Jessica monitoring is Firewall, which is done in

Jessica Suarez

Professor Phillips L.K

English 101 (19708)

15 December 2017

 

                                                Censorship
versus National Security

Should
the internet be censor by the US Government?

As
the internet became one of the most useful resources in the world, internet
censorship has become a common issue for the government. A study in 2005 and 2012
by Freedom House found that there are many tactics used by various governments
worldwide to control the free flow of information online. From 2005 to 2012, governments
including the United States, included an increased number of regulation tactics.
Unlike business companies and government facilities were they can censor anyone
uses public computer, however, in the First Amendment to a U.S. Constitution,
several freedoms are protected. I am against internet censorship. I believe we
should protect our freedom of speech. The government should not have the power
to censor the internet. Additionally, major internet companies disagree with
the government’s regulations assumption that the new proposed law, Net
Neutrality will be beneficial for citizens. 
Whether or not internet censorship will protect anyone using the
internet, the government should not pass several laws that censor their
citizen’s online activities because it eventually takes away their freedom of
expression.

In
an age where the U.S. Government can collect data whenever a citizen uses their
mobile devices or computers – when they use search engines, use social forums,
and send emails – the challenge for the U.S. Government is to determine if they
have a potential threat to their citizens and national security. According to
the Freedom on the Net 2012 editors:

            The Government’s attempts to block
specific applications or

technologies;
and legal and regulatory ownership of and control

over
the Internet and mobile phone access providers. “Limits

on
Internet content” addressed the extent of filtering and blocking

certain
websites, as well as other kinds of censorship and self-censorship.

(Kelly,
Cook, and Truong, 2012, 569-581)

There
is a difference between internet censorship and complete internet freedom: one
of them is protected by the First Amendment. Anyone who uses computers in a
government facilities or school has to agree to their censorship rules in order
to use online services. One popular monitoring is Firewall, which is done in
both government facilities and grade schools computers.  The website, McAfee, is a popular firewall
protection program, explains that the software can be installed to keep any
websites that the employer’s administration chooses to block to prevent inappropriate
content from children and employees.

Some
experts have argued that a range of legitimate concerns about children can be
vulnerable to pedophiles and spammers. In 2000, the Children’s Internet
Protection Act (CIPA), a law that requires that K-12 schools and libraries to
use internet filters to protect children from harmful online content, was
enacted by Congress to reduce children from being exposed to pornography and
hate crime. There also been other laws to help reduce crimes targeting
businesses. Laws like Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA)
have caused controversy because the United States has a history of freedom of
expression. Even though these laws have passed to help reduce criminal activity
online, it has affected citizens who strongly agree with freedom of expression.

But
censoring citizen’s online activities can have unintended effect of making
citizens resentful. On January 18, 2012, in protest to stop proposed bills like
Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) from passing, major
websites protested by going “dark” for twenty-four hours. Professor Richard A.
Epstein from the University of Chicago warns that “It is difficult to tell
which reasons for censoring content are valid because nations tend to filter
different kinds of Internet content.” (Epstein, 2010) Freedom Net 2012 ranked
various countries from restrictive to open internet: (One) As this analysis
indicates, U.S. citizens can become disgruntled when internet censorship laws
are enforced to their full extent. New government branches can be part of the
U.S. expense by opening a new branch leaving it to the citizens to pay for
expenses in their taxes. The U.S. government, in other words, may benefit from
showing more concern on the citizen’s safety by mentioning protection for the
children and anti-

terrorism.

Fig. 1. This Jonik
comic suggests that The U.S. Government uses “anti-terrorism” and “protect kids”
as the outer layer of controlling internet speech. (Jonik, 2011)

Additionally,
major internet companies disagree with the federal government’s regulations
assumption that internet censorship can reduce criminal activity. “Many state
governments in the United States have enacted open records law to support
freedom of information” (U.S. Department of Energy, 2013). Other experts argue
that internet freedom isn’t safe to national security. There have been a few
whistleblowers that leaked classified information to the public. The most
recent leak was in 2013; Edward Snowden, a former central intelligence agent
(CIA), leaked Nation Security Agency (NSA) classified information without
authorization. Snowden had to seek refuge in Hong Kong to avoid prosecution in
the United States. While in Hong Kong, Snowden publicly announced that he will
seek asylum in Iceland, because Iceland is known for free speech protections. Many
countries offered to take him in to their country because they saw Snowden’s
brave act heroic. When Snowden unexpectedly left Hong Kong and flew to Moscow, the
Russia Government decided to grant Snowden a temporarily asylum for one year. This
meant Snowden was safe from U.S. prosecutors, hoping that they can put him in
jail for espionage. “Depending on the jurisdiction that online users are in,
there could be some major consequences.” (XXXXXXX)

How
much censorship is deemed to be appropriate in defending national security
while still permitting adequate freedoms to reporters in support of the First
Amendment? (Ingle, 2007). The United States has a long history of protecting
the First Amendment; freedom of speech. What is considered inappropriate and
appropriate varies from country to country. According to Professor Derek
Bambauer from the Brooklyn Law School, he believes, “Internet freedom is a term that should be abandoned for now,
because in a real-world sense, it is too general to be useful.” (Bambauer,
2010)

What
would happen if the proposed bill, Net Neutrality passes? This would change the
U.S’s economics. Congress needs to protect the free internet while preserving
internet freedom.  It could open a new government
branch that will be funded as an expense, most likely citizens will have to pay
for more taxes to run that branch’s expenses. Economically speaking, this would
affect many small online business. Major companies would have an advantage to
faster internet content and charging for it will have its cost increase. Net
Neutrality can affect the way we use the tool for resources. “Former Google CEO
Eric Schimdt argued against it at the time, saying he was worried that
reclassification meant “starting to regulate an awful lot of things on the
internet.”

 

 

More than 70 countries
with government representation have approved similar freedom of information
legislation. (Jansen, 2013)

There
is political tension on internet freedom but it can conflict the requirements
of cyber security. Canada and _____ were accused of

Pro-government
commentators are paid to manipulate online discussions to influence the masses
in the direction that the government favors.