THE SOCIO-CULTURAL BASKET

Networks connecting computers existed long before the Internet. What makes the Internet different is its facilitation of various forms of human communication and creativity. The major innovations of the Internet are the ways in which the Internet facilitates new modes of communication (e mail! Web! multimedia". Thus! some authors argue that the Internet is more a social than a technological phenomenon. It supplements traditional communication and as provides new forms of communication of its own (e.g.! cyber communities"! leading to the development of a socio cultural aspect of the Internet. The socio cultural basket includes some of the most controversial issues in the whole field of Internet governance! such as content policy and multilingualism. These issues reflect today#s most prevalent national! religious! and cultural differences.

CONTENT POLICY
$ne of the main socio cultural issues is content policy! often addressed from the standpoints of human rights (freedom of expression and right to communicate"! government (content control"! and technology (tools for content control". %iscussions usually focus on three groups of content. The first group consists of content that has a global consensus for its control. Included here are child pornography &1'! justification of genocide! and incitement or organi(ation of terrorist acts! all prohibited by international law (ius cogens". The second group consists of content sensitive for particular countries! regions! or ethnic groups due to their particular religious and cultural values. )lobalised and intensive communication challenges local! cultural! and religious values. *ost content control in *iddle +astern and ,sian countries is officially justified as the protection of specific cultural values. This often means blocking access to pornographic and gambling websites &2'. The third group consists of politically and ideologically sensitive content. In essence! this involves Internet censorship. -.eporters without /orders0 has reported a number of such cases in 1hina! /urma! and 2audi ,rabia & 3'. How Content Policy is Con !cte ,n a la carte menu for content policy contains the following legal and technical options! which are used in different combinations. P!"lic #$o%e&n'ent(l) *ilte&in+ o, Content &-' The common element for governmental filtering is an -Internet Index0 of websites blocked for citi(en access. If a website is in the -Internet Index!0 access will not be granted. Technically speaking! filtering utilises mainly router based I3 blocking! proxy servers &.'! and %N2 redirection. 4iltering of content occurs in many countries. In addition to the countries usually associated with these practices! such as 1hina! 2audi ,rabia! and the city of 2ingapore! other countries increasingly adopt the practice. 4or example! ,ustralia has a filtering system for specific national pages! although not international ones &/'. P&i%(te R(tin+ (n *ilte&in+ Syste's

4aced with the potential risk of the disintegration of the Internet through the development of various national barriers (filtering systems"! W51 & 0' and other like minded institutions suggested the implementation of user controlled rating and filtering systems. In these systems! filtering mechanisms are built in to Internet browsers. , label indicates the accessibility of particular content in a particular website. The use of this type of filtering is especially favoured in accessing -child friendly0 websites. $eo-Loc(tion So,tw(&e ,nother technical solution related to content is geo location software! which filters access to particular web content according to the geographic or national origin of users. The 6ahoo7 8ase was important in this respect! since the group of experts involved! including 9int 1erf! indicated that in :; <;= of cases 6ahoo7 could determine whether sections of one of its websites hosting Na(i memorabilia were accessed from 4rance &1'. This assessment helped the court come to a final decision. )eo location software companies claim that they can identify the home country without mistake and the city in about >?= of cases! especially if it is a large city &2'. With the introduction of I3v@ addressing formats! where each device connected to the Internet has its own address! geo location will become even easier. Content Cont&ol t3&o!+3 Se(&c3 En+ines The bridge between the end user and web content is usually a search engine. It has been widely reported that the 1hinese government initiated one of the first examples of content control via search engines against the )oogle website. If users entered prohibited words into )oogle 2earch! they lost their I3 connectivity for a few minutes &14'. The response of the 1hinese information department ran thusA -It is Buite normal with some Internet sites that sometimes you can access them and sometimes you cant. The ministry has received no information about )oogle being blocked0 &11'. To adjust to local laws! )oogle decided to restrict some materials on )oogle#s national websites. 4or example! on )erman and 4rench versions of )oogle it is not possible to search for and find websites with Na(i materials. This involves a certain level of self censorship to avoid possible court cases & 12'. 5e" 264 C3(llen+e7 Use&s (s Cont&i"!to&s With the development of Web C.; platforms blogs! forums! document sharing websites! and virtual worlds the difference between the user and the creator was blurred. Web creators and web users have merged with a technology that allows users to create large portions of the -private0 web content! such as blog posts! 6ouTube videos! and photo galleries. Identifying! filtering! and labelling -improper0 websites is thus becoming obsolete. Instead! data uploaded by end users should be labelled and filtered to manage any objectionable content. While automatic filtering techniBues already exist! automatic recognition! filtering! and labelling of visual content does not occur. *anual review and labelling of content is impossibleA it has been estimated that by mid C;;@ 6ouTube contained over @ millions videos! while the total time that people spent in watching these materials was over <;;; years7 &13' $ne approach! implemented by *orocco! 3akistan! Turkey! and Tunisia! was to block access to 6ouTube throughout the country. This -maximalist0 approach! however! results in blocking unobjectionable content! including educational content! as well. T3e Nee ,o& (n A88&o8&i(te Le+(l *&('ewo&9

The legal vacuum in the field of content policy! which characteri(ed early Internet use! provided governments with high levels of discretion in content control. 2ince content policy is a sensitive issue for every society! the adoption of legal instruments is vital. National regulation in the field of content policy may provide better protection for human rights and resolve the sometimes ambiguous roles of I23s! enforcement agencies! and other players. In recent years! many countries have introduced content policy legislation. Inte&n(tion(l Initi(ti%es ,t the international level! the main initiatives arise in +uropean countries with strong legislation in the field of hate speech! including anti racism and anti 2emitism. +uropean regional institutions have attempted to impose these rules on cyberspace. The primary legal instrument addressing the issue of content is the 1ouncil of +urope ,dditional 3rotocol on the 1ybercrime 1onvention. The $rganisation of 2ecurity and 1ooperation in +urope is also active in this field. 2ince C;;5! it has organised a number of conferences and meetings with a particular focus on freedom of expression and the potential misuses of the Internet (e.g.! racist! xenophobic! and anti 2emitic propaganda". The +D has initiated content control! adopting the +uropean 1ommission .ecommendation against .acism via the Internet. $n a more practical level! the +D introduced the +D 2afer Internet ,ction 3lan & 1-'! which included the following main pointsA setting up a +uropean network of hotlines for the reporting of illegal content encouraging self regulation developing content rating! filtering! and benchmark filtering developing software and services raising awareness of the safer use of the Internet & 1.'.

T3e Iss!es
Content Cont&ol %s6 *&ee o' o, E:8&ession When it comes to content control! the other side of the coin is very often restriction of the freedom of expression. This is especially important in the D2! where the 4irst ,mendment guarantees broad freedom of expression! even the right to publish Na(i related and similar materials. ,chieving a proper balance between content control and freedom of expression is a considerable challenge. 4reedom of expression largely shapes the D2 position in the international debate on Internet governance. 4or example! while the D2 has signed the 1ybercrime 1onvention! it cannot sign the ,dditional 3rotocol to this convention! dealing with hate speech and content control. The Buestion of freedom of expression was also brought up in the context of the 6ahoo7 court case. The D2 will not step beyond this line. 53o S3o!l "e Res8onsi"le ,o& Content Policy; The main players in the area of content control are governments. )overnments prescribe what should be controlled and how. Internet service providers and web masters! as Internet and web -gateways!0 are commonly held responsible for implementation of content filtering! either according to government prescriptions or to self regulation (at least in regard to issues of broad consensus! such as child pornography". 2ome groups of individual users! such as parents! are keen to

introduce a more efficient content policy to protect children. 9arious rating initiatives help parents to find child friendly content. New versions of Internet browser software usually include many filtering options. 3rivate companies and universities also perform content control. In some cases! content is controlled through software packagesE for example! the 2cientology movement has distributed a software package! 2cienositter! to members! preventing access to websites critical of 2cientology &1/'.

Notes
F. Timothy Gick (F<<<". 1ongress! the internet! and the intractable pornography problemA the 1hild $nline 3rotection ,ct of F<<>! Creighton Law Review, 32! pp. FFH:! FF?5! FC;F. C. 4or a discussion of Internet gambling! seeA Ienna 4. Jaradbil (C;;;"! NoteA 1asinos of the next millenniumA a look into the proposed ban on internet gambling! Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, F:! HF5! H5: 5>. 3. 2ee -Internet Dnder 2urveillanceA0 3tt87<<www6&s,6o&+<&!"&i=!e68383; i >&!"&i=!e?-33 &,ccessed FH *arch C;;>'. 4. Ionathan Gittrain and /enjamin +delman! %ocumentation of internet filtering worldwide ($pen Net Initiative"A 3tt87<<cy"e&6l(w63(&%(& 6e !<,ilte&in+< &,ccessed FH 4ebruary C;;>'. 5. 1hinese authorities use I3 blocking. $fficial 2audi filtering is provided through -a proxy farm system.0 4or more information! seeA 3tt87<<www6is!6net6s(<s(! i-inte&net<contenet-,ilt&in+<,ilt&in+'ec3(nis'63t' &,ccessed FH *arch C;;>'. 6. 2eeA +lectronic 4rontiers! ,ustralia! -Internet censorship in ,ustralia0 (C; %ecember C;;C"! 3tt87<<www6e,(6o&+6(!<Iss!es<Censo&<cens163t'l &,ccessed FH *arch C;;>'. 7. 4or more information about 3latform for Internet 1ontent 2election (3I12"! seeA 3tt87<<www6w36o&+<PICS<i(cwc%263t' &,ccessed FH *arch C;;>'. 8. ,lthough 9int 1erf participated in the panel! he objected to the final report! which he said -did not focus on the flaws or the larger implications of installing online gates0 (sourceA -Welcome to the world wide web! passport! please80 (New York ime!! F? *arch C;;F"E 3tt87<<www6=!o%(6co'<8(+e6838;i ?33@co%e&(+e>i ?1/ &,ccessed FH *arch C;;>'". <. ,kami claims that it can identify people#s geographical location as far as their GI3 codes. This is the technological limit. Information about street addresses cannot be obtained from I3 numbers. -2ilicon 9alleys Kuova Inc.! one of the leading providers of this technology! claims it can correctly identify a computer user#s home country <> percent of the time and the city about >? percent of the time! but only if its a large city. Independent studies have pegged the accuracy rate of such programs! which also are sold by companies such as Info2plit! %igital +nvoy! Netgeo! and ,kami! at :; to <; percent0 (sourceA -.ise of internet borders prompts fears of web#s future0 by ,rianna +unjung 1ha! "a!hington #o!t! Ianuary H! C;;C! p. +;F". 10. 4or a survey of articles about the )oogle 1hina 1ase! seeA 3tt87<<se(&c3en+inew(tc36co'<se&e8o&t<(&ticle6838<21/.431 &,ccessed FH *arch C;;>'.

11. 3ublished in the New $%ienti!t Internet editionA 12.

3tt87<<www6newscientist6co'<news<news6As8;i ?ns22222020 &,ccessed FH *arch C;;>". 2ee Ionathan Gittrain and /enjamin +delman! Localised )oogle search result exclusionsA statement of issues and call for dataA 3tt87<<cy"e&6l(w63(&%(& 6e !<,ilte&in+<+oo+le< &,ccessed FH *arch C;;>'. The "all $treet Journal article on -Will all of us get our F? minutes on a 6ouTube video80 by Lee )omesA 3tt87<<online6wsA6co'<8!"lic<(&ticle<SB11./122211/14-124-.w5y&Swyn/R,B,C2NwL900-BU5c>2440412263t'l;'o ?&ss>,&ee &,ccessed FF ,pril C;;>'. 4or more information! seeA 3tt87<<e!&o8(6e!6int<in,o&'(tion>society<(cti%ities<si8<in e:>en63t' &,ccessed FH *arch C;;>'. +D Information 2ociety! -2afer internet action planA0 3tt87<<e!&o8(6e!6int<in,o&'(tion>society<8&o+&(''es<i(8<in e:>en63t ' &,ccessed FH *arch C;;>'. 2eeA 1hurch of 2cientology censors net access for members at 3tt87<<www6:en!6net<(&c3i%e<e%ents<censo&s3i8 &,ccessed FH *arch C;;>'.

13.

14. 15. 16.