association, religion, and privacy. Most states that have been serious about controlling the information environment have done so by holding on to the only megaphones—whether it takes
the form of a printing press, a newspaper, a radio station, or a television station—and banning
anyone from saying anything potentially subversive.
The rise of the Internet, initially seen as little more than an information delivery mechanism,
put pressure on this strategy of control. Early in the twenty-first century, the Saudi state was
one of the first to grapple publicly with what the introduction of the Internet might mean. Rather
than introducing the Internet in its unfettered—and fundamentally Western—form, the Saudi
authorities decided to establish a system whereby they could stop their citizens from accessing certain materials produced and published from elsewhere in the world. As an extension of
its longstanding traditional media controls, the Saudis set up a technical means of filtering the
Internet, buttressed by a series of legal and normative controls. All Internet traffic to and from
Saudi citizens had to pass through a single gateway to the outside world. At that gateway, the
Saudi state established a technical filtering mechanism. If Saudi citizens sought to access a
Web page that earlier had been found to include a pornographic image, for instance, the
computers at the gateway would send back a message telling them, in Arabic, that they
have sought to access a forbidden page—and, of course, not rendering the requested
page. At a fundamental level, this basic form of control was initially about blocking access to
information that would be culturally and politically sensitive to the state.
The issue that the Saudi state faces, of desiring to keep its citizens from accessing subversive content online, is an issue that more and more states are coming to grips with as the
Internet expands. The network now joins more than one billion people around the world. At
the same time, new issues are arising that are prompting states to establish Internet filtering mechanisms. The read-write Web, exemplified by Wikipedia and the phenomena of
blogging, YouTube, podcasting, and so forth, adds a crucial dimension—and additional
complexity—as states now grapple with the ease with which their own citizens are becoming
publishers with local, national, and international audiences.
How Internet Filtering Works: Law, Technologies, and Social Norms
When states decide to filter the Internet, the approach generally involves establishing a phalanx of laws and technical measures to block their citizens from accessing or publishing information online. The laws are ordinarily extensions of pre-existing media or telecommunications
regulatory regimes. Occasionally, these laws take the form of Internet-specific statutes and
regulations. These laws rarely explicitly establish the technical filtering regime, but more commonly establish a framework for restricting certain kinds of content online and banning certain
online activities.
There are at least five levels of Internet legal control with respect to content control online.
6
States have employed content restrictions, which disallow citizens from publishing or accessing certain online content. Licensing requirements call for intermediaries to carry out certain
32
Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey
the form of a printing press, a newspaper, a radio station, or a television station—and banning
anyone from saying anything potentially subversive.
The rise of the Internet, initially seen as little more than an information delivery mechanism,
put pressure on this strategy of control. Early in the twenty-first century, the Saudi state was
one of the first to grapple publicly with what the introduction of the Internet might mean. Rather
than introducing the Internet in its unfettered—and fundamentally Western—form, the Saudi
authorities decided to establish a system whereby they could stop their citizens from accessing certain materials produced and published from elsewhere in the world. As an extension of
its longstanding traditional media controls, the Saudis set up a technical means of filtering the
Internet, buttressed by a series of legal and normative controls. All Internet traffic to and from
Saudi citizens had to pass through a single gateway to the outside world. At that gateway, the
Saudi state established a technical filtering mechanism. If Saudi citizens sought to access a
Web page that earlier had been found to include a pornographic image, for instance, the
computers at the gateway would send back a message telling them, in Arabic, that they
have sought to access a forbidden page—and, of course, not rendering the requested
page. At a fundamental level, this basic form of control was initially about blocking access to
information that would be culturally and politically sensitive to the state.
The issue that the Saudi state faces, of desiring to keep its citizens from accessing subversive content online, is an issue that more and more states are coming to grips with as the
Internet expands. The network now joins more than one billion people around the world. At
the same time, new issues are arising that are prompting states to establish Internet filtering mechanisms. The read-write Web, exemplified by Wikipedia and the phenomena of
blogging, YouTube, podcasting, and so forth, adds a crucial dimension—and additional
complexity—as states now grapple with the ease with which their own citizens are becoming
publishers with local, national, and international audiences.
How Internet Filtering Works: Law, Technologies, and Social Norms
When states decide to filter the Internet, the approach generally involves establishing a phalanx of laws and technical measures to block their citizens from accessing or publishing information online. The laws are ordinarily extensions of pre-existing media or telecommunications
regulatory regimes. Occasionally, these laws take the form of Internet-specific statutes and
regulations. These laws rarely explicitly establish the technical filtering regime, but more commonly establish a framework for restricting certain kinds of content online and banning certain
online activities.
There are at least five levels of Internet legal control with respect to content control online.
6
States have employed content restrictions, which disallow citizens from publishing or accessing certain online content. Licensing requirements call for intermediaries to carry out certain
32
Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey