Surveillance and censorship intertwined
Censorship on the internet age has extended and become more complex. Technologies may involve in contents on different levels: on web-sites, specific web-pages or even on specific words. The desired contents may be filtered out of search results or access on web pages or services may be denied. (Dutton et.al., 2010)
Stronger punishments include taking down the content on a given site or sanctioning the producers of the contents. Journalists and bloggers may be harassed, arrested or killed, especially in totalitarian countries. According to the report of Reporters without borders in 2011 there were 66 journalists killed, 1044 journalists arrested, 199 bloggers and netizens arrested and 62 bloggers and netizens physically attacked (Reporters without borders, 2011).
Censorship and surveillance have extended continuously and it is no more limited in totalitarian countries. Presently, we have 68 countries subject to Internet censorship (Reporters without borders, 2011). Freedom House's annual survey (2011) of global political rights and civil liberties indicated, that conditions of control worsened for the fifth consecutive year in 2010 (Puddington, 2011). In 2012, the percentage of the world's population living in countries with a fully free press fell to its lowest level in a decade - and a decline in press freedom took place especially in several well-established democracies (Deutch Karlekar & Dunham, 2012).
Also, there are an increasing number of violations and restrictions for Internet speech in Europe. 300 of the cases of arrested journalists in 2011 took place in Europe (Reporters without borders, 2011). Internet censorship has been legalized as well. For example, under the Council of Europe's cybercrime treaty hate speech is prohibited. As a consequence, ISPs are responsible to take down a content violating the treaty from a domestic host - or block such content if it is hosted overseas (Nunziato, 2011).
Censorship and surveillance are intertwined on the internet: monitoring of users and communication aims at revealing the defined targets and criminalized contents and other tools and methods of censorship can be further utilized to take into action. Advanced surveillance technologies may also function as multipurpose tools. Deep packet inspection can e.g. the intercept and log Internet traffic, it may be used for enforcement of copyright, to prioritize limited bandwidth and to track users' behavior - and these tools can serve different parties and interests (Dutton et al., 2010). Tools of censorship and surveillance became this way bound together with the other utilities for network management. Ubiquitous technologies, which enable locating and recognition of users and extend data collection to various everyday activities, intensify the scope and worsen the conditions of data surveillance and censorship.
Who controls the internet?
The era of internet in has turned out to have different phases in relation to it's controllability: it started in 1990s with "open commons". Since the beginning of 2000s ("access denied") control of the cyberspace increased through filtering, blocking and government intervention. (Deibert et al, 2012). Since the mid-2000's methods of control extended and they became more subtle and nuanced ("access controlled"). More targeted and specified controlling mechanisms were introduced: "Just in time" optimizing and registration and licensing requirements were applied to identify users. Governments were no more the main stakeholder of control, but public-private partnerships increased. (Deibert et al, 2012).
In 2010s the models of control have become even more refined and involved in a level of internet architecture and principles and protocols of technologies. Control of internet is no more limited on totalitarian countries, but it has been adapted as a global norm (Deibert & Rohozinski, 2010). Governments do not any more ask if internet can be regulated, but rather how to regulate internet and how regulation should be carried out most efficiently. At the same time, there is a growing public realization about the power relations of internet. The influence of powerful actors and their battles over power and control of the cyberspace has become evident. Large civil society reactions have emerged against extended control mechanisms ("access contested"). (Deibert et al, 2010)
During the latest phase of control privatization of censorship and data surveillance has increased. Indeed, the most of cyberspace is owned and operated by private companies. These companies may include e.g. technology and telecommunication companies, service providers (ISPs, OSPs), advertisers and technology developers, surveillance technology companies, content producers, publishers and media. If a trend of privatization continues, censorship and surveillance may turn into the hands of it's strong commercial players, like cloud-computing services, Internet exchanges, and telecommunications companies. (Deibert et al, 2012)
Paradoxes of democracy
Internet and social media do not necessarily go hand in hand with the democracy, although many technology utopists have had this type of ideals. Internet alone has not turned out to enhance democratic development, transparency and fair governance. There are many other factors in the background: economic, cultural, religious, political, individual and chances of history. (MacKinnon, 2012a)
Although there is a lot of evidence of the empowering impact of the internet there is also another type of development trend within the sphere of internet. In many countries internet has mainly extended the power of the government or strengthened the impact of totalitarian regimes (MacKinnon, 2012a). Sometimes interests of the government are intertwined with the private companies. Companies may want to extend their markets and public sector as a client is too lucrative for them although the government policies would turn out to become destructive for some groups of the citizens. This kind of intermediary censorship has been in steep rise (Zuckerman, 2010).
According to Rebecca MacKinnon, it would be necessary to study closer even the relationship between internet and its' revolutionary impact. For example, Arabic spring in Tunis and Egypt did not take place because of the Internet, but rather via Internet. Social and structural changes of the society had developed slowly behind the curtain since a decade ago. During the years activists experimented different kinds of network technologies, created and refined contents and developed their networks of relationships. Finally, an Arabic spring was a result of the long-standing developments, which actualized both in physical environment and via internet when a moment occurred. (MacKinnon, 2012a)