of what is filtered for social and cultural reasons. Hate speech and political satire are also the
target of Internet filtering in some countries. Web sites that deny the Holocaust or promote Nazism are blocked in France and Germany. Web sites that provide unflattering details related to
the life of the king of Thailand are censored in his country.
An emergent impetus for filtering is the protection of existing economic interests. Perhaps
the best example is the blocking of low-cost international telephone services that use Voiceover Internet Protocol (VoIP) and thereby reduce the customer base of large telecommunications companies, many of which enjoy entrenched monopoly positions. Skype, a popular and
low-cost Internet-based telephone service, has been blocked in Myanmar and United Arab
Emirates, which heavily block VoIP sites. The Web sites of many VoIP companies are also
blocked in Syria and Vietnam.
Many countries seek to block the intermediaries: the tools and applications of the Internet
that assist users in accessing sensitive material on the Internet. These tools include translation
sites, e-mail providers, Weblog hosting sites, and Web sites that allow users to circumvent
standard blocking strategies. Blogging services such as Blogspot are often targeted; eight
countries blocked blogs hosted there, while Syria, Ethiopia, and Pakistan blocked the entire
domain, denying access to all the blogs hosted on Blogspot. Fourteen countries blocked access to anonymity and censorship circumvention sites. Both SmartFilter, used in Sudan, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, and UAE, and Websense, used in Yemen, have filtering categories—called
‘‘Anonymizers’’ and ‘‘Proxy Avoidance,’’ respectively—used to block such sites.
A handful of countries, including China, Vietnam, and states in the MENA region (the Middle
East and North Africa), block Web sites related to religion and minority groups. In China, Web
sites that represent the Falun Gong and the Tibetan exile groups are widely blocked. In Vietnam, religious and ethnic sites associated with Buddhism, the Cao Dai faith, and indigenous
hill tribes are subject to blocking. Web sites that are aimed at religious conversion from Islam
to Christianity are often blocked in the MENA region. Decisively identifying the motives of filtering activity is often impossible, particularly as the impact of filtering can simultaneously touch
a host of social and political processes. That being said, it probably would be a mistake to
attribute the filtering of religious and ethnic content solely to biases against minority groups,
as these movements also represent a political threat to the ruling regimes.
A Survey of Global Filtering Strategies, Transparency, and Consistency
There are many techniques used to block access to Internet content. Each of these techniques can be used at different levels of Internet access within a country. Internet filtering is
most commonly implemented at two levels: at the ISPs within the country and on the Internet
backbone at the international gateway. These methods may overlap; an ISP may filter content
using one particular technique while another technique is used at the international gateway.
12
Robert Faris and Nart Villeneuve
target of Internet filtering in some countries. Web sites that deny the Holocaust or promote Nazism are blocked in France and Germany. Web sites that provide unflattering details related to
the life of the king of Thailand are censored in his country.
An emergent impetus for filtering is the protection of existing economic interests. Perhaps
the best example is the blocking of low-cost international telephone services that use Voiceover Internet Protocol (VoIP) and thereby reduce the customer base of large telecommunications companies, many of which enjoy entrenched monopoly positions. Skype, a popular and
low-cost Internet-based telephone service, has been blocked in Myanmar and United Arab
Emirates, which heavily block VoIP sites. The Web sites of many VoIP companies are also
blocked in Syria and Vietnam.
Many countries seek to block the intermediaries: the tools and applications of the Internet
that assist users in accessing sensitive material on the Internet. These tools include translation
sites, e-mail providers, Weblog hosting sites, and Web sites that allow users to circumvent
standard blocking strategies. Blogging services such as Blogspot are often targeted; eight
countries blocked blogs hosted there, while Syria, Ethiopia, and Pakistan blocked the entire
domain, denying access to all the blogs hosted on Blogspot. Fourteen countries blocked access to anonymity and censorship circumvention sites. Both SmartFilter, used in Sudan, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, and UAE, and Websense, used in Yemen, have filtering categories—called
‘‘Anonymizers’’ and ‘‘Proxy Avoidance,’’ respectively—used to block such sites.
A handful of countries, including China, Vietnam, and states in the MENA region (the Middle
East and North Africa), block Web sites related to religion and minority groups. In China, Web
sites that represent the Falun Gong and the Tibetan exile groups are widely blocked. In Vietnam, religious and ethnic sites associated with Buddhism, the Cao Dai faith, and indigenous
hill tribes are subject to blocking. Web sites that are aimed at religious conversion from Islam
to Christianity are often blocked in the MENA region. Decisively identifying the motives of filtering activity is often impossible, particularly as the impact of filtering can simultaneously touch
a host of social and political processes. That being said, it probably would be a mistake to
attribute the filtering of religious and ethnic content solely to biases against minority groups,
as these movements also represent a political threat to the ruling regimes.
A Survey of Global Filtering Strategies, Transparency, and Consistency
There are many techniques used to block access to Internet content. Each of these techniques can be used at different levels of Internet access within a country. Internet filtering is
most commonly implemented at two levels: at the ISPs within the country and on the Internet
backbone at the international gateway. These methods may overlap; an ISP may filter content
using one particular technique while another technique is used at the international gateway.
12
Robert Faris and Nart Villeneuve