Saturday, 31 December 2011The much debated internet filtering system, or safe internet, which appeared as access limiting packages for Turkey's internet users last month, continues to spark debate over questions of censorship, privacy and personal freedoms.
Under the new system, the family package has a "black list" of websites that cannot be reached when it is in use. The child package has a "white list", meaning that only websites predetermined by the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (BTK) can be accessed when that selection is in effect.
Critics of the system argue the state, and particularly BTK, which has no legal authority, is imposing its values and morals on society through control of the internet.
While the packages are voluntary, offered as safe internet when one applies for the service, Ozgur Uckan, a communications scholar at Bilgi University, says the customer is being deceived.
Reminding that there was talk of a standard package that was dropped after negative public reactions, Uckan argues that in practice the only thing that was changed is the name.
"The users who do not select one of these packages are included in an unnamed third package … technically, such a package has to exist. While BTK was imposing the central filter application to the service providers, it forced them to build a system under its own control," he says, essentially creating a system that can monitor all internet networks.
Uckan argues that BTK's actions are a threat to both the individual's privacy and freedom of expression, noting that the more than 40,000 websites already face censorship.
BTK has been able to determine internet controls with very little oversight or input by the public, leading to accusations of unaccountability.
"Since the BTK prepared this content behind closed doors, it gained an area for censoring every kind of content in an arbitrary way," Uckan said.
The NGO Alternative Information Technologies Association, of which Uckan is a member, has filed a case against BTK's practices at the Council of State, the country's highest administrative court.
However, Deniz Ergurel, general secretary of the Media Association, argues the new internet filters don't represent censorship because customers ultimately have a choice.
"If you want, you can limit access to websites in certain categories by choosing the family or child packages, or if you don't want it, you don't set any limits; it is that simple," he said.
"If it would be a mandatory practice, then we could call it a practice of censorship," Ergurel added, noting that people who do not make the choice have access to the internet the same way they did before November 22th, when the practice came into effect.
Still, Ergurel acknowledges many websites continue to be banned in accordance with Law 5651, which allows bans for "catalogue crimes" -- such as pornography, promoting suicide, drug use, separatism etc. -- and offences against Ataturk.
"In the end, the filtering practice is a practice founded according to this law. Therefore, the internet access that is called 'standard' in Turkey is subjected to certain rules and some controls," he concludes.
Even presenting the internet filter as safe is "an empty claim" says Professor Yasemin Inceoglu of the Communications Faculty of Galatasaray University.
Inceoglu says she does not believe the purpose is to protect children as claimed, but is rather an attempt to create monolithic people, adding that the way to raise moral and decent children is through education, not bans on the internet.
"We know that internet access, which is a right of communication, was recognised by the UN in 2011 as a basic human right. In this case, it is possible to say internet censorship is a violation of human rights," she adds.
In addition to the blocking of websites, issues of privacy and the reach of BTK are also of concern.
According to Esra Parlak, a lawyer, "Those who do not use a package, the ones who access proxy sites, and the ones who have access to the websites banned by court orders are all kept on record."
While it Parlak acknowledges BTK cannot practically follow each individual, this is not an excuse for a state agency to be able to keep records of the people while it is not within its authority. |
Saturday, 31 December 2011
SETimes
|
|
