Internet censorship in the United States is the suppression of information published or viewed on the Internet in the United States. The United States has the protection of freedom of speech and expression against censorship of federal, state, and local governments; the right is protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. This protection extends to the Internet, however, the US government has censored the site in the past and its numbers continue to grow to this day.
However, in 2014, the United States was added to the Reporters Without Borders (RWB) list of "Internet Enemies", a group of countries with the highest level of censorship and internet surveillance. RWB states that the US "... has undermined confidence in the Internet and its own security standards" and that "US surveillance and decryption practices are a direct threat to investigative journalists, especially those working with sensitive sources for whom confidentiality is paramount and who are already under pressure. "
In a US-funded Freedom House report, Freedom on the Net 2017 covering the period from June 2016 to May 2017, the United States was ranked the fifth most free of the 65 countries assessed.
Video Internet censorship in the United States
Overview
Strong protection for freedom of speech and expression against censorship of federal, state and local governments is rooted in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This protection extends to the Internet and as a result very few government mandates filtering out technicalities occur in the US. However, the Internet in the United States is highly regulated, supported by a set of legally binding and privately-mediated mechanisms.
After more than two decades of controversial debate over content regulation, the country is far from reaching a political consensus on the limits of free speech and how best to protect minors and oversee illegal activity on the Internet. Gambling, cyber security, and dangers to children who frequent social networking sites are an important ongoing debate. Significant public resilience to proposed content restriction policies has prevented more extreme measures from being used in some other countries in order not to apply in the U.S.
Public dialogue, legislative debate, and judicial review have resulted in a filtering strategy in the United States that is different from those found in most other parts of the world. Many government mandated attempts to organize content have been banned on the basis of the First Amendment, often after lengthy legal battles. However, the government has been able to put pressure indirectly where it can not directly censor. With the exception of child pornography, content restrictions tend to rely more on content removal than blocking; most often these controls depend on the involvement of private parties, supported by state encouragement or threats of legal action. Unlike most other countries in the world, where ISPs are subject to state mandates, most content regulation in the United States occurs on a personal or voluntary level.
The first wave of regulatory action in the 1990s in the United States emerged in response to the continuing explicit sexual material on the Internet within easy reach of minors. Since then, several legislative efforts to create a mandatory content control system in the United States have failed to produce a comprehensive solution for those who encourage tighter controls. At the same time, the legislative effort to control the distribution of socially inappropriate material on the Internet in the United States has given rise to a powerful system that limits responsibility for content for Internet intermediaries such as Internet service providers (ISPs) and content hosting companies.
Advocates of online intellectual property protection in the United States have been far more successful, resulting in a system for removing infringing material which by many parties feels wrong in terms of inhibiting legally-protected speech. The United States practically forcibly forcibly confined domains and computers, sometimes without notice, causing the website to not continue to operate. Some high profile cases are Napster, Wikileaks, The Pirate Bay, and MegaUpload.
The national security concerns have spurred efforts to expand digital communications oversight and push proposals to make Internet communications easier to trace.
Maps Internet censorship in the United States
Federal law
With some exceptions, the terms of freedom of speech of the First Amendment prohibit federal, state, and local governments from directly censoring the Internet. The main exceptions have to do with obscenity, including child pornography, which does not enjoy the protection of the First Amendment.
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) was enacted in 1986 as an amendment to existing computer fraud laws (18 USC Ã,§ 1030), which is part of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. CFAA prohibits accessing computers without authorization, or authorization. Since 1986, the Act has been amended several times - in 1989, 1994, 1996, in 2001 by the USA PATRIOT Act, 2002, and in 2008 by the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act. CFFA is a criminal law and a law that creates a right of private action, allowing private individuals and corporations to demand to recover damages caused by violations of this law.
The CFAA provisions effectively make it a federal offense to violate Internet site service terms, allowing companies to prohibit legitimate activities such as research, or restrict or remove protection found elsewhere in law. Terms of service can be changed at any time without notifying the user. Professor Columbia Law School, Tim Wu called the CFAA "the worst law in technology".
An aggressive prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) has triggered increasing condemnation of the scope and application of legislation. In 2013 a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced the law (H.R. 2454, S. 1196) which would prevent the government from using the CFAA to prosecute violations of terms of service and stop prosecutors from bringing in excessive charges for a crime. The bill was reintroduced in 2015 (H.R. 2454, S. 1030), but did not get enough support to move forward.
Communication Decency Act (CDA)
In 1996, the United States enacted a Communications Compulsory Act (CDA), which sought to regulate indecency (when available for children) and obscenity in cyberspace. In 1997, in the case of Reno v. ACLU , the United States Supreme Court found the anti-indecency provisions of the Unconstitutional Law. Writing for the Court, Judge John Paul Stevens stated that "CDA places an unacceptably heavy burden on a protected speech".
Section 230 is a separate part of the CDA that remains in effect. Section 230 says that Internet service operators are not legally responsible for third party words that use their services and also protect ISPs from liability for voluntary action taken to restrict access to certain offensive materials or to provide others with technical means to restrict access. for that material.
Children's Online Protection Act (COPA)
In 1998, the United States passed the Online Child Protection Act (COPA) to restrict access by minors to any material that is designated as harmful to such minors on the Internet. The law was found to be unconstitutional as it would impede a protected speech among adults. That never works, because three separate rounds of litigation led to a permanent injunction against the law in 2009. If the law is passed, it would effectively make it illegal to post any Internet-based advertisements that are harmful to children. without some sort of checking program to confirm the user's age.
Children Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)
The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) came into force on 21 April 2000. This applies to the collection of personal information online by persons or bodies under the jurisdiction of the United States of children under 13 years and what details should include the operator of the website in the privacy policy, when and how to seek verifiable approval from the parent or guardian, and what responsibilities the operator must undertake to protect the privacy and safety of children online including marketing limits to those under 13 year. While children under 13 can legally provide personal information with their parental consent, many websites prohibit minors using their services altogether, because of the cost and amount of documents required for compliance. Similarly, public perception claims that the law is intended to protect children from pedophiles from unwanted marketing practices.
Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA)
In 2000 the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) was signed into law.
CIPA requires that K-12 schools and libraries receive federal Fund Universal Service Fund (E-rate) discounts or LSTA grants for Internet access or internal connection to:
- adopts and implements an Internet security policy directed at: (a) access by minors to inappropriate material on the Internet; (b) the safety and security of minors when using electronic mail, chat rooms, and other forms of direct electronic communication; (c) unauthorized access, including so-called "hacking," and other unlawful activities by minors online; (D) unauthorized disclosure, use and dissemination of personal information about minors; and (e) measures to limit the access of minors to substances harmful to them;
- install internet filters or blocking software that prevents access to images that are: (a) obscene, (b) child pornography, or (c) harmful to minors (for computers accessed by minors);
- to allow filtering or blocking to be disabled at the request of an adult; and
- adopt and enforce policies to monitor online activities of minors.
CIPA not not :
- requires tracking of Internet use by minors or adults; or
- affect E-rate funding for schools and libraries that receive discounts for telecommunication services, such as telephone services, but not for Internet access or internal connections.
Trading spidermen Trading Trading with Enemy Act (TWEA)
In March 2008, the New York Times reported that a blacklist issued by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), an institution established under Trade with the Enemy Act 1917 and other federal laws, including a number of websites, so US companies were banned doing business with the website and having to freeze their assets. The blacklist has the effect that a US-based domain name registrar should block the website. According to the New York Times, eNom, a private domain name registration and Web hosting company operating in the US, disables domain names that appear on the blacklist. This illustrates the deactivation of eNom from a European travel agency website that advertises a trip to Cuba, which appears in a list issued by OFAC. According to the report, the US government claims that eNom is "legally required" to block sites under US law, even though these sites are not hosted in the US, are not targeted to US people and legal under foreign law. Cybersecurity_Information_Sharing_Act_ (CISA) "> Cybersecurity Security Information (CISA) Act <
The Cybersecurity Security Information Act (CISA) is designed to "improve cybersecurity in the United States through increased information sharing on cybersecurity threats, and for other purposes". The law allows the sharing of Internet traffic information between the US government and technology and manufacturing companies. The text of the bill was submitted by amendment to the consolidated spending bill at the US House on December 15, 2015, which was signed into law by President Barack Obama on December 18, 2015.
Opponents question the value of CISA, believing it will shift responsibility from private businesses to the government, increasing the vulnerability of personal private information, and disseminating personal personal information in seven government agencies, including the NSA and the local police. Some people feel that the action is easier to be supervised than the real security after much privacy protection from the original bill is removed.
Stop Victim Advertising Exploit 2015 (HEMAT)
The Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation Act of 2015 (SAVE) is part of the larger Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 which became law in May 2015. The SAVE Act makes it illegal to consciously advertise content related to the sex trade, including online advertising. The law establishes federal criminal liability for third party content. There are concerns that this will cause the company to censor content far more than to face criminal penalties, or restrict content monitoring practices altogether to avoid "knowledge" of illegal content.
Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_.28ADA.29 "> Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
In 2016, complainants from Gallaudet University filed a lawsuit against UC Berkeley for not adding closed captions to the recording lectures he made free of charge to the public. In what many commentators call the unintended consequences of America with the Disabilities Act of 1990, the Justice Department in power has resulted in Berkeley removing 20,000 licensed videos freely instead of making them more accessible.
Allow America and online Combating Sex Trafficking Victims Act - Stop Enabling Sex Offenders Act (FOSTA-SESTA)
Allowing States and Victims to Fight the Commercial Sex Trade Law (FOSTA) is a law introduced in the US House of Representatives by Ann Wagner in April 2017. Stop Enabling the Sex Trade Act (SESTA) is a similar US Senate bill was introduced by Rob Portman in August 2017. The combined FOSTA-SESTA package passed the House on 27 February 2018 with 388-25 votes and the Senate on 21 March 2018 with a 97-2 vote. The bill was signed by President Donald Trump on April 11, 2018.
The law clarifies the country's sex trade laws to make it illegal to deliberately assist, facilitate or support the sex trade, and improve Section 230 of the safe port of the Communications Failure Act (which makes online services immune from liability civil liability for the actions of their users) to exclude enforcement of federal or state drug trade legislation from their immunity. The goal is to provide serious, legal consequences for websites that profit from the sex trade and provide the prosecutorial tools they need to protect their communities and provide victims of the path to justice.
Billing is criticized by pro-freedom speech and pro-Internet groups as "undercover internet censure bills" that undermine the 230 port safe section, puts an unnecessary burden on internet companies and intermediaries that handle user-generated content or communications with the necessary service providers. to proactively take action on sex trade activities, and require "team of lawyers" to evaluate all possible scenarios under state and federal laws (which may be financially unfit for smaller companies). Online sex workers argue that the bill will jeopardize their safety, as the platform they use to offer and discuss sexual services (as an alternative to street prostitution) has begun to reduce their services or be fully closed because of threats of responsibility under the law.
Proposed federal law that has not yet become law
Delete Online Predator Act (DOPA)
The abolition of the Predator Online Act of 2006 was introduced, but was not legal. Two similar bills were introduced in 2007, but were not legal.
The proposed law will require schools, businesses and libraries to block children's access to social networking websites. The bill is controversial because, according to its critics, the bill would limit access to various websites, including many with non-hazardous educational materials.
Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act
The Protecting Cyberspace as the National Asset Law was introduced in 2010, but was not legal.
The proposed law sparked controversy over what the critics consider its authority for the US President to impose a complete Internet block in the United States.
A new bill, Coordinating Cyberspace Executive Law 2011, is under consideration by the US Congress in 2011. The new bill addresses many of the same issues as, but requires quite a different approach than Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.
Fighting online Violations and Counterfeit Act (COICA)
The Anti-Counterfeit and Counterfeit Law Online introduced in September 2010, but did not become law.
The proposed legislation would allow the US Attorney General to take brake action against infringing domain names in the United States District Court, and look for orders requiring the removal of orders. If given, such an order will force the corresponding domain name recorder to suspend operations, and may lock, the domain name.
The US Department of Justice will maintain two lists of publicly available domain names. The first list contains the names of the domains on which the Attorney General's order is based. The second list contains domains suspected by the Department of Justice to be broken, but no action is taken. Any service provider who voluntarily takes steps to block access to the site on this second list will be immune from prosecution under the law.
Stop Online Piracy Law (SOPA)
The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), also known as HR 3261, is a law introduced at the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011, by Lamar Smith (R-TX) Representatives and a bipartisan group of 12 early co-sponsors. The proposed bill would initially allow the US Department of Justice, as well as the copyright holder, to seek court orders against websites accused of allowing or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who asks for a court order, such actions may include restrictions on online advertising networks and payment facilitators such as PayPal to do business with allegedly infringing websites, prohibit search engines from connecting to the site, and require Internet service providers to block access to the site. site. Many argue that since ISPs will be required to block access to certain websites that this is censorship. On January 18, 2012, English Wikipedia was closed for 24 hours starting at 5:00 UTC (12:00 AM EST) to protest SOPA and PIPA. After this and many other online protests, Rep. Lamar Smith has stated, "The House of Justice Committee will delay the consideration of the law until there is broader agreement on the solution".
Senator Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat and major opposition to the bill, said lawmakers have collected more than 14 million names - more than 10 million of them voters - who contacted them to protest the previously obscure legislation.
Protect Intellectual Property Rights (PIPA)
Intellectual Property Law Protecting (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and theft of Intellectual Property Laws, or PIPAs) is a proposed law with a stated purpose to grant to the US government and copyright holders additional tools to limit access to "malicious websites dedicated to infringing or counterfeit goods", especially those registered outside the US. The bill was introduced on May 12, 2011, by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and 11 co-sponsors of bipartisan. PIPA is a rewrite of the Online Fraud Fighting and Counterfeiting Act (COICA), which failed to be authorized in 2010. Following an online protest held on 18 January 2012, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced on Friday 20 January that voted on the bill it will be postponed until the issues raised about the bill are resolved. Reid urged Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), PIPA's main sponsor, to "continue to engage with all stakeholders to establish a balance between protecting American intellectual property, and maintaining openness and innovation on the internet."
Cyber ​​Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act
The Cyber ​​Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is a proposed law introduced in November 2011, with the stated purpose of providing additional US government resources and options to ensure network security against attacks. Endorsed by the US House of Representatives in April 2012, but not endorsed by the US Senate. The bill was reintroduced in the House of Representatives in February 2013 and again in January 2015. While the bill was never a law, a similar bill of the US Senate, Cybersecurity Information Security Act (CISA), was incorporated by amendments into the consolidated spending bill at US House on December 15, 2015, and signed into law by President Barack Obama on December 18, 2015.
CISPA is supported by several trade groups containing over eight hundred private companies, including the Business Software Alliance, CTIA - Wireless Associations, Information Technology Technology Council, Internet Security Alliance, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, National Defense Industry Association, TechAmerica and the United States Chamber of Commerce, in addition to individual telecommunications and information technology companies such as AT & amp; T, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Oracle Corporation, Symantec, and Verizon.
Reporters Without Borders expressed concern that in the name of the war on cybercrimes, it will allow governments and private companies to spread cruel acts to monitor, even censor, the Web. Other organizations opposing the bill include the Constitution Project, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Frontier Electronics Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Fight for the Future, the Free Press, the Sunlight Foundation, and TechFreedom. Google does not take a public position on the bill, but lobbied for it.
State law
In November 2016, the State Legislative National Conference enrolled twenty-seven states with laws applicable to the use of the Internet at publicly funded schools or libraries:
The majority of these countries only require school or district boards or public libraries to adopt Internet use policies to prevent minors from gaining access to sexually explicit, obscene or dangerous material. However, some states also require publicly funded institutions to install filtering software at library terminals or school computers.
Countries that require schools and/or libraries to adopt policies to protect minors include: California, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina , and Tennessee. The Law of Florida "encourages public libraries to adopt Internet security education programs, including the implementation of computer-based education programs."
Countries that require internet filtering in schools and/or libraries to protect minors are: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah and Virginia.
And five states require Internet service providers to make products or services available to customers to control Internet usage. They are: Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, Texas, and Utah.
In July 2011 Missouri lawmakers passed the Amy Hestir Student Protection Act which included provisions prohibiting K-12 teachers using websites that allow "exclusive access" in communication with current students or former students aged 18 years or younger, such as happens with personal messages on sites like Facebook. Circuit court orders issued before the law began to impose such provisions because "the extent of the ban was staggering" and the law "would have a terrible effect" on the right to free speech guaranteed under the US Constitution. In September the legislature replaced controversial provisions with the requirement that local school districts develop their own policies regarding the use of electronic communication between employees and students.
In December 2016, Bill Chumley, a member of the Council of South Carolina, introduced a bill requiring all computers to be sold with "digital blocking capabilities" to restrict access to pornographic material. Users or manufacturers will be required to pay a $ 20 fee to lift the block. Until April 2018, the bill does not become law, but remains pending before the Justice Board Committee.
In March 2018, Frank Ciccone and Hanna Gallo, members of the Rhode Island State Senate, introduced a law requiring Internet Service Providers to create blocks of pornographic material, which can be revoked with a $ 20 charge payment.
Censorship by institutions
Legal protection and other legal protection that prohibits or limits government censorship of the Internet generally does not apply to private companies. Corporations may voluntarily choose to restrict the content they provide or enable others to provide it on the Internet. Or companies may be encouraged by government pressure or required by law or court order to remove or restrict Internet access to content that is deemed obscene (including child pornography), harmful to children, defamatory, threatening national security, promoting illegal activities such as gambling, prostitution, theft of intellectual property, hate speech, and inciting violence.
Public and private institutions that provide Internet access to their employees, customers, students, or members will sometimes limit this access in an effort to ensure it is only used for organizational purposes. This can include content-control software to restrict access to entertainment content in business and educational settings and limit high bandwidth services in settings where bandwidth is at a premium. Some agencies also block outbound e-mail services as a precaution, usually starting because of concerns about local network security or concerns that e-mail may be used intentionally or unintentionally to permit trade secrets or other confidential information to escape.
Schools and libraries
K-12 schools and libraries that receive funding from federal E-rate programs or Library Services and Technology Act grants for internet access or internal connections are required by the Children's Internet Protection Act to have "Internet security policies and measures on-site technological protection ".
Many K-12 school districts in the United States use Internet filters to block material that is considered inappropriate for school settings. The federal government leaves decisions about what should be filtered or blocked to local authorities. However, many have questioned this approach, feeling that such decisions should be made by parents or guardians. Some of the fears associated with internet filtering in schools include: the risks of supporting a dominant ideology, views held by filter manufacturers imposed on students, blocking of useful information, and under blocking of harmful information. A 2003 study "found that software blockers were issuing too many curriculum topics mandated by the country at large - for every web page that was blocked correctly as advertised, one or more was blocked incorrectly."
Some libraries may also block access to certain web pages, including pornography, advertising, chats, games, social networking, and online forum sites, but there is a long and important tradition among librarians against censorship and the use of filtering and blocking of software in libraries. remains highly controversial.
Telecommunication and Internet service companies
In 2007, Verizon attempted to block NARAL Pro-Choice America's abortion rights group using their text message service to speak with their supporters. Verizon claims it is to enforce a policy that does not allow their customers to use their services to communicate "controversial" or "inappropriate" messages. Comcast, AT & T and many other ISPs have also been accused of regulating internet traffic and bandwidth.
eNom, private domain name registrars and Web hosting companies operating in the US, disable domain names that appear in the US Treasury blacklist.
Military
The Department of Defense prohibits its personnel from accessing certain IP addresses from DoD computers. The US military screening policy was laid out in a report to Congress entitled "Personnel Defense Access to the Internet".
In October 2009, the military blogger C.J. Grisham was temporarily suppressed by his superiors at Redstone Arsenal to close his blog, A Soldier's Perspective, after complaining about local public school officials pushing the school uniform program mandatory without parental consent.
The Monterey Herald reported on 27 June 2013 that the United States Armed Forces prohibited its personnel from accessing parts of the Guardian site after secretary Edward Snowden's disclosure of the PRISM's global surveillance program and the National Security Agency (NSA) published there. The entire Guardian site is blocked for personnel stationed throughout Afghanistan, the Middle East and South Asia, as well as personnel stationed at the US Central Command headquarters in Florida.
WikiLeaks
In February 2008, the lawsuit of Bank Julius Baer vs. WikiLeaks prompted the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to issue a permanent order to the domain name registrar of the WikiLeaks site. The result is that WikiLeaks can not be accessed through its web address. This caused allegations of censorship and resulted in the Electronic Frontier Foundation stepping up to defend WikiLeaks. After the hearing later, the order was revoked.
In December 2010, the Office of Management and Budget of the White House, the US Library of Congress, the US Air Force, and other government agencies began advising their personnel not to read the secret documents available from WikiLeaks and some access that was blocked to WikiLeaks and other news organizations. 'website. This action is intended to reduce the exposure of personnel to confidential information released by WikiLeaks and published by the news organization.
On December 1, 2010, Amazon.com disconnected WikiLeaks 24 hours after being contacted by staff Joe Lieberman, Chairman of the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security. In a statement, Lieberman said:
The [Amazon] decision to decide WikiLeaks is now the right decision and should set standards for other companies that WikiLeaks uses to distribute illegally seized material. I ask other companies or organizations that host WikiLeaks to immediately stop their relationship with them.
Constitutional lawyers say that this is not a matter of the first amendment because Amazon, as a private company, is free to make its own decisions. Kevin Bankston, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, agrees that this is not a violation of the first amendment, but said it was disappointing. "This of course has implications for the right of the first amendment so far as web organizations, under direct or unofficial pressure, limit the material possessed by the American public have the right of the first amendment to access".
The New York Times reported on December 14 that the US Air Force prohibited its personnel from access to news sites (such as from The New York Times and The Guardian , Le Monde , El PaÃÆ's , and Der Spiegel ) that publish cable leaks.
WikiLeaks is facing a global financial blockade by major financial companies including Moneybookers, MasterCard, Visa, and PayPal. In October 2011 Julian Assange said the blockade had destroyed 95% of WikiLeaks revenue and announced that it was suspending its publishing operations to focus on fighting the blockade and raising new funds.
Individual website
Some websites that allow user-contributed content practice self-censorship by adopting a policy on how websites can be used and by prohibiting or requiring pre-editor approval from users who do not follow the policies for the site. For example, social media websites may limit hate speech to a greater extent than required by US law (see also hate speech on Facebook), and may limit verbal harassment and harassment.
Restrictions on hate speech and abuse in social media are subject to debate in the US. For example, two perspectives include that online hate speech should be removed for causing intimidation and serious harm, and that it should not be removed because "it's better to know that there are fanatics among us" than to have an inaccurate picture of the world.
The National Religious Broadcasters, an organization representing American Christian radio and radio stations, and the American Center for Law and Justice, conservative Christian groups, pro-life, conducted research that concluded that some social media sites "actively censor" religious content that expresses perspective Christian, because they forbid "hate speech" in the form of an anti-homosexual point of view.
By overseas company
- See also: Cisco Censorship in China, Google censorship, Microsoft censorship in China, MySpace in China, Skype in China, and Yahoo! sensor in China
Some US companies including Google, Yahoo !, Microsoft, and MySpace practice greater self-censorship in some international versions of their online services. This is especially true in transactions of companies in China.
In October 2011, Blue Coat Systems USA in Sunnyvale, California acknowledged that Syria is using its tools to censor Web activity, possibly breaching the US trade embargo.
Trade secrets and copyright
A January 4, 2007 detention order issued by US District Court Judge Jack B. Weinstein prohibited a large number of activists in the psychiatric survivor movement from posting links on their websites to allegedly leaked documents that clearly indicate that Eli Lilly and Company by deliberately hiding information as for the deadly side effects of Zyprexa. The Electronic Frontier Foundation appealed this as a previous restraint on the right to link and transmit documents, saying that citizen journalists should have the same First Amendment right as the mainstream media. It was then held that the decision could not be canceled, even though the First Amendment claim was rejected.
In May 2011 and January 2012 the US confiscated non-US site domains from non-US citizens Richard O'Dwyer and Kim Dotcom, and attempted to extradite them to the US, accusing them of copyright infringement.
In January 2015 details of the hacking of Sony Pictures Entertainment revealed the American Film Image Association lobbiing the United States Commerce International Commission to mandate that US ISPs either on internet transit or internet service providers, implementing blocking of IP addresses from unauthorized file sharing as well as linking sites the web.
Limitations of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) mobile services
On July 3, 2011, two Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) police officers shot and killed Charles Hill at the Civic Center Station in San Francisco. On August 12, 2011, BART shut down its cellular services, including mobile Internet access, for three hours in a bid to limit the possibility of protests against shootings and to alienate communications from demonstrators at the Civic Center station in San Francisco. The stoppage attracted the attention of international media, as well as comparative comparisons with former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak in several articles and comments.
On August 29, 2011, a coalition of nine public interest groups led by Public Knowledge filed an Emergency Request requesting the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to declare "that actions taken by the Bay District Rapid Transit District" ("BART") on August 11 2011 violates the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, when inadvertently disrupting access to the Commercial Cellular Radio Service ("CMRS") by the public "and" that local law enforcement is not authorized to suspend or reject the CMRS, or to instruct CMRS providers to suspend or refuse service, no orders obtained correctly from the Commission, state commissions of appropriate jurisdiction, or courts of law with appropriate jurisdiction ".
In December 2011 BART adopted a new "Cellular Interference Policy" that only allows cellular service shutdown in the BART facility "under exceptional circumstances that threaten the safety of District passengers, employees and other community members, destruction of District property, or substantial disruption of public transport services. "According to a spokesman for BART, under the new policy of the wireless telephone system will not be shut down under similar circumstances to that of August 2011. Conversely, police officers will arrest the person who violates the law.
Impaired communication service
In March 2012 the FCC asked public comment on the question of whether or when police and other government officials could deliberately disrupt mobile phones and Internet services to protect public safety. In response, until the end of May 2012, the FCC received 137 comments and 9 replied to the comment. As of July 2013 the hearing remains open, but the FCC has not taken any further action.
In December 2014, the FCC issued an Enforcement Advisor who warned the public "that it is illegal to use a mobile jammer or other type of device that is blocking, jamming or disrupting official communications" and that "this prohibition extends to any entity that does not have federal authorization, including enforcement agencies state and local laws ". While jamming is not used by BART to disable the phone, its legal and regulatory considerations are similar.
In December 2016, the Revision Commission of the California Law issued a recommendation on "Government Communications Service Interference". The Commission concludes that government actions to interfere with communications can be constitutional in some circumstances, if the government acts on a properly designed procedure to protect constitutional freedoms and the right of legal process. To be constitutional, such action should normally be approved by a court officer who has found (i) a possible cause that the communication services will be used for unlawful purposes; (ii) that immediate action is necessary to protect public health, safety or welfare and ) affected customers should have a quick opportunity to adjudicate government disputes. For the general disruption of communication services that would affect large numbers of people or large geographical areas, judicial approval would also require that action (iv) be required to avoid the imminent threat of imminent and possible violence or (v) that the effect on expression is incidental to some other legitimate government objectives, and (vi) reasonable, (vii) content neutral, (viii) will not break the conversation more than necessary, and (ix) allow other means of communication. Prior Judicial Approval is not required in an extreme emergency involving the immediate danger of death or major bodily injury where there is not enough time to obtain a court order.
Beyond constitutional law, the ability of state or local governments to influence the general disruption of wireless communications services is also subject to federal "Emergency Wireless Protocol" (EWP) or "Standard Operating Procedure 303" which sets out processes for disrupting and restoring wireless communications services during national emergency The impact of this protocol is that state and local government officials may initiate disruption of communications services, but they can not directly order wireless communication service providers to take action.These orders to private wireless communications providers must come from the National Coordinating Center for Communications (NCC) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a federal official designated by the EWP.If an order authorizing an interruption is not included in the EWP, this order is served directly to the relevant communications service provider.
See also
- Internet censorship and surveillance
- Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)
- Bulk surveillance in the United States
References
This article incorporates licensed material from the Regional Review and other parts of the OpenNet Initiative website.
External links
- Global Integrity: Internet Censorship, Comparative Studies; placing the US online censorship in a cross-country context.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments