the filter schemes. This move of the government has been severely criticized by the United States and other sources including Google, on the essence of censorship. Other issue of concern is that, this censorship would be affecting all Australians and could result in blocking sites that are innocent. (Reilly, Apr 2010) Censorship has both positive and negative sides. Censorship and regulation is important to protect the cyber world from threats of hacking and other cyber crimes. Cyber crime poses a great threat to the global economy. “The FBI tallied $264 million in losses from Internet crime reported by individuals in the United States in 2008”. (Reuters, Feb 2010). The cyber space criminals have the advantage of using the proxy servers to commit crimes and stay anonymous without the threat of being caught. If regulations are not imposed many sectors (other than banking and IT) like manufacturing, oil refineries and utilities would also fall prey to cyber crimes. These sectors are now dependent on the Internet, using control systems for productivity and convenience. Supporters of the censorship want the governments to prioritize the plans for censorship so that it becomes easier for the regulators to track and punish criminals of the cyber space. (Reuters, 2010). The censorship also ensures that the young and impressionable minds are free from the threats of being exposed to a world, which is not only alien but also harmful for them. In today’s world where Internet is an inseparable part of the life of students, it is very important to protect them from influences that are undesirable. Many websites have contents, which may instigate fights between different groups. These online trivia’s are often dragged into the real worlds and situations turn messy many times. There have been many instances of the online war of words between two groups or institutions, turning into a real life rivalry. Censorship can stop these small instances from taking a big picture. The Internet censorship has been facing criticism also, from various sections of the society. It has been voiced that the practice of trying and controlling the contents of the Internet, (which itself is an entity that contains infinite information), is a task that cannot be done to the perfect satisfaction of all individuals. Blacklisting and restricting sites is done by scanning the keywords in the contents of the sites. The software blocks any site that has that keyword, this practice sometimes also block innocent websites, which contain the same keywords, in their contents. Web filters are severely criticized on the grounds that they use programs that which claim to ‘encrypt the blacklists to minimize the abuse’ but result in indiscriminant blocking of websites which are innocent and sometime even useful. (Strickland, n.d) The anti censorship groups have condemned the governmental control over the search engine companies, as the government might try and censor the websites which are against their ideas and philosophies. This is claimed to be an encroachment upon the rights to access of information and ideas. The search engines have to oblige with these restrictions as they are in a delicate position. Although their head quarters are situated in a different nation yet they have to obey the local laws of the country they are operating in. The telecom and cable companies providing the Internet access have a crucial role to play to determine what content the customers can access. They can modulate broadband access of the content providers by providing more broadband access to the providers who pay more. This would lead to a faster loading of the websites, which the Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) prefer. This preferential treatment also results in censorship, which does not serve any motive of ethical censorship. (Coleman, October 2009) Though most of the countries practice censorship at some level, different countries have different approaches towards it. Some countries like the United States are reasonably broadminded about the censorship. It has laws only against the kind of content accessed in a public school and library. Other countries like ‘China Egypt, Cuba, Belarus, Iran, North Korea, Syria’ have very strong censorship laws, as reported by the Reporters Without Borders, an association committed to encourage free expression and the protection of reporters. (Strickland, n.d). Countries like Myanmar have gone to an extent of keeping the public Internet access points like Cyber café’s under complete surveillance. China has a firewall that can even block sites containing ‘blogs’ or ideas, which are considered to be restrictive. Cuba government has decided to completely block the Internet access to the personal systems, to access the Internet one has to reach to a public access points. (Taranfx, 2009). When a government decides to restrict the Internet they are accused for filtering or limiting the ‘pool of information’ available to their people. Authoritarian governments practicing censorship are often blamed for restricting people from their rights to knowledge, awareness and truth. Several anti censorship groups have come up with their focus on monitoring the moves on Internet censorship. These groups raise awareness about censorship policies, particularly in the authoritarian areas and provide current news to the users on this subject. Websites like Peacefire.org are completely dedicated to protect free speech of ideas and opinions on the Internet. There are other groups who provide the users with the ideas of track the censorship. They educate people about the practices of web filtering and the software and methods used for it. In addition to this there are thousands of people who fight censorship through ‘blogs’ and ‘raising causes’ online. Basically they aim at helping in making information available freely to all. Internet is still at a very young age and it would take years before it reaches to its full potential, critics are of the view that Internet will not achieve its potential through the tools of technological breakthroughs, rather through changes in the policies of the corporatists and the governments. (Taranfx, 2009; Coleman, October 2009). Internet Censorship program without government Intervention: Internet has approached the status of mass medium. The popularity of the Internet has increased in the era marked by privatization and regulation. The techniques adopted by the government are marked as unfair and unjust. Various opinions have been voiced about the government censorship on the Internet. The governments have huge power to control the content of the sites accessed by the people of a nation. As opposed to companies or individuals governments have huge finances to achieve censorship, it even has the power to prosecute someone whose view it thinks can pose a serious danger to its administration. There have been claims that the government censorship is biased as it has the power and range to influence the minds of its citizens. The government can regulate the opinions of the readers by exercising censorship and that too without the knowledge of the individual. The readers would not even realize that the opinions posted are not out of free will but are similar to the paid advertisements of the government. It is a violation of rights of individuals, as it is not fair to let a democratic government decide what is offensive and what is not for its citizens. The views can vary from an individual to other. Many groups have come up with the sole purpose of protesting against the government-operated censorship. In this current context self-regulation in the private sector is the solution. There is no absolute definition for self-regulation. It is the market-based approach of the management or the administrator to control, block or regulate controversial content. It can be self initiated, managed by the ‘regulation’ industry or even initiated by the private players in the industry. Internet self-regulation should have the objective to strengthen confidence of the consumers and business entities in the Internet and to promote conditions for economic efficiency in the Internet services industry. Basically this would help, in promoting and maintaining the freedom of expression and would not act as a barrier in the open access to the information on the Internet. Moreover it would empower the users by letting them have a control on the extent of awareness and understanding of the key issue. It further helps in developing effective solutions for addressing the issue of unpleasant and divisive online content. Even the government can play a key role in promoting the self-regulating technique of censorship, without being blamed for the bias. As a major user and facilitator of Internet it can play a role in advocating the policy making, keeping the interests of its citizens and business entities in mind moreover it can also assist the private sectors financially to work on their self-regulated censorship of the Internet. Internet cannot be subject to traditional forms of regulation because of its international character. Regulation of the Internet at a national level is not only expensive but also can easily be surpassed by using proxy websites and through using unregulated ISP’s. The issue of filtering controversial Internet content can be carried out through various self-regulatory mechanisms like educating and spreading awareness about the issues and solutions. The media plays a key role in the self-regulating methods of awareness building. Media education with focus on critical thinking is very important. Media has to act responsibly to promote the self-regulation methods. Media plays an important role in connecting with the citizens and empowering them with the set of tools and knowledge they require for participating and surviving effectively in the society. It can effectively help in strengthening the efforts of self-regulation in the ISP industry and help the users to have a control on their choices in the cyber space. (Pierlot 2000) Hate speech, the Internet and media responsibility: The Hate websites are one big problem the censorship members are dealing with. "Hate is polluting the Internet," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL national director. (‘Warning over the Internet hate sites’, Nov 1997) The lack of regulation unfurls the existence and growth of such sites. They further instigate hate crimes and violence. Internet is a means of communication worldwide. Today because of Internet everyone can voice his or her thoughts, opinions, feelings and analyses. Hate speeches are not obvious at the first sight; they are combination of volatile speech crimes and voiced violence, and cannot be identified immediately. Internet as an asset of democracy should be nurtured and protected. These hate sites voice opinions of people who consider one’s human right to be absolute. As Matas (1997) observes, “The right to be free to say what you want and the right to be free from hate speech targeted against you are two fundamental human rights that must be kept in balance”. The censorship should also aim at the protecting individuals from the hate speech on the Internet. There has to be an act of balancing between the rights to freedom of expression and right to be protected from the hate sites, which can be a part of the human rights. Priorities need to be balanced for protection of both these rights simultaneously, as both can be conflicting to each other in this context - “The battle to protect against incitement to hatred often turns into a battle between free speech advocates and human rights advocates.” (Matas, 1997). Countries have witnessed the increase in hate crimes with advent of Internet and more particularly due to the access of Internet without regulations. Hate sites can create a lot of conflict if not restricted. Sites containing hate speeches are social threats, and the only solution to this problem is censorship. The media has a huge social responsibility while dealing with hate sites and events instigated by hate sites. Sometimes even unknowingly the media adds glamour to such instances while reporting and broadcasting, thus aggravating the problem by attracting the mischievous elements of the society towards such activities and websites. Sometimes the reporting of such instances increases the popularity of these sites by increasing its followers. The media has to be very careful while dealing with such sensitive issues, as it is a huge medium and acts as a platform for propagation of opinions. Other solutions offered for preventing the popularization of hate websites are the processes of withdrawal of services. The service provider is an independent authority and free to decide whether to provide service to an individual or not, but this works only if the service provider is non discriminatory. The service provider can at any time deny access to the individual who uses the Internet to spread hatred. They can easily, without any legal implications withdraw their services from those who are using the Internet for abusing and promoting hatred. For this the system needs to be strictly monitored. The Internet Service Providers should have a code of conduct stating that they can deny access of their services to whomsoever they identify as hate promoters online. Parental control and blocking websites through filters are also effective methods, but these require constant supervision and regular updates as new websites are created everyday and these would not be blocked if the filters were not regularly updated. To sum up every individual using or providing the Internet has a social responsibility and must follow a method of self-regulation to keep him and others free and safe from the crimes committed in the cyber space. The social networking sites and office productivity: Censorship is practiced at the corporate level to deal with the productivity and concentration issues of the employees. Recent surveys conducted throughout the world reveal that 12.5 percent of the productivity of the professional is wasted due to the addiction to the social networking sites. The survey further suggested that on an average the employees of most corporate houses spend nearly an hour on these sites, during the official hours resulting in reduction of the effective working hours. It may be noted in this context, “The employees dont take breaks at appropriate times, spend more than a normal amount of time online, and get irritable if they are interrupted while surfing” (ASSOCHAM, Dec 2009). These are clear signs of Internet addiction. The use of the social media, in the form of these sites is a rising trend and is expected to stay here. As observed by Haines (Feb 2010) "Social media is redefining the way we work, so rather than trying to avoid it, businesses need to learn how to harness its power while managing its risks." These forms of media being available on the mobile phones make it very easy for the employees to access them even if the sites are blocked at the computers in their offices. Some even argue that using social media helps to benefit both the individual and the organization. The connective power enhances “productivity, innovation, collaboration, reputation and employee engagement within organizations”. (Haines Feb 2010). Thus limiting access or blocking these websites cannot be an answer to increase the productivity. It is necessary to identify the difference between the work use and personal use of the social media. In this context it may be noted, “Some New Zealand employers acknowledged the positive potential of social media: 39% believed it could boost brand building, and 16% saw it as a promising method to foster collaboration and communication.” (Haines Feb 2010). Surveys conducted even suggest that as many as two thirds of employers in New Zealand do not have a policy of blocking these social networking sites at work. Conclusion: There is no doubt that Internet is being misused, and requires a certain level of control and regulation. This is important to protect the vulnerable minds from abuse. With the advent and rise of social and financial crimes committed on the Internet all users are susceptible to exploitation. Reports have suggested that many individuals who use broadband services have shown their interest in censorship. Those with traditional values would welcome the idea of censorship, as it would not be possible for them to avoid material, which they think is objectionable, completely due to the advent of rapid technological advancements. In this context, one may note, “The fact is that a significant portion of the residents of Australia and France actually seem to support government-run Internet censorship.” (“Is Internet censorship inevitable”, n.d) The use of Internet is very high throughout the world. Censoring the entire Internet is still a challenge. Even when tried by few countries like China, objectionable material “still slips in”. There are strong arguments by the supporters of the censorship program that countries need to be very active in securing the net. The international nature of the Internet calls for censorship solutions to be offered internationally, through sharing of information and inter-nation coordination. The non-governmental firms working for censorship programs can assist the governments of different nations in the international tie-ups. A new tool set up by Google Inc, gives a detailed look of the censorship requests, which the company receives – “The Government Requests tool aims to give Google users more information about the requests for user data or content removal it receives from government agencies” (Lohman, April 2010). Google revise the data through a process of six monthly augmentations. These requests are basically for removal of materials and data from its services. As reported by sources, "In United States we had received 123 requests to remove material, citing reasons of profanity, violence and hate speech.” (AP News, Apr 2010). Experts suggest that starting off with unbiased censorship at domestic level would certainly help in protecting citizens from unwanted materials. This would surely help to reduce crime since "Internet is still a place where people are exploited every single day, and a little protection might be nice". (“Is Internet censorship inevitable”, n.d) References 1. Bells, L (2010), “Pros and cons of the Internet in today’s society”, Helium.Available at: http://www.helium.com/items/872089-pros-and-cons-of-the-Internet-in-todays-society (Accessed on: May 19, 2010) 2. Admin (April 15, 2009), “How to make use of Internet in daily life”, good evening world. Available at: http://www.goodeveningworld.com/how-to-make-use-of-Internet-in-daily-life/ (Accessed on: May 19, 2010) 3. Otter (July 24, 2006), “Negative Effects of Internet Usage”, technology. Available at: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/45919/negative_effects_of_Internet_usage_pg7.html?cat=15 (Accessed on: May 19, 2010) 4. Hinders, D (2003), “What are Some Different Types of Internet Crimes?”, wisegeek.com. Available at: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-some-different-types-of-Internet-crimes.htm (Accessed on May 19, 2010) 5. Guerra, P(2009), “How economics and information security affects cyber crime, what this means in the context of global recession”, Turbo Talk (BH 2009), available at: http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-usa-09/GUERRA/BHUSA09-Guerra-EconomicsCyberCrime-SLIDES.pdf (Accessed on May 19, 2010) 6. Early, E ( March 5, 2009), “the economy and the cyber crime”, Dr.dobb’s, available at: http://www.drdobbs.com/security/215800676;jsessionid=TMOSYEEK3EWTPQE1GHPCKH4ATMY32JVN (Accessed on : May 19, 2010) 7. Sekhar, V.(April 20, 2010) “Web hit by hi-tech crime wave”, BBC News. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8630160.stm (Accessed on: May 17, 2010) 8. “Is Internet censorship inevitable” (n.d.) High speed experts, Available at: http://www.highspeedexperts.com/is-Internet-censorship-inevitable/ (Accessed on May 22, 2010) 9. Cortes, M. (n.d), “Internet censorship around the world” , University of Chile, Chile, Available at:http://www.isoc.org/inet2000/cdproceedings/8k/8k_4.htm (Accessed on May 20, 2010) 10. Reuters (Feb 23, 2010), The Economic Times, “Cyber crime poses a growing danger to the world economy” Available at: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/infotech/Internet/Spies-and-hackers-exploit-world-cyber-rule-void/articleshow/5605223.cms (Accessed on May 20, 2010) 11. Strickland J, “How Internet censorship works”, how stuff works, Available at: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/Internet-censorship.htm (Accessed on May 22, 2010) 12. Kumar, P (February 28, 2008), “Responsibility of Media: Mediation in crisis”, merinews. Available at: http://www.merinews.com/article/responsibility-of-media-mediation-in-crises/130579.shtml (accessed on May 21, 2010) 13. Pierlot, P.A. (2000) “Self regulation of Internet content: A Canadian Persprctive” , Industry Canada, Canada, Available at: http://www.isoc.org/inet2000/cdproceedings/8k/8k_2.htm (Accessed on May 22, 2010) 14. “Warning over the Internet hate sites.” (November 10, 1997), BBC News, Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/29147.stm (Accessed on May 20, 2010) 15. Mattas D, (1997) “Countering hate on the Internet: Recommendations for the action”, Media awareness network, Canada, Available at: http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/articles/online_hate/countering_hate.cfm (Accessed on May 20, 2010) 16. Manohar U (n.d) “ Media Censorship: why is censorship good” , Buzzle. Com, available at: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/media-censorship-why-is-censorship-good.html (Accessed on May 21, 2010) 17. Rowley H, (November 2009), “ Censorship in France”, The American scholar. Org Available at: http://www.theamericanscholar.org/censorship-in-france/ (Accessed on May 20, 2010). 18. Neal D, (Feb 11, 2010), “France falls under Internet censorship”, The inquirer, available at: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1591582/france-falls-Internet-censorship (Accessed on May 21, 2010) 19. Reilly E, (Apr 3, 2010) “Internet censorship in Australia”, suite101.com , available at: http://Internet.suite101.com/article.cfm/Internet-censorship-in-Australia (Accessed on May 21, 2010) 20. Haines, (February 9, 2010), “No gain from blocking access to social media” Beyond. Available at: http://beyondrecruitment.co.nz/no-gain-from-blocking-access-to-social-media/ (Accessed on: May 21, 2010) 21. Coleman B. (Oct 31, 2009), “Internet censorship today”, suite101. com. Available at: http://censorship.suite101.com/article.cfm/Internet_censorship_today (Accessed on May 21, 2010) 22. AP News (Apr 20, 2010) “Google discloses demand for censorship, user data”, inform.com, Available at: http://inform.com/world/google-discloses-demands-censorship-user-data-909803a (Accessed on May 22, 2010) 23. Taranfx, (August 30, 2009). ‘The Great FireWall of China – Chinese Internet Censorship Insights’, available at: http://www.taranfx.com/the-great-firewall-of-china-chinese-internet-censorship-insights (accessed on May 22, 2010) 24. ASSOCHAM, (Dec 2009) Corp. Employees Productivity Is Killed By 12.5% In Surfing Sites: ASSOCHAM Survey, The Knowledge Chamber of India, available at: http://www.assocham.org/prels/shownews.php?id=2265 (accessed on May 22, 2010) 25. Lohman, T. (April 2010), Google attempts to open up on government censorship – updated, available at: http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/343918/google_attempts_open_up_government_censorship_--_updated/?fp=2&fpid=1&rid=1 (accessed in May 22, 2010) Read More