Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
need for internet censorship
internet censorship
paper in internet censorship
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: need for internet censorship
Communications Decency Act: Regulation In Cyberspace
Being one of millions of surfers throughout the Internet, I see that
fundamental civil liberties are as important in cyberspace as they are in
traditional contexts. Cyberspace defined in Webster's Tenth Edition dictionary
is the on-line worlds of networks. The right to speak and publish using a
virtual pen has its roots in a long tradition dating back to the very founding
of democracy in this country. With the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications
Act, Congress has prepared to turn the Internet from one of the greatest
resources of cultural, social, and scientific information into the online
equivalent of a children's reading room. By invoking the overboard and vague
term “indecent” as the standard by which electronic communication should be
censored, Congress has insured that information providers seeking to avoid
criminal prosecution will close the gates on anything but the most tame
information and discussions.
The Communications Decency Act calls for two years of jail time for
anyone caught using “indecent” language over the net; as if reading profanities
online affects us more dramatically than reading them on paper. Our First
Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press....” The Act takes away this right. The Constitution-
defying traitors creating these useless laws do not they understand the medium
they're trying to control. What they “claim” is that they are trying to protect
our children from moral threatening content.
This “protect our helpless children” ideology is bogus. If more
government officials were more knowledgeable about online information they would
realize the huge flaw the Communication Decency Act contains. We don't need the
government to patrol fruitlessly on the Internet when parents can simply install
software like Net Nanny or Surf Watch. These programs block all “sensitive”
material from entering one's modem line. What's more, legislators have already
passed effective laws against obscenity and child pornography. We don't need a
redundant Act to accomplish what has already been written.
Over 17 million Web pages float throughout cyberspace. Never before has
information been so instant, and so global. And never before has our government
been so spooked by the potential power “little people” have at their fingertips.
Albanesius, C. (2013, April 13). Google Sees Spike in Government Requests to Remove Political Content. Retrieved from PCMagazine: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2418168,00.asp
ABSTRACT: Reno v. ACLU, the 1997 landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court providing sweeping protection to speech on the Internet, is usually discussed in terms of familiar First Amendment issues. Little noticed in the decision is the significance of the ontological assumptions of the justices in their first visit to cyberspace. I analyze the apparent awareness of the Supreme Court of ontological issues and problems with their approaches. I also argue that their current ontological assumptions have left open the door to future suppression of free speech as the technology progresses. Ontology is significant because zoning in the physical world has long been recognized as a way to segregate "adult" entertainment from minors. So far, at least, the justices seem to agree that such zoning is not possible in cyberspace, and therefore that adult zones for certain forms of expression are not possible. But this conclusion is far from settled. The degree of free speech on the Internet in the future will depend on whether or not our ontological understanding of cyberspace supports such zoning or renders it incoherent or impossible.
“The California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (CalECPA) protects Californians by requiring a warrant for digital records, including emails and texts, as well as a user's geographical location. These protections apply not only to your devices, but to online services that store your data. Only two other states have so far offered these protections: Maine and Utah.” Is your personal information safe? Do we really have our privacy? According to”Digital Responsibility,” The National Security Agency more know as (NSA) is an organization that global monitoring, collection, and processing of information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes.Citizen believe that their digital information is being collecting by the
Americans pride themselves on living private lives. They appreciate the fact that they live without being under the watchful eye of someone. However, increased electronic technology has made it harder to live privately. There are privacy issues regarding Internet Service Providers (ISP), electronic correspondences, and telephone calls. More directly with the creation and increased popularity of the Internet, people who use the World Wide Web are undoubtedly concerned with their private information being leaked. The technology allows people to track your Internet activities, steal your credit card information and “hack” into your e-mail accounts. With this increase in technology comes an increase in the level of concern.
Millions of people all around the world are using Smartphones, like iPhones, which turns out to be crucial part of our lives. We are using them not only for calling but we also store unbelievably huge amount of personal information. We have there all our contacts, calls and messages and all our pictures that we save and keep in the phones. A
people’s lives. Hackers are not only threatening people’s own cyber security and privacy but also the United States’ economy, security and all citizens’ lives. On mid-November 2011, Russian hackers failed to attack a water plant in Illinois (Nakashima).Therefore, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 was made. The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 is “a bill to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States” (“S.2015”)The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 was the battle between the national security and personal privacy.In this paper I will lay out three different position people take on the issue about The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 .
Kids from the ages 10-17 who use the internet are exposed to very graphic sexual content (Gonzales). Essentially, every inappropriate picture or video you see of a child had a horrific story to go along with it. “They are images of graphic sexual and physical abuse-rape, sodomy and forced oral sex-of innocent children, sometimes even babies.” Said Gonzales. With technology improving, it is harder to do have consequences for people who commit a crime; they could clean out their hard drive and never be caught. Therefore, there should be stricter federal restrictions for the content on the Internet because of cybercriminals, internet pedophiles, and cyber bullying. (Gonzales)
In the wake of September 11, many things happened very quickly. Along with the beginning of a '"'war'"' against terrorism, an act was passed to help prevent future terrorism in the USA. The name of this is the USA Patriot Act. The act legalizes many surveillance techniques that were once prohibited. The act has been passed without debate, and the new privileges given to our government have not been thoroughly examined. The law enforcers of our country are now capable of monitoring the citizens in ways most people are not aware of. Some of the surveillance laws are self-terminating after four years, but many of the more important laws are permanent. What will these new surveillance laws be used for after the war on terrorism is over? Lee Tien, the Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney, suggests that the new rights can be used to put America into a '"'police state'"'. There is a need for checks and balances in the USA Patriot Act to protect the American citizens.
The internet can be a very disturbing thing for many people. There are a lot of things on the internet that kids should not be able to view. But for some reasons kids are able to view these things. I believe that the government should step in and help with the censorship of the internet. People are but should not be able to view anything on the internet if they are under the recommended viewing age.
Internet a bad name. There is also information on the Net that could be harmful
The internet has been one of the most influential technological advancements of the twenty-first century. It is in millions of homes, schools, and workplaces. The internet offers not only a way of communicating with people around the world, but also a link to information, shopping, chatting, searching, and maps. This freedom to be anyone and to "go" anywhere right from the comfort of home has become a cherished item. However, there is always a down side to every up. Because of the freedom to post anything and access anything on the internet, the issue of regulation has arisen; for example, what should and should not be allowed on the internet? Who has the right to regulate this space that we cherish for its freedom?
The government has passed some laws which are intended to protect children on the internet. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) are to give protection for children who are accessing the internet. There are requirements and protective information for both COPPA and CIPA. Both acts are similar and different in ways to protect children but needed to be done with two acts. There are challenging elements with the COPPA and CIPA to implement in order to be compliant with the acts. There are reasons for the acts to define protection for different age groups such as COPPA defines a child under 13 and CIPA is under 17. When COPPA and CIPA was made into law, there were people who were for the acts but there were also people who opposed the acts.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was enacted in 1986 to revise federal wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping provisions. It promotes the legitimate needs for law enforcement and most significantly, the privacy expectations of citizens. ECPA created the Stored Communications Act( SAC), which has created controversy in criminal cases where electronic communications have been present. Usually, in a case where electronic communications happened, one of the court's main task is to determine whether the crime violated the ECPA or the SCA. The case I will present next is a sample of the holding of a judge in a case where both of the acts became contradiction towards the final decision of the case.
Internet regulation is basically restricting or controlling access to certain aspects or information. Internet regulation consists of mainly two categories: Censorship of data, and controlling aspects of the Internet.
Today, society is affected by the many advances in technology. These advances affect almost every person in the world. One of the prevalent advances in technology was the invention and mass use of the Internet. Today more than ever, people around the world use the Internet to support their personal and business tasks on a daily basis. The Internet is a portal into vast amounts of information concerning almost every aspect of life including education, business, politics, entertainment, social networking, and world security. (idebate.com) Although the Internet has become a key resource in developing the world, the mass use of Internet has highlighted a major problem, privacy and the protection of individual, corporate, and even government security . The argument over whether or not the Internet should be controlled by the government has developed into a controversial issue in almost every country in the world.