13 Sep 2012 | Uncategorized
Over two billion people across the globe now use the internet, improving access to debates, conversation and information online. Although the number of online users online in developing countries doubled between 2007 and 2011 there is still a huge divide in access to the Internet: only 20 per cent of households in developing countries are online, versus 70 per cent of households in developed ones. Although technological advances are making internet access cheaper, bridging the digital divide is a problem in both developed and developing countries.
“[E]nsuring universal access to the internet should be a priority for states” according to the UN’s Special Rapporteur on free expression. The UN now ranks digital access as a crucial part of securing the right to free expression.
One of the globe’s emerging economies, India, has a population of approximately 1.2 billion, and 121 million internet users. Of those 121 million people online, only 15 per cent of them are female. Most of those users are in India’s more prosperous cities. Internet access will increase as smart phones access continues to grow but that growth also relies on increased digital education and literacy.
The digital divide is a serious issue in developed countries too — where 30 per cent of people are not online.
While the United States has the second highest number of people online, there are millions of Americans who do not have access to the web — leaving them behind in debates, services, and information that are quickly moving online. According to a recent study, approximately 100 million Americans do not have access to high-speed internet. In rural parts of the United States, 19 million people cannot access high-speed internet because services are not provided in their areas.
The United Kingdom also has a high percentage of the population online — with an internet penetration percent age of 84.1 per cent. Digital access in the UK hinges on income, and whether or not the user is in a rural area. The Office for National Statistics estimates that there are 8.2 million adults who have never used the internet. Eight per cent of the lowest earners in the UK are not online.
The rise of smartphones is rapidly increasing the number of people online but there are still international challenges. Although internet access grew by 18 per cent in developing countries over the last year it has started to level off in developed ones. This means that even though improved and cheaper technology will definitely help diminish the digital gap, states should take steps towards, and helping their citizens get online.
Sara Yasin is an Editorial Assistant at Index on Censorship
10 Sep 2012 | Americas, Mexico
High-speed internet and modern telecommunications, which could be possible with broadband frequencies, have been caught in the middle of a political fight in Mexico. And there are signs their future could linger in court battles between the government and telecommunications companies. (more…)
19 Jul 2012 | Mexico
Last week Mexico’s ambassador to Japan signed the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The approval was deemed a scandal by Mexican media. The Agreement is not widely known in the country, but serious opposition is rising up from academic and human rights organisations. The end of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was cheered here, but nobody had any idea something like ACTA was coming along. (more…)
18 Jul 2012 | Digital Freedom, Leveson Inquiry
Max Mosley has some ambitious ideas for the internet.
Speaking briefly at the Leveson Inquiry today, the former motorsports boss outlined his plans for the future regulation of the British press, on which Leveson will make recommendations this autumn. Mosley recommended a Press Commission to succeed the PCC and create the rules in addition to a Tribunal with statutory underpinning that would enforce said rules. The latter would be able to impose injunctions, and give reasonable notice before publishing certain stories unless there is a strong public interest in not doing so.
Having a rummage through his written proposal (available here) it’s his ideas for the web that stand out the most.
Mosley’s notion of a Tribunal, which would deal with privacy, defamation, harassment and accuracy, would have authority over “the full internet (subject to the necessary legislation)”. In addition to other powers, this would include a power to “suspend an individual’s access to the internet” as well as the “authority to deal with any post on the internet, even from an individual”.
The idea that the internet is a space that cannot be controlled, Mosley says, is “nonsense”, adding that users should obey the laws of their own countries.
Among some of the other provisions his idea of a “UK internet statute” could perhaps contain are:
- service providers must know the identity and address of their clients. All social media must know the identity of each user and the identity of the user’s service provider. The IP address alone is not enough; (…)
- search engines available to UK internet users should remove from their search results on demand any material which a court or Tribunal has found unlawful. It would be a defence if in a particular case the search engine could demonstrate that this was not possible for technical reasons;
- social media and service providers should warn their clients of the need to obey the law and make compliance with the law a contractual term, particularly in relation to privacy, defamation and on-line harassment.
“Our regulator must have the ability to deal with the internet, right down to micro level. This will increasingly be where the problems lie,” Mosley writes.
Of course there are some problems with the ease with which we can now communicate. It is easier to spit vitriol at or about others (and land yourself in jail for doing so, as Swansea student Liam Stacey did earlier this year). Like many children, I was bullied at school and shudder to think how much more alienating it would have been if Facebook were around to take it past the hometime bell. We tweet as easily as we speak with little regard for legislation such as libel or contempt. In an extreme and deplorable case in May, the rape victim of footballer Ched Evans was outed on Twitter, though in English law rape victims are granted anonymity under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. And in a more recent development, Derbyshire police are now investigating allegedly racist comments made on Twitter about footballer Ashley Cole.
Mosley suggests “a network of adjudicators” in “every large city” would be well-placed to solve problems of online abuse quickly. Yet how does he propose we set the parameters of policing online content? To refer every single person who has posted something ranging from moronic to actually damaging on any manner of social network to his Tribunal is, frankly, impractical.
Of course, there’s context to this. Mosley was at the centre of a 2008 News of the World splash which falsely reported him taking part in a “sick Nazi orgy” with five prostitutes. He sued the now-defunct tabloid for breach of privacy in 2009, but in May 2011 lost his bid impose a legal duty of prior notification, with the European Court of Human Rights ruling that such a system would have a “chilling effect” on the press.
Nor is he a huge fan of search engines. He told the Inquiry last November that he had started taking legal action against Google in France and Germany. He said:
The fundamental thing is that Google could stop this appearing but they don’t or won’t as a matter of principle (…) The really dangerous things are the search engines.
To which Leveson replied: “That’s part of the problem.”
Marta Cooper is an editorial researcher at Index. She tweets at @martaruco
