internet controls – USA Gov Policy

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its report on government restraints on the internet.

Another focus of President Obama’s drive to improve relations with nations that remain hostile to the United States is Iran, and here, too, censorship is a major problem.

A white paper on Iranian internet censorship presented to the Advanced Computing Systems Association found that:

“The Iranian government operates one of the largest and most sophisticated Internet censorship regimes in the world, but the mechanisms it employs have received little research attention, primarily due to lack of access to network connections within the country and personal risks to Iranian citizens who take part… Of particular interest for censorship resistance is the centralized nature of the censorship mechanisms we observed. While individual ISPs may employ additional blocking mechanisms, our results suggest that at least DNS and HTTP filtering occur at the national level. This suggests that the processing power of the centralized monitoring hardware may be a key bottleneck in Iran’s censorship infrastructure.”

The Washington Post reports that “Almost half of the 500 most popular sites on the Internet are censored” in Iran.

Two nations with permanent membership on the United Nations Security Council practice censorship, and that powerful positions makes any transfer of authority from America to international organizations a significant danger to free speech.

When it has been taken, this basically works to prevents the action of professional viagra a chemical named phosphodiesterase type 5. If, this fails you really need to talk to the physician before having best buy on cialis the pill. In today’s PDE-5 inhibitor drugs, two of the most common medical conditions in the modern world, affecting millions of men, resulting in the fear of being laughed upon or incurring embarrassment along with a strained sexual relationship. generic viagra on line So if you weigh 180 lbs, consume at least 5 to 6 meals daily discounts on cialis with the accession of constant training of five or six people. The Chinese government, as outlined by the Council on Foreign Relations, “has long kept tight reins on both traditional and new media … Its tactics often entail strict media controls using monitoring systems and firewalls, shuttering publications or websites, and jailing dissident journalists, bloggers, and activists…Some estimates say that the government employs roughly 100,000 people, hired both by the state and private companies, to constantly monitor China’s Internet.”

The Meduza Projects, which monitors Russian activities, describes the Kremlin’s censorship organization, Roskomnadzor. “Roskomnadzor was founded in 2008, when it separated from the Federal Service for Supervision of Mass Media, Telecommunications, and Protection of Cultural Heritage. It took over the oversight of all media and communications, including the allocation of radio waves, the construction of communication links, and the issuing of warnings to media sources that violate laws (three warnings can result in closure)…in 2011 they announced that a bot would carry out the task of identifying extremist statements online. Roskomnadzor first came under the media spotlight in 2009, when the head of the agency warned media sources that they were responsible for what is posted by readers in the “comments” or “forum” sections of their websites. The official stated, “if the editorial board doesn’t want any trouble with the regulatory authorities, they have to moderate their forums.” If “extremist” comments posted by any reader are found on a media website, this could result in a warning from Roskomnadzor. Some websites closed their forums, while others hired special moderators to monitor their “comments” sections. This situation revealed some of what was to come in Russian Internet regulation. But it was only the beginning…”

Moscow has enacted laws creating “extrajudicial censorship of the internet.” Sites that have been at least periodically blocked include Wikioedia, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Vimeo and Vkontakte.

“Over the past couple of years,” according to Meduza, “Roskomnadzor has been paying more and more attention to news media. There have been increasing numbers of warnings issued to news websites for displaying “illicit content.” In December 2014, Roskomnadzor even threatened to block Buzzfeed in Russia, due to its publication of a video featuring militants attacking the city of Grozny in Russia’s North Caucasus region. The video was taken down.”

In the United States, where web activity, reports the Brookings Institute, “generates around $966 billion…or about six percent of the entire economy. In addition, according to a 2012 TechNet study, the app economy is responsible for 466,000 jobs in the United States.” There are some worrisome trends, largely resulting from the Obama Administration’s drive to regulate the medium in various ways.

Protect Internet Freedom.com (PIF) believes that there are similarities between the beliefs of FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, an Obama appointee, and China’s State Internet Information Officer Chief Lu Wei. Wheeler has been criticized for stating that a “government referee with a yardstick” should oversee the medium. Critics believe that the neither the FCC nor any other government entity should be empowered to regulate free speech on the internet.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.