3 ms·

Australia is marked as 'under surveillance' (together with Russia and Turkey if I'm reading the map right). I don't know what this is meant to be. Currently Au

Australia is marked as 'under surveillance' (together with Russia and Turkey if I'm reading the map right). I don't know what this is meant to be. Currently Australia does not have a mandatory filter (and given the political climate is unlikely to get one). Locally hosted sites which host material with high levels of sexual and violent content (which would be illegal under normal publication laws) can be given a takedown notice, but this is a paper tiger as the material can be moved to an overseas host. Australia has the normal range of laws against possession or distribution of material such as child pornography (and normal IP laws). I don't know of anything currently in law which would materially distinguish Australia from Europe or the US; and in comparison to Europe we have fewer restrictions on, for example, Nazi material.

rglovejoy 16y ago
They also have Venezuela marked as having no censorship. That has changed in recent years.
drdaeman 16y ago
In Russia ISPs are legally required to block access to "extremist" materials from the publicly available list (in Russian: http://www.minjust.ru/ru/activity/nko/fedspisok/ http://www.minjust.ru/ru/activity/nko/fedspisok/, most of entries are leaflets or books, but grep for "http" or "www"). The list is known to contain some technically-impossible-to-block entries so most ISPs probably resort to domain-level blocking by filtering DNS entries or filtering access by IP address. Some sort of gray area here. When ISP reach certain size, they also must set up a special device to allow Federal Security Service to sniff the network traffic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SORM#SORM-2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SORM#SORM-2) for law enforcement purposes. I've never seen such hardware, but contrary to anecdotal evidence, it's just a specialized passive packet sniffer, connected to mirrored port. Also, ISPs are required to keep access logs, and give them out on legal requests, but this is probably common virtually everywhere. Officially, that's all (unless I forgot something, but hopefully I didn't). I don't know whenever the level of "unofficial cooperation" were ever estimated, but I suspect it to be fairly average, compared to the rest of the world.

rglovejoy 16y ago

They also have Venezuela marked as having no censorship. That has changed in recent years.

drdaeman 16y ago

In Russia ISPs are legally required to block access to "extremist" materials from the publicly available list (in Russian: http://www.minjust.ru/ru/activity/nko/fedspisok/ http://www.minjust.ru/ru/activity/nko/fedspisok/, most of entries are leaflets or books, but grep for "http" or "www"). The list is known to contain some technically-impossible-to-block entries so most ISPs probably resort to domain-level blocking by filtering DNS entries or filtering access by IP address. Some sort of gray area here. When ISP reach certain size, they also must set up a special device to allow Federal Security Service to sniff the network traffic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SORM#SORM-2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SORM#SORM-2) for law enforcement purposes. I've never seen such hardware, but contrary to anecdotal evidence, it's just a specialized passive packet sniffer, connected to mirrored port. Also, ISPs are required to keep access logs, and give them out on legal requests, but this is probably common virtually everywhere. Officially, that's all (unless I forgot something, but hopefully I didn't). I don't know whenever the level of "unofficial cooperation" were ever estimated, but I suspect it to be fairly average, compared to the rest of the world.