A Short Guide to the Internet’s Biggest Enemies
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) released its annual “Enemies of the Internet” index this week—a ranking first launched in 2006 intended to track countries that repress online speech, intimidate and arrest bloggers, and conduct surveillance of their citizens. Some countries have been mainstays on the annual index, while others have been able to work their way off the list. Two countries particularly deserving of praise in this area are Tunisia and Myanmar (Burma), both of which have stopped censoring the Internet in recent years and are headed in the right direction toward Internet freedom.
In the former category are some of the world’s worst offenders: Cuba, North Korea, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Belarus, Bahrain, Turkmenistan, Syria. Nearly every one of these countries has amped up their online repression in recent years, from implementing sophisticated surveillance (Syria) to utilizing targeted surveillance tools (Vietnam) to increasing crackdowns on online speech (Saudi Arabia). These are countries where, despite advocacy efforts by local and international groups, no progress has been made.
The newcomers
A third, perhaps even more disheartening category, is the list of countries new to this year's index. A motley crew, these nations have all taken new, harsh approaches to restricting speech or monitoring citizens:
Russia: As RSF writes, Russia has been on a downward slope for more than a decade. Until fairly recently, however, the Russian government did not directly censor the Internet, preferring instead to employ subtle strategies to control online discourse. In 2012, that changed, when the Russian Duma overwhelmingly passed a bill allowing the creation of a national blacklist of websites. Today, that blacklist continues to grow, while the government continues to seek new ways of limiting online speech.
Pakistan: We’ve expressed concerns about Pakistan many times before, so we’re glad to see the country called out for its repressive behavior. Despite significant opposition from inside the country, the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority continues to add sites to its opaque blacklist, most notably YouTube following the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ debacle in 2012. Efforts from local activists have also demonstrated the willingness of foreign companies—in particular Canadian company Netsweeper—to aid in Pakistan’s repression of speech.
United States: This is the first time the US has made it onto RSF’s list. While the US government doesn’t censor online content, and pours money into promoting Internet freedom worldwide, the National Security Agency’s unapologetic dragnet surveillance and the government’s treatment of whistleblowers have earned it a spot on the index.
United Kingdom: The European nation has been dubbed by RSF as the “world champion of surveillance” for its recently-revealed depraved strategies for spying on individuals worldwide. The UK also joins countries like Ethiopia and Morocco in using terrorism laws to go after journalists. Not noted by RSF, but also important, is the fact that the UK is also cracking down on legal pornography, forcing Internet users to opt-in with their ISP if they wish to view it and creating a slippery slope toward overblocking. This is in addition to the government’s use of an opaque, shadowy NGO to identify child sexual abuse images, sometimes resulting instead in censorship of legitimate speech.
India: A country that has long censored certain types of speech, it’s surprising that India has never made it to RSF’s list before. Still, in the past two years, things have gotten significantly worse as the Indian government has enacted new laws to limit online speech and has slouched toward the NSA at a time when its neighbors have spoken out against surveillance.
Ethiopia: The African country has been on a downward spiral for the past few years, blocking VoIP services, sentencing bloggers to long prison sentences, and enacting laws to block online content. Most recently, EFF filed a lawsuit accusing the Ethiopian government of installing spyware on the device of an American citizen of Ethiopian origin. In a similar case, Privacy International filed a criminal complaint alleging the use of FinSpy on the device of a UK resident.
Missing from the list
There are a few countries that were left out of this year’s index that we think should have been included. These nations have all taken a turn for the worse in recent years:
Turkey: Although Turkey has shown up on RSF’s watchlist before, and despite a spate of arrests of social media users during last summer’s protests, Turkey managed to stay off this year’s index. The country has come under fire from human rights advocates for its online repression, and in 2012, the European Court of Human Rights found that Turkey had violated its citizens’ right to free expression by blocking Google sites. Turkey is definitely an enemy of the Internet.
Jordan: Despite local protests and international opposition, in June 2013, Jordan initiated a ban on more than 300 news sites that refused or failed to register with the Press and Publications Department. Those sites remain blocked.
Morocco: The North African nation’s approach to the Internet had improved somewhat in recent years, with the government unblocking sites that were formerly censored. The arrest of journalist Ali Anouzla in September 2013 and subsequent blocking of Lakome, the publication he co-founded, however, seems to signal a new era. Activists have expressed concern that bad legislation is just around the corner.
Of course we can add the BVI here as the present government decides to crack down on argumentative discourse in the press
We urge the countries that find themselves on RSF's “Enemies of the Internet” list this year—as well as those that are glaringly missing from the list—to take note of countries, such as Tunisia and Myanmar (Burma), who have taken steps to ameliorate violations of Internet freedom and remove themselves from RSF's annual index.
In calling for revolution, this half-messiah has hit a nerve
- Date
- November 2, 2013

Brand doesn't vote and has urged others not to do so.
Russell Brand is sort of good-looking but not, a range of emotions constantly flickering over his face, which at times can look twisted. Brand admits he's twisted. It's hard to imagine there can be anything more to his sex life than he's already told us, and in detail. The matter of his former heroin addiction is also out there. He's a hard man to discredit because so much that's discreditable about him is already a matter of public record. Brand is entertaining and daring and possibly also serious. This week he called for a revolution.
Brand doesn't vote and has urged others not to do so. Appearing on the BBC program Newsnight, Brand was challenged by host Jeremy Paxman - you want a revolution to overthrow elected governments, but what sort of government would you replace it with? ''I don't know,'' replied Brand, grinning like a wildcat. ''But I'll tell you what it shouldn't do. It shouldn't destroy the planet, it shouldn't create massive political disparity, it shouldn't ignore the needs of the people.''
The burden of proof is not with him, he argued. It is with those with power.
In The Guardian, Nick Cohen pointed out that Brand's claim that politicians were liars who were betraying the interests of ordinary people was the same claim employed with startling effect by Adolf Hitler during his rise to power in the 1930s. I thought that was pretty much the end of the argument until I read the comments at the bottom of Cohen's column. Many readers - possibly a majority - sided with Brand.
I read two outstanding articles on the matter. The first was on Channel 4's website by its culture and digital editor, Paul Mason. He wrote of Brand: ''Though he looks like a survivor from Altamont, his audience do not: they are young, professional people; nurses, bank clerks, call-centre operatives. And what Russell has picked up is that they hate, if not the concept of capitalism, then what it's doing to them. They hate the corruption manifest in politics and the media; the rampant criminality of a global elite whose wealth nestles beyond taxation and accountability; the gross and growing inequality; and what it's doing to their own lives.''
Paul Mason looks to be about my age. He concluded: ''While on my timeline everybody over 40 is saying, effectively, 'Tee-hee, isn't Brand outrageous?', a lot of people in their 20s are saying simply: 'Russell is right, bring it on'.'' It's an interesting exercise - ask around.
In The Daily Beast, American James Poulos said Brand's call for revolution would fall on deaf ears in the US because Americans were not revolutionaries. ''Why does Marxism keep losing in America? Two words: James Dean.'' That is, in America rebellious impulses are ultimately denuded of politics and reduced to style, to attitude.
But Poulos also said: ''Any idiot can see that virtually the whole organised world, from America to Britain to Britain's many calamitously betrayed former colonies, hungers for not only political reformation but for social transformation.'' Poulos says Brand is a ''half-messiah''.
Brand has been criticised by groups such as Bite the Ballot who are trying to get young people to engage politically. He has been called a ''twat'' by a Tory MP and been derided by columnists around the world. In the words of the man from the Irish Times, he stands accused of ''dispensing child-like simplicities in convoluted language''.
Be that as it may, I suspect Russell Brand is somehow speaking to the future.
Martin
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/in-calling-for-revolution-this-halfmessiah-has-hit-a-nerve-20131101-2wrxq.html#ixzz2jqEf0nGk