Internet freedom and development.A qualitative study of internet freedom and Sweden’s global importance with respect to internet freedom issues.

Internet freedom and development.A qualıtatıve study of ınternet freedom and Sweden’s global ımportance wıth respect to ınternet freedom ıssues.

The Swedish Institute & United Minds, 2013

2

Table of contents.

The report in brief 3

Foreword 4

Internet freedom and development – an issue that concerns Sweden 5

Aims & methodology 6

Aims 6 Definition of topic 6 Methodology 6 Selection of countries 6 Selection of respondents and the conduct of interviews 6 People interviewed 7

Summary 8

The impact of the internet 8 Internet freedom in different countries – an overview of knowledge 8 OpenNet Initiative – internet filtering in selected countries 9 The countries studied 10 Egypt 10 India 10 China 11 Pakistan 11 Russia 12 US 12 Country comparison 12 The view of internet censorship 13

The internet as a channel of influence 17

New phenomenon with great potential 17 What topics can be discussed 17 What advocacy work is being carried out today 18

The view of Sweden and internet freedom 21

An unknown role model 21 Not as polarising as the US 21 Finland a role model for Russia 21 Sweden and WikiLeaks 22 Sweden a positive surprise 22

The countries’ needs and Sweden’s importance 23

Encouraging increased internet use 23 Training internet users, journalists and activists 23 Countering censorship and the blocking of websites 23 Protecting individuals and countering surveillance 24 Legal assistance 24 Exchanges with internet activists 24 Information in other languages 25 Encouraging international dialogue 25 Taking advantage of existing projects 25 Raising the profile of Sweden and the Nordic countries 25

Conclusions and recommendations 26

Our involvement is desired 26 Sweden can raise its profile 26 The internet is a superior channel 26 Working together makes us stronger 27

Appendix 28

Links to organisations and individuals that monitor internet freedom in different parts of the world 28

Egypt 29 India 32 China 35 Pakistan 38 Russia 41 US 44

3

The report ın brıef.

The present study examines internet freedom and develop-ment in six selected countries: Egypt, India, China, Pakistan, Russia and the US. These countries were chosen because they have numerous internet users and because in some respects they set precedents in terms of restricting online privacy and freedom of expression.

The study is based on a research review of existing reports on internet freedom and on in-depth interviews with se-lected experts and internet activists in the six countries concerned.

The internet has helped enhance freedom of expression by extending access to information and significantly widen-ing the scope for citizens to express their views. At the same time, however, there is a tendency for regimes to attempt to gain control of this open arena for the dissemination of in-formation and the exchange of ideas – which the internet partly represents – through censorship, surveillance, restrictive laws, filtering and other methods.

Sweden has a strong tradition of freedom of expression and transparency and is also one of the most mature countries in the world with respect to information and communica-tion technology (ICT). Internet freedom is a priority issue in Swedish foreign policy. However, this study indicates that

Sweden’s position on issues regarding internet freedom and development is neither widely known nor recognised.

It is clear that Sweden needs to raise its profile and intensify its strategic communication efforts around these issues.

The assistance the respondents in the study are seeking in-cludes training for internet users and constructive examples illustrating the advantages of a free, uncensored internet. A further measure would be the provision of technical equip-ment able to reduce the risk of surveillance and protect the identity of internet users.

The internet is an important means of influence in all the countries studied. According to the respondents, it can, with some exceptions, be used to discuss issues involving human rights, development and the fight against poverty, innovation and security.

The study provides a basis for the further development of the Swedish Institute’s activities as well as for communicat-ing Swedish efforts around issues involving internet free-dom and security. Sweden’s influence can be exercised via a number of channels. Among the Swedish Institute’s major – and vital – tasks is to facilitate this and encourage stake-holder collaboration.

4

Foreword.

Sweden’s importance at international level is contingent on three factors:

First: The world’s needs. What are the critical issues?

Second: Our comparative advantages. In what areas can we provide know-how?

Third: A common language. Is there a shared view of the challenges and opportunities?

Where Sweden’s experience matches the needs of the world and common ground is found in dialogue, conditions are conducive to development both in Sweden and in other countries.

Internet freedom and development incorporate all three factors.

Sweden has been a pioneer in creating conditions for a connected country thanks to a well-developed infrastruc-ture and nationwide investment in digitalisation. Access to high-speed internet in practically all parts of the country and for all segments of the population has ensured high fig-ures for internet use, transparency and innovation by inter-national standards. Sweden thus enjoys extensive experi-ence in terms of the scope and importance of the internet in public discourse, innovation and social and economic

development. This, combined with Sweden’s long-standing tradition of freedom of expression, provides a fitting foun-dation for active international engagement in these issues.

Internet freedom ranks high on the world’s agenda. Recent years have shown the dynamic potential of digital commu-nication. And with a young generation actively establishing contacts globally, bridging national borders and cultural differences, we are witnessing the creation of a shared view of challenges and opportunities – a new, common dialogue.

For the Swedish Institute (SI), internet freedom and digital communication clearly form part of the broad narrative of our country. Understanding and working on these issues is an important element in developing lasting relations built on trust with future opinion formers and decision-makers in developing countries and emerging economies. Finally, it is a way for individuals and institutions in our partner coun-tries to develop competence, know-how and cooperation.

The purpose of this study, undertaken in collaboration with United Minds at the request of the SI, is to enhance and dis-seminate knowledge of these issues and lay the groundwork for developing activities, both by SI employees and other Swedes engaged in this area. The study raises a number of potential issues, on which the SI looks forward to continued collaboration with Sweden’s Missions Abroad, other public sector bodies, civil society and the business community.

Annika Rembe,

Director-General, Swedish Institute

5

Internet freedom and development – an ıssue of concern to Sweden.

In just a few decades, the internet has completely changed the world. It has dramatically increased people’s opportu-nities to obtain knowledge, voice opinions, and exchange ideas – including across national borders – all at a hitherto unprecedented speed. The effect has been to confer poten-tial political power on anyone with internet access.

The shifts in power that have taken place across the globe as a result of increased internet access are a pivotal issue for organisations and individuals that work to bring about change in government, business and civil society. It may seem obvious enough to us that freedom of expression is desirable and indeed essential in a democratic society and that no further justification is needed. Testing differing views against one another is beneficial to the development of society. Free access to information and the free exchange of views promote innovation and democratic development.

But for rulers in some countries, the free arena for the ex-change of ideas that internet freedom allows poses a grow-ing threat. Serious efforts are therefore being made to re-strict internet freedom. This is an alarming development, especially in view of the increasing difficulty in distinguish-ing between ‘digital’ and ‘analogue’ spheres.

This study examines six countries from the perspective of internet freedom, to what extent they allow the free flow of information and ideas online and respect user privacy. The countries were chosen in part because they are large and strategically important for internet freedom. In some respects, they can set trends for other countries in terms of restricting privacy and freedom of expression online.

There are a number of organisations and individuals that seek to promote internet freedom in the countries studied. The conditions for promoting internet freedom in these countries vary, depending on the status of civil society and the independence of the business community vis-à-vis the state. In most cases, however, authorities attempt to control and curtail freedom of expression through restrictive laws and other methods.

Internet freedom and development are a priority issue in Swedish foreign, development and trade policy. This is natural given Sweden’s strong tradition of transparency, freedom of expression and innovation, some of the corner-stones of what we call the Swedish social model.

Today the internet is a vital tool in virtually all work involv-ing international relations and policy. This is particularly true of priority issues for Sweden, such as human rights, development, the fight against poverty, innovation and security.

One aim of this report is to facilitate a greater understand-ing of Sweden’s importance globally to internet freedom issues. Some key findings from our work are that Sweden’s involvement is widely desired and that we as a country need to raise our profile. People who are fighting for internet freedom and development around the world need to know that they have our support.

Javeria Rizvi Kabani (SI)

Jonas Hellman (United Minds)

6

Aıms & methodology.

Aims

This study is intended to provide a description of internet freedom in a selection of countries and of the conditions necessary to enhance this freedom. It identifies needs in the context of internet freedom in the six countries con-cerned and discusses Sweden’s significance in this regard. The report provides an analytical basis for the develop-ment of SI activities and efforts to enhance Sweden’s image abroad, with particular focus on human rights, develop-ment and the fight against poverty, innovation and security.

Definition

Internet freedom is defined as the free flow of information and ideas online – freedom of expression and the absence of censorship, and respect for the privacy of individuals.

Methodology

The study is based on a research review of existing reports on internet freedom, plus qualitative, in-depth interviews with people with extensive knowledge about internet free-dom in the selected countries.

Selection of countries

The six countries chosen for this study are all relevant from the perspective of internet freedom. The three countries in the world with the most internet users overall are China, the US and India. Russia also has a relatively large internet population. Egypt and Pakistan are both sizeable countries, where issues involving internet freedoms have recently been the subject of extensive discussion.

Five of the six countries chosen are among those accorded geographic priority by the Swedish Foreign Ministry as part of its promotion of Sweden.

Pakistan, the only exception, is nonetheless interesting from the standpoint of internet freedom. Although the US is not comparable to the other countries in this regard, it has been included as a reference country since it is often mentioned in discussions of issues involving freedom of expression online.

Selection of respondents and conduct of interviews

Three experts were chosen as respondents from each of the priority countries. The aim in selecting the interviewees was to ensure an accurate, broad, up-to-date picture of internet freedom in the countries concerned. A total of 18 qualitative interviews were conducted on Skype in the period February-April 2013. These semi-structured in-terviews were based on a number of prepared questions. As the respondents were encouraged to give open-ended answers, these varied in length, depending on their interest and level of knowledge.

On average, each interview lasted 60 minutes. In some cases, these were later supplemented with additional questions in order to clear up any uncertainties and provide a more complete picture. Five of the people interviewed were blog-gers and internet activists, five worked for organisations concerned with internet freedom, three were employed in other non-governmental organisations (NGOs), two were academics, two were journalists and one was an IT entre-preneur.

The questions fell into the following general areas: 1) the in-ternet and social development, 2) the internet and privacy, 3) the internet and freedom of expression, 4) the impact of the work of NGOs, and 5) Sweden and internet freedom.

In China, all the respondents chose to remain anonymous so that they could speak freely. One of the Russian inter-viewees also chose to remain anonymous for the same rea-son. All the interviews were conducted in English.

7

People interviewed

Pakistan

Murtaza Zaidi, IT entrepreneur, www.cybervision.com.pk

Shahzad Ahmad, Bytes for All, www.content.bytesforall.pk

Sana Saleem, blogger and internet freedom activist, www.sanasaleem.com

US

Alan Rosenblatt, Internet Advocacy Roundtable, www.internetadvocacycenter.com/education/roundtable.html

Josh Levy, Free Press, www.freepress.net

Jillian York, Electronic Frontier Foundation, www.eff.org

India

Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet & Society, www.cis-india.org

Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy Project and blogger, www.internetdemocracy.in, www.twitter.com/anjakovacs

Alok Dixit, Save Your Voice, activist, www.saveyourvoice.in

Egypt

Nadine Sherif, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, www.cihrs.org

Nasry Esmat, journalist, www.twitter.com/nasry

Ramy Raoof, blogger and activist, ebfhr.blogspot.com

Russia

Oksana Chelysheva, journalist and activist, www.mirror_wolfe.livejournal.com

Ilya Stechkin, Moscow State University, www.moscowstate.academia.edu/IlyaStechkin

Anonymous, NGO

China

Anonymous, NGO

Anonymous, blogger

Anonymous, researcher

8

Summary.

The impact of the internet

The number of internet users around the world is growing rapidly. According to statistics produced by the Interna-tional Telecommunication Union (ITU), internet users now make up almost a third of the global population. The rise in the number of users is largely taking place in non-Western countries. China is the country with the highest number of users overall, followed by the US and India.

Information and communication technology (ICT) is a col-lective term for the opportunities created by advances in data technology and telecommunication. The increase in internet use is a result of ICT development, and growing numbers of people now have internet access via their mo-bile phones.

As is well known, the internet has greatly expanded access to information and made it easier for people to commu-nicate with one another. This not only involves text mes-sages but also, increasingly, images, music and videos. The internet has immense potential impact, not merely on social and economic development but also in the political sphere. Transparency and freedom of expression are growing; as a result old power structures are being challenged and new ones are coming into being.

During the 2011 ‘Arab Spring’, the internet helped topple un-popular regimes in Tunisia and Egypt.1 In Egypt the Mubarak regime tried to shut down the internet to prevent protests from spreading. This authoritarian strategy did not work.

It is clear that the internet can contribute to advances in de-mocracy and greater freedom of expression, which explains why today ICT is regarded as a strategic tool in Swedish development cooperation. Gaining an overview of internet freedom in different countries, in addition to an under-standing of the extent to which the internet can be used as a tool to influence issues is thus a priority for Sweden. How-ever, traditional media still play a crucial role in advocacy work in the spheres of information and opinion formation.

1 Philip N Howard m fl (2011), Opening Closed Regimes. What was the Role of Social Media During the Arab Spring?, Project on Information Technology and Political Islam, University of Washington

Internet freedom in different countries – a knowledge overview

A growing number of organisations and individuals active-ly monitor internet freedom in different countries. Most of these are based in the US, but their number elsewhere is on the increase. This monitoring involves a range of approaches. Some actors focus on human rights and view the internet as an important instrument for freedom of expression. One of the most well-established organisations using this approach is Freedom House, headquartered outside Boston in the US.

For the past two years, Freedom House has published detailed reports on ‘freedom on the net’, classifying different countries into three broad categories: Free, Partly Free or Not Free.

The 2012 report noted that many countries have taken meas-ures to restrict internet freedom. The methods of control used have become increasingly sophisticated and harder to detect. Unfortunately, there are also many examples of politically motivated internet surveillance, brutal attacks intended to silence bloggers and activists, proactive manipu-lation of web content and the introduction of restrictive laws regulating freedom of expression online.

According to Freedom House, China is a trendsetter in terms of attempting to control the internet. A growing num-ber of countries are following in China’s footsteps and try-ing to imitate the apparently successful methods used by the Chinese state.

The NGO Reporters Without Borders publishes an annual overview of attempts by countries to control the internet. In its 2013 special edition on surveillance, five countries were identified as ‘state enemies’ of the internet: Bahrain, Iran, China, Syria and Vietnam. These five were highlighted by the organisation because they are involved in “active, intru-sive surveillance of news providers, resulting in grave viola-tions of freedom of information and human rights”.

Regarding China, Reporters Without Borders writes that the Chinese Communist Party runs “one of the biggest digital empires, if not the biggest”. In China, all ICT infrastructure is controlled by the Chinese state, and anyone wanting an in-ternet connection has to rent broadband access from a state-owned company. The tools put in place by the Chinese state

9

to filter and monitor the internet are collectively known as the Great Firewall of China.

China jails more people involved in news and information than any other country. In early 2103, 30 journalists and 69 internet activists in China were in prison, according to the organisation.

OpenNet Initiative – internet filtering in selected countrie

Some organisations have adopted a more technical approach and monitor the types of information different countries

filter out online, or the technical tools they use to carry out censorship and surveillance. Among these is the OpenNet Initiative (ONI), whose activities include identifying coun-tries where social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) are com-pletely or partially blocked. ONI’s monitoring shows, among other things, that four of the countries examined in this study – China, Pakistan, India and Russia – filter the internet to control some information. However, there are significant de-grees of variation among countries, as shown in Figure 1.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), an organisa-tion headquartered in San Francisco in the US, adopts a more legalistic approach. EFF uses law as an instrument to defend an open, free internet. Among the respondents in-terviewed by United Minds in order to gather data for this

Figure 1. Filtering of information online in the countries investigated according to ONI (2012).

Political issues Social issues Conflict/security Internet tools, e.g. social media

Egypt

India

China

Pakistan

Russia

US

1)

2)

No evidence of filtering

Substantial filtering

Selective filtering

1) Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc. blocked2) YouTube periodically blocked

10

study, was Jillian York, Director of International Freedom of Expression. She ranked the six countries in the study, on the basis of restrictions on internet freedom, as follows: 1) China, 2) Pakistan, 3) India, 4) Russia, 5) Egypt, 6) the US.

A good deal is known about the level of internet freedom in different countries and the methods authorities use to re-strict the spread of information online. Although methods of curtailing freedom online are always evolving, closer moni-toring of countries attempting to restrict internet freedom is also taking place.

Although attention is focused particularly on countries with the greatest restrictions on internet freedom – espe-cially China – there is detailed information available on most countries in terms of internet use and what restric-tions are involved. A more extensive list of organisations and individuals engaged in monitoring internet freedom in different countries may be found in the Appendix.

This report’s main contributions to existing research work are to provide an understanding of how the countries con-cerned view internet freedom, the role of the rest of the world in internet freedom issues, what Sweden can do to en-courage advances, and in what issues the internet serves as a channel of influence in the various countries.

The countries studied

Six countries, all relevant from the standpoint of internet freedom, were studied. Interviews were conducted with three respondents from each country, selected on the ba-sis of their in-depth knowledge of internet freedom and its development in their respective country. More detailed findings regarding the countries are available through the Swedish Institute. Below is a brief summary of the state of affairs with regard to internet freedom in the countries examined.

Egypt

Up until January 2011, Egypt only blocked a few websites. Expanding the ICT infrastructure had been part of the Mubarak regime’s strategy to generate growth and create

new jobs. According to Freedom House (2012), the regime spied on the opposition and spread propaganda online, but there was no extensive internet censorship.

The role the internet played in the fall of the Mubarak re-gime led to a sharp increase in interest in social media.

“Before the revolution, the security forces used to monitor what activists did online. What’s stopping them today is that they don’t have enough capacity; they are busy with other problems.”

Nasry Esmat, Egypt

Over ten million Facebook accounts were registered in Egypt in late 2011, placing it among the top twenty countries with the largest number of Facebook users. The internet is an increasingly important channel for news in Egypt, and 87 per cent of the population regard it as important to have a free in-ternet with no censorship (Pew Research Center, 2012).

After the revolution, the security forces kept existing surveil-lance equipment in place and continued to monitor people they suspected. This led to more activists and bloggers being threatened, assaulted and put on trial in 2011 and 2012 for al-legedly disturbing the peace.

The journalist Nasry Esmat stated that the security forces before the revolution usually monitored what activists did online. “What’s stopping them today is that they don’t have enough capacity; they are busy with other problems.”

Blogger and activist Ramy Raoof: “The government likes to gather all kinds of information it can collect, whether there is or isn’t reason. But they don’t exercise censorship in the sense that they block websites and make them inaccessible – we haven’t seen that.”

India

India is the largest democracy in the world. Though public discourse is lively in many respects, this does not preclude those governing the country from trying to restrict freedom of expression online, and laws have been introduced to al-low arbitrary internet censorship. India is the only country in the study where laws make it easier to practise censorship online than in traditional media.

11

In the respondents’ view, India’s laws are regrettable from the standpoints of internet freedom and legal security. Ac-cording to Jillian York of EEC, this, combined with other attempts to restrict freedom of expression, means that in-ternet freedom is in a weaker state in India than in coun-tries like Russia and Egypt.

“Censorship has been used as an instrument against social and religious conflicts. Freedom of expression is restricted for some groups by prohib-iting them from speaking ill of one another.”

Anja Kovacs, India

A number of organisations in India are working to expand online freedom of expression. Despite a general belief in India that freedom of expression is desirable, people are traditionally more accepting of censorship than in the West. Censorship is used in part as an instrument to defuse re-ligious and social conflicts. However, the people United Minds interviewed in India do not agree that restrictions on freedom of expression are warranted.

China

China is the country with the most advanced system for in-ternet censorship and surveillance. Despite over 500 million internet users – more than any other country – the regime has succeeded in maintaining strict control over the flow of information. In 2013, Reporters Without Borders identified China as a ‘state enemy of the internet’, based on the online surveillance carried out by the state.

In practice, online freedom of expression in China is very restricted, especially on political issues. One of the people United Minds interviewed in China – a blogger – reported that he was visited ten times by the police for something he had written online.

“They order you to delete what you have written, and if you don’t do it, they’ll shut down your web-site. They can threaten you by saying your family will be harmed or that you’ll lose your job.”

Anonymous, China

Self-censorship is an important factor in the system. The risk of sanction deters people from discussing sensitive is-

sues. The interviewees nevertheless maintain that the sur-veillance system is not comprehensive. It is not possible in practice to monitor everything said online. On the whole, the internet has contributed to greater freedom of expres-sion in China as the limits to what people are permitted to say are constantly stretched. Access to information has increased dramatically, and 93 per cent of Chinese consider that the authorities have an obligation to guarantee free-dom of expression online (Internet Society, 2012).

According to the respondents, Chinese people are used to censorship; most are not very concerned about what they are permitted to say. They care more about what music they can listen to, what films they are allowed to see and what products they can buy. The interviewees believe there is a greater likelihood of dissatisfaction being expressed in these areas than of protests over their not being allowed to criticise the regime.

Pakistan

Pakistan is not a stable democracy and respect for free-dom of expression is limited. In recent years, the Pakistani authorities have employed increasingly drastic methods to control the flow of information via mobile phones and other new technologies. According to Freedom House, internet freedom has deteriorated alarmingly since 2011.

“Those holding power in Pakistan say they are in favour of freedom online – with the exceptions of pornography and blasphemy. But what is blasphe-my – who decides? Blasphemy is often used as a pretence to exercise censorship.”

Sana Saleem, Pakistan

According to Sana Saleem, a writer and internet activist, this development is connected in part to the on-going con-flict in the Pakistani province of Baluchistan. On several occasions, the authorities have completely shut down mo-bile traffic in Baluchistan in order to cut off communication with the outside world.

The Pakistani government has plans to install advanced technology to create a national internet firewall on the Chinese model. The proposal has drawn intense criticism, which has so far deterred its implementation.

Summary

12

Otherwise, there is popular support in the country for censo r -ing web content considered blasphemous, anti-Islamic, porno-graphic or regarded as a threat to the country’s security. Only 39 per cent of the Pakistani population think the internet should be free from state censorship (Pew Research Center, 2012).

The penalties for saying something illegal can be draconian. Blasphemy carries the death penalty, and there are instances of its application to citizens charged with blaspheming Islam in a text message.

Russia

In Russia today, the internet is the most important source of news, especially for younger people. One contributing factor is that other media are censored and the internet is essentially the only option for people who want to access in-dependent information.

The Russian government is attempting to find legislative means to step up internet control in order to eliminate un-comfortable criticism. Legislation has been proposed that would allow websites to be shut down without a court order. Such legislation is officially intended to protect children against extremism and other aggressive web content. But critics argue that this is simply a pretence,

“The level of censorship in Russia is really high. All newspapers are more or less censored, making the internet the only news channel.”

Oksana Chelysheva, Russia

Those monitoring developments in Russia think internet freedom there has also declined in recent years. The num-ber of websites blacklisted has risen and there are cases of bloggers running into trouble, often in connection with rev-elations of corruption or other abuses of power.

“If you criticize powerful people, anything can happen, especially if you interfere with their business interests,” said Ilya Stechkin of Moscow State University.

Despite Russia’s weak democratic tradition, support for freedom of expression is basically strong, and 70 per cent are opposed to state censorship of the internet (Pew Research Center, 2012).

US

Although the US cannot really be compared to the five other nations examined by United Minds in this study, it is included as a reference country. The US has expressed am-bitions in the area of internet freedom, and the country’s former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has delivered a series of speeches on what can be done to increase internet freedom around the world.

Many of the people interviewed for this study (including those outside the US) refer to Hillary Clinton’s speeches on internet freedom. They argue that she – and thus Americans – were the first to coin the expression ‘internet freedom’.

“Sweden has a good government policy to make af-fordable and open internet accessible to everyone.”

Josh Levy, US

The Americans interviewed argued that the internet in the US is free. “What do get censored on the internet in the US are basically two things – child pornography and things re-lated to terrorism,” said Josh Levy of Free Press.

The US government does not generally prosecute individu-als for content they publish online if it does not involve child pornography or copyright infringement. There are ex-amples of police in the US monitoring websites in order to track people suspected of involvement in certain activities. One example is police in New York spying on Muslim stu-dents in the US for a number of years by monitoring blogs, websites and chat forums aimed specifically at this target group.

Some 78 per cent of people in the US have internet access, much higher than in the five other countries studied, but lower than in IT mature countries in Europe such as Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands.

Country comparison

As indicated in the overview, the six countries differ in a number of respects. Figure 2 below provides a general com-parison of attributes such as internet access, internet free-

13

dom and the relationship between freedom in the analogue world and the digital sphere.

The countries all have large populations; even where the level of internet access is low, the absolute number of inter-net users is high. Pakistan, with 184 million inhabitants, is the sixth largest country in the world in population terms. Even at its current low level of internet access (nine per cent) this amounts to over 15 million internet users. Moreover, in countries with a young population – such as Pakistan – con-ditions favour a rapid rise in the number of internet users.

With 80 million inhabitants, Egypt is the smallest country in the study. However, it is still the third largest country in Africa, after Nigeria and Ethiopia. Despite its low GDP per capita, Egypt en-joys a comparatively high level of internet access – 39 per cent. The key part played by the internet in the events leading up to the overthrow of the Mubarak government gave it consider-able status and a prominent position as a news channel.

In every country in the study except the US, the internet still reaches less than half the population. However, it has a con-siderably broader reach among more highly educated people and city dwellers. Internet access is significantly higher in Russia, Egypt and China than in India and Pakistan.

China is the only one-party state in the study. Political elec-tions in which different parties compete for power are held in all the other countries. The US and India are stable de-mocracies, whereas Russia, Egypt and Pakistan have weak-er traditions in that respect.

Familiarity with Sweden in the countries studied is not par-ticularly great, due in part to geographical distance. In Russia – with the highest degree of familiarity with Sweden – Sweden ranks 23rd out of 50 comparable countries in the 2011 Nation Brands Index (NBI). The country with the lowest degree of familiarity with Sweden is India, where Sweden ranks 39th out of 50 comparable countries (see figure on page 15).

Freedom House has ranked the internet in the six countries as follows: China and Pakistan: Not Free; Egypt, Russia and India: Partly Free; the US: Free. These ratings are in line with the more detailed responses provided by inter-viewees to the question of how they view internet freedom in their own countries.

The view in most of these countries is that there is greater freedom online than offline. In some ways, India is the ex-ception, since laws make it easier for authorities to censor the internet relative to other media. In general, however, the internet has facilitated wider access to information and extended the limits of what can be said and what issues can be discussed.

There is a clear correlation between the degree of inter-net freedom in a country and that country’s democratic development, i.e. a correlation between freedom in the digital and analogue world respectively. The least demo-cratic country, China, is also the country where authorities exercise the most stringent internet control. Authoritarian regimes are characterised by their attempts to silence crit-ics, including online critics. However, the fact that a country votes for its leaders in democratic elections is no guarantee of freedom from censorship. India is a democracy but has nonetheless introduced laws allowing arbitrary internet censorship. Although Pakistan ranks second behind China among the countries in this study, with the lowest level of internet freedom, it is more democratic than Egypt and Russia, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2012 Index of Democracy.

Views on internet censorship

Many of the people interviewed in this study affirm that there is political support in their country for some internet censorship. Their understanding is that those in power use phenomena like child pornography, blasphemy against Is-lam and persecution of ethnic groups as a pretence to intro-duce laws restricting freedom of expression online.

However, opinion polls show that if the question is asked from a different angle, most people will maintain that free-dom of expression online is desirable and important. Only in one of the countries studied – Pakistan – do a majority think it is good to have state internet censorship.

As Figure 2 shows, a large majority of inhabitants in four of these countries responded that the internet has improved their lives. This question was not asked in the other two countries, Egypt and Pakistan.

Summary

14

Figure 2. General comparison of the countries in the study.

Number of inhabitants: millions

Per cent of the population with internet access (2011, according to ITU),%

GDP per inhabitant (PPP), World Bank, 2011, $

$ 3,650

GDP

9%

49%

$ 2,745

$ 8,400

GDP

GDP

$ 21,921

GDP

Pakistan

78%

315

$ 48,112

GDP

US

Russia

39%

$ 6,281

GDP

Egypt

India

China

10%

Number of inhabitants: millions – 1,200

Number of inhabitants: millions – 1,300

Per cent of the population with

internet access – 38%

184

80

143

15

#141 – China(3.14)

#115 – Egypt(3.95)

#105 – Pakistan(4.55)

#39 – India(7.30)

#19 – US(8.1)

#117 – Russia(3.92)

Authoritarian regime

Authoritarian regime Full democracy

Authoritarian regimeAuthoritarian regime

Hybrid regime

Flawed democracy

Full democracy

Sweden’s image according to the NBI, 2011

Internet freedom according to Freedom House, 2012

Internet freedom according to the people interviewed

Relation between freedom in the analogue world and in the digital sphere

Egypt 29

Continued surveillance of activists and bloggers

Greater freedom online than offline

India 39

Laws allow arbitrary internet censorship

Less freedom online than offline

China 29 Extensive surveillance and internet censorship

Greater freedom online than offline

Pakistan Not calculated

Risk of increased surveillance and internet censorship – extreme penalty for blasphemy against Islam

Greater freedom online than offline

Russia 23

Attempts to increase surveillance and internet censorship of critics of regime

Greater freedom online than offline

US 31

Free – surveillance linked to the war against terrorism Same level of freedom

Summary

Sources:Nation Brands Index (NBI) 2011, an index that annually measures how a large number of individuals evaluate different countries based on aspects such as culture, governance, and economy and business environment.

Freedom House, 2012 (see page 8).

Free Partly free Not free

Countries ranked according to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy 2012

Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2012

16

Figure 3. The view of freedom of expression in the countries studied according to opinion polls.

It is important to have access to the internet without government censorship (Pew Research 2012)

Egypt

India

China

Pakistan

Russia

US

Access to the internet should be a basic human right (Internet Society 2012)

Egypt

India

China

Pakistan

Russia

US

My life has improved due to using the internet (Internet Society 2012)

Egypt

India

China

Pakistan

Russia

US

87%

88%

88%

94%

88%

85%

78%

77%

93%

% who are of that opinion

Question not asked in the country

39%

70%

17

The ınternet as a channel of ınfluence.

New phenomenon with great potential

The number of internet users is rapidly growing in the countries studied. In five of the countries investigated, ac-cess to the internet is still limited to parts of the population. Television is generally the medium that reaches the greatest number of people and has the greatest impact, but it is also the medium subject to the most government control and censorship. In most cases, newspapers and radio are more tightly controlled than the internet.

What topics can be discussed

One of the aims of this study was to investigate opportunities to use the internet as a channel of influence in four priority areas: human rights; development and the fight against pov-erty; innovation; and security.

Respondents were asked to what extent it was possible to freely discuss these topics online and whether the internet was a potential channel for opinion formation/influence. A summary of their answers is given in Figure 4.

It is important to keep in mind that internet users in coun-tries with restricted online freedom cannot always know exactly when censorship is being or will be applied. These answers are based on the respondents’ identification of sensi-tive topics.

Figure 4. The internet as a channel for opinion formation/influence in different areas.

Responses to the question: Is the internet a potential channel for opinion formation/influence in the following areas?

Human rights Fight against poverty Innovation Security

Egypt

India

China

Pakistan

Russia

US

18

Human rights are a highly sensitive topic of discussion in China, since this is indirectly regarded as criticism of the prevailing political system. In the other countries, however, it is possible to discuss human rights issues online.

Development and the fight against poverty can also be a sensitive topic in China, since this is primarily a govern-ment concern. Whether it is regarded as sensitive, however, depends on how the topic is approached.

Innovation can be discussed online in every country in the study. There seems to be a general understanding of the in-ternet as a communication channel that promotes innova-tion and new ways of thinking. In countries such as China and Pakistan, restrictions on freedom of expression give rise to innovation to some extent as bloggers and activists try to get around the censorship. For instance, code words are used to avoid filtering when controversial topics are dis-cussed.

In contrast, issues concerning national security and tense relations with other countries are a minefield. In China, it is not possible to bring up the subject of Taiwan or Tibet. In Russia, Chechnya is a highly sensitive topic. In Pakistan, the national security situation is generally tense, and the authorities do not want to attract attention to the situation in the province of Baluchistan. India also has internal con-flicts and security issues that may be risky to mention. Al-though it is unclear exactly how risky it is to discuss security issues in Egypt at present, it seems to be subject to less ex-tensive internet censorship than most of the other countries in the study.

In the US, there is surveillance of suspected terrorists, and anyone expressing sympathy with terrorist acts could have problems. Otherwise, people in the US are free to discuss national security issues online.

Advocacy work today

According to the people United Minds interviewed in China, there are no Chinese organisations currently fighting for greater freedom of expression online. The regime would not tolerate that kind of organisation. It is generally risky

to discuss human rights, though it is easier to discuss social, cultural and economic rights if caution is exercised. Online advocacy activities are usually driven by individuals and journalists rather than organisations.

In India, it is evident that the internet is becoming an ever more powerful means of influence. The December 2012 gang rape in New Delhi attracted considerable attention and drew strong protests. Expressions of protest were post-ed online using Facebook and WhatsApp, where users re-placed their profile images with a black dot symbol.2 Tens of thousands of Indians have signed an online petition protest-ing the lack of security for women in the country.3

Alok Dixit, a net activist in India, has organised a number of online offensives. His most recent action, ‘Stop Acid Attacks’, campaigns against such attacks on women by men who want to punish them (www.stopacidattacks.org).

Dixit is living proof that it is possible to engage in advocacy work online, although he and the other people interviewed feel that the channel is immature in the sense that its full potential has not been realised.

In Pakistan, an active group of internet activists have fought strenuously against government efforts to develop a national internet firewall. A couple of organisations, of which Bytes for All is the oldest and most influential, are campaigning for freedom of expression online. Shahzad Ahmad, the Country Director of Bytes for All, believes that it is possible to pursue advocacy work online on issues involving human rights, the fight against poverty, personal safety, innovation and women’s rights.

For example, a major impact was made by a provocative music video created by the Pakistani rock band Beygairat Brigade [Shameless Brigade]. The video criticised the mili-tary’s influence in Pakistan and was quickly blocked by Vimeo, with no reason given (www.vimeo.com/64414932). The group broke through with another video, Alau Anday

2 articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-12-21/chandigarh/35952817_1_delhi-gangrape-city-student-dot3 timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/social-media/Delhi-gang-rape-case-FacebookTwitter-fuels-rally-at-India-Gate/articleshow/17741529.cms

Figure 5. Use of social media and mobile phones in the countries studied.

Egypt India China Pakistan Russia US

Egypt India China Pakistan Russia US

Number of inhabitants per country, millions

Number of people signed up on Facebook, 2012, Internet World Stats, millions

Number of mobile phone subscriptions in the country, ITU, 2011, millions

Number of users of other social media, millions

80

12

83

0.2

1,200

63

894

18

1,300

0.6

986

46 45

184

8 8

143

315

166

109

1.5

256 290

25

Most important social media according to the people interviewed

20

[Potatoes and eggs], which joked about the country’s lead-ing politicians and generals (www.vimeo.com/30691910).

In Egypt, the internet played a key role in the overthrow of the Mubarak regime. As a result, those governing Egypt today have a complicated relationship with the country’s internet activists. The activists are considered dangerous and have to be treated with caution. The people we inter-viewed in Egypt all affirm that it is possible to undertake advocacy work online on social issues, as shown by the 2011 revolution. It was not the internet itself that overthrew the Mubarak regime, but rather tools such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube that allowed the protests to spread more quickly and become more large-scale.4

In Russia, the internet has developed into one of the most important channels for providing news, in part because of the absence of other free media. This makes the internet a natural channel for anyone who seeks to conduct advocacy work on social issues and reach a larger audience.

4 Tim Eaton (2012), Online Activism and Revolution in Egypt: Lessons from Tahir, New Diplomacy Platform

According to the people United Minds interviewed in Russia, it is possible to carry out advocacy work on issues concerning human rights, development and the fight against poverty, and innovation. It is also possible to criti-cise political leaders, despite the considerable risk of being reprimanded.

Recently, a mysterious video turned up online in which Russia’s Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev was criticised by former Russian political leaders in interviews. The video was professionally produced but contained no indication of who posted it. The aim was clearly to damage Medvedev, and indirectly Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin. The video angered Putin; at a press conference where he first request-ed that journalists turn off their cameras, he sharply criti-cised the filmmakers (www.lifenews.ru/news/112845). The internet tabloid Life News, which published a video clip on its website, was threatened with losing its right to attend Kremlin press conferences.

21

Vıews of Sweden and ınternet freedom.An unfamiliar role model

Sweden is widely recognised for its high degree of freedom of expression online. Although the general level of knowl-edge about Sweden is low in many of the countries studied, the people interviewed have an image of Sweden as a free, open society.

Human rights activist Nadine Sherif in Egypt:“Sweden is generally regarded as a role model for how its citizens are treated. I don’t know about Sweden and internet freedom, but I have never heard anything bad about Sweden.”

Shahzad Ahmad of the organisation Bytes for All, in Pakistan: “Scandinavia overall is the best example of civil liberties in practice, especially when it comes to freedom of expression.”

The blogger Sana Saleem in Pakistan was more cautious in identifying role models, but she definitely believed Sweden was free compared to other countries:“The models for Pakistan when it comes to freedom of ex-pression are European countries – not the United States in any respect.”

One of the Chinese respondents:“I don’t know anything about what the situation is like in Sweden, but I assume it is very free in relative terms.”

Another Chinese respondent, who had been to Sweden, was somewhat better informed. She believed that Sweden was a good role model for other countries:

“I know that Sweden has a really high profile when it comes to openness and transparency. But if you were to ask typical Chinese people, most would probably think that the US was the best role model. Most Chinese don’t know anything about Sweden, but in my opinion, the US is not the perfect role model.”

Not as polarising as the US

In Pakistan and Egypt, people have a highly negative view of the US. Most of the interviewees in these countries see it

as a problem that freedom of expression is so strongly asso-ciated with the US.

Blogger Sana Saleem:“Sadly, freedom of expression is seen in Pakistan as a West-ern notion. We actually avoid that term, instead using terms like ‘free flow of information’ or ‘open access’.”

Journalist Nasry Esmat in Egypt:“When people [in Egypt] think about freedom, they usually think about the US. The West in general is associated with freedom, but in the conservative Egyptian mind this is not necessarily seen as something good. Freedom is to some ex-tent connected to moral decay. Islamists equate freedom to gay rights, and that is not seen as something good in Egypt – not something you want to be associated with.”

Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society in India is involved internationally and was therefore well in-formed about which countries were driving issues involving freedom of expression online:“Sweden is definitely on that list, as well as the Netherlands.”

He did not know exactly what Sweden’s strengths are when it came to internet freedom, but thought it was a big advan-tage that Sweden is not as polarising as the US:“If the Americans suggest something, many disapprove just because it comes from them. If Sweden takes up the same proposal, the chances are greater that the debate will be about the proposal itself.”

Finland a role model for Russia

Somewhat more is known about Sweden in Russia, perhaps because it is geographically closer than the other countries. The Russian interviewees affirmed that the Nordic coun-tries were role models for online freedom of expression. Russian journalist Oksana Chelysheva:“Finland, Sweden, basically all the Scandinavian countries – but not the Baltic States.”

However, both she and Ilya Stechkin of Moscow State University consider Finland to be the main model. In their view, Finland has traditionally enjoyed a special relation-

22

ship with Russia which the other Nordic countries do not have. Finland is more involved with Russia than Sweden. Training courses provided by Finland to Russian journal-ists are one example. Ilya Stechkin:“Very little in Sweden is translated into Russian. I haven’t come across any Swedish researchers who have written about ICT in Russian. Neither have I dealt with any Swedish players in the Russian educational market or media market.”

The US respondents all have a positive impression of Sweden and see it as a given that Sweden stands for freedom and openness. Josh Levy of the organisation Free Press in the US:“Sweden has a good government policy to make affordable and open internet accessible to everyone.”

But the Americans do not consider Sweden to be actively driving the issue of freedom of expression online. Alan Rosenblatt of the Internet Advocacy Roundtable in the US: “I know a fair amount about Sweden, but I honestly don’t know what Sweden is doing to support internet freedom. If you are doing things, maybe you should promote it more.”

Sweden and WikiLeaks

Anja Kovacs at the Internet Democracy Project in India ap-plauded the fact that Sweden was actively engaged interna-tionally in freedom of expression issues. “The Stockholm Internet Forum is an excellent initiative,” she said. But Kovacs also added that Sweden, through its actions in other contexts, had helped to undermine its own credibil-ity. Among other things, she referred to the legal proceed-ings against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and the reports that Swedish companies were selling surveillance equipment to dictators: “There are too many murky parts of these stories.”

She was supported in this by Nasry Esmat in Egypt, who ex-plained that he loved WikiLeaks:

“As a journalist I was very enthusiastic when we got access to information about the connections between the US Embassy in Cairo and the Mubarak regime. We feel that we have the right to know about this. The trial in Sweden against Julian Assange makes Sweden’s relationship with internet freedom a bit complicated. I understand that the accusations against Assange are about something different, but Sweden is not seen as a country that supports WikiLeaks.”

Other people interviewed do not make the same connection. Alan Rosenblatt at the Internet Advocacy Roundtable in the US:“Julian Assange is vaguely associated with Sweden, but only vaguely.”

Sweden a positive surprise

Most of the people interviewed found it difficult to say any-thing specific about the situation in Sweden or Sweden’s strengths when it came to freedom of expression or inter-net freedom. Only some of them had been to Sweden and ventured to say something about differences between Eu-ropean countries. However, many of those who had visited Sweden indicated that they were positively surprised when they realised how free and transparent Sweden was.

Nasry Esmat in Egypt admitted that he had previously known nothing about Sweden, but after having taken part in training arranged by the Swedish Institute, he definitely associated Sweden with issues concerning freedom and freedom of expression.

One of the Chinese respondents related that Chinese tour-ists in Sweden discovered that they could go to any website in their hotel room, even those blocked in China:

“Many Chinese who travel abroad are curious and want to explore what websites they can access, but most people in China do not know that Sweden is so good at freedom of ex-pression and openness. You should market it more.”

23

The countrıes’ needs and Sweden’s ımportance.

Encouraging increased internet use

The respondents had many suggestions about what coun-tries like Sweden could do to promote internet freedom and development in other parts of the world.

Many believed that increased internet use itself led to greater freedom of expression, as it was impossible in prac-tice for the authorities to control everything said and pub-lished online. Encouraging and facilitating greater access and internet use was thus one way to indirectly help to in-crease freedom of expression and democratisation.

Internet access in a number of the countries studied is still low among large segments of the population. Moreover, many of those with access have poor connections and/or insufficient knowledge to make full use of the internet. It is possible to achieve substantial progress simply by improv-ing access and raising the level of knowledge. One way of doing this is to show the advantages of universal internet access. According to Pranesh Prakash at CIS in India, it is important to emphasise positive examples.

One of the respondents in China thought that Sweden should share concrete experiences showing how greater freedom of expression can generate more economic growth. She believed that the Chinese government would be pre-pared to accept this argument.

Training of internet users, journalists and activists

The most common suggestion by the people interviewed was that Sweden could help by providing training and knowledge about internet use, fact checking and freedom of expression.

One of the Russian respondents took the view that it did not matter whether that training took place in Russia or Swe-den. Even distance training would be a feasible option:“Train NGOs on how they can use the internet in their work, train journalists on how to use the internet more ef-fectively and become better at investigative journalism.”

His colleague Ilya Stechkin at Moscow State University agreed. In his view, one idea would be to start a media knowledge project to enhance people’s knowledge about in-ternet use and online media.

A number of the interviewees also suggested training for internet activists in protecting their own information more effectively. Alan Rosenblatt of the Internet Advocacy Roundtable in the US:“The biggest privacy problem is actually people giving out their information voluntarily.”

This problem is not necessarily less pervasive in countries that lack protection of rights and where security forces usu-ally spy on citizens. Blogger Ramy Raoof in Egypt:“Most people are not aware of how information travels, how it can be used or who can capture it. The majority also know little about digital security and what they can do to protect their privacy.”

Countering censorship and blocking of websites

One way to counter censorship is to move servers to other countries when websites are threatened with being shut down. The risk of the websites completely disappearing is thereby avoided, although it may still be difficult to access them from the country seeking to censor the content.

Of the countries investigated, so far only China blocks foreign websites to any great extent. (YouTube is occasion-ally blocked in Pakistan.) Anyone who lives in China can evade internet censorship by using a Virtual Private Network (VPN). The service, which can be purchased through a company, involves connecting with a server in an-other country, thus gaining free access to any website they want. The disadvantages of using a VPN are that it costs money and the connection is slower. If the authorities wish to do so, they can shut down the VPN service, which some-times happens in China.

Anonymous ‘proxy servers’ based outside China can be used to access blocked content. Since websites are blocked only

24

for computers in China, people can get access if it looks as if they are surfing on a computer in another country.

The US provides funding to develop proxy servers in or-der to make it easier for Chinese internet users to access blocked websites. The Chinese blogger interviewed by United Minds:

“This may be a way to increase freedom of speech, but I don’t think it’s a very efficient way. A proxy server can be blocked, and I think they have enough technology and clever people to block any proxy.”

There is other technology which can be used to evade na-tional internet censorship. Alkasir is a popular service in the Middle East and available in both English and Arabic (www.alkasir.com).

Alan Rosenblatt of the Internet Advocacy Roundtable in the US predicts that in the future satellites will be devel-oped which will allow people unrestricted access to the internet, regardless of what country they are in.

A technology race is currently under way between coun-tries seeking to exercise censorship and organisations looking to prevent it. By contributing funding and techni-cal know-how, Sweden can help organisations that want to prevent censorship.

Protecting individuals and countering surveillance

The blocking and shutting down of websites pose a serious problem. However, a no less important problem is the self-censorship that takes place in countries where freedom of expression is not respected. In Pakistan, blasphemy against Islam is subject to the death penalty. There are limits as to what risks individuals dare to take, and few people are pre-pared to end up in prison for something they have written in a blog.

According to the Russian journalist Oksana Chelysheva, it is important to monitor what is happening to critics of regimes whom the government is trying to silence. Making

sure that the rest of the world keeps an eye on what is hap-pening affords greater security for these individuals.

Another measure is to provide technical equipment that reduces the risk of surveillance and protects the identity of internet users. Pakistani blogger Sana Saleem:“VPN services are important, especially in countries with growing internet surveillance.”

A number of websites provide information on how internet users can protect themselves against surveillance. One such website was created by the Electronic Frontier Foundation – Surveillance Self-Defence (ssd.eff.org).

Legal assistance

The Pakistani respondents emphasised the need for legal assistance. Shahzad Ahmad:“Our legal system has not been adapted to modern technol-ogy. The government uses gaps in the law to force through restrictions on freedom of expression. With the help of legal knowledge from the outside, it should be possible to avoid this.”

One of the people interviewed in China would like legal assistance but of a different kind. The authorities in China have difficulty obtaining accurate information because there is a fear that the information provided will be mis-used. Thus it was important to build trust and introduce laws guaranteeing that certain information was protected:“Sweden could contribute legal knowledge about how to make laws that protect privacy.”

Exchanges with internet activists

Oksana Chelysheva thought that Sweden should step up its exchanges with activists working for internet freedom. By in-viting internet activists to Sweden, it would be easier to gain an understanding of what needs these people had and what the situation was like in their own countries. This would also be a way to give activists moral support and encouragement. The contacts that were made could prove valuable.

25

Information in other languages

The Russian respondents felt that Sweden should be bet-ter at providing information in other languages, especially Russian. Having information available only in Swedish or at best also in English was seen as a major limitation – espe-cially from a Russian perspective.

One of the people interviewed in China also raised the is-sue of languages:“Most of the information in Sweden is in Swedish, so it’s difficult for us to understand it. You should maybe publish more things in English; that would make it easier to gain ac-cess to information on Sweden.”

Encouraging international dialogue

Pranesh Prakash at CIS in India emphasised the value of a common international forum in which issues involving in-ternet freedom can be discussed. He thought that Sweden and other countries should increase their involvement in the internet Governance Forum (IGF), a UN-established platform for discussing the development and future of the internet:“IGF will never replace the other forums, but if the issues discussed in other forums are brought to the IGF, there can be direct dialogue between different countries. The IGF will never gain credibility unless countries start treating it more seriously.” Pranesh feared that without a common fo-rum where questions about the development of the internet could be discussed, the internet would be splintered and conflict-ridden.

In the view of the Egyptian human rights activist Nadine Sherif, international agreements were necessary to protect the safety of internet activists. The internet has no bound-aries and common regulations governing the right of indi-viduals to protect their privacy were needed.

Josh Levy of Free Press in the US thought it was risky for the West to try to force its views on other countries:“It will probably backfire if we tell other countries what to do; instead, we need to encourage an open dialogue about the benefits of internet freedom.”

Exploiting existing projects

A number of the people interviewed argued that it was bet-ter to take advantage of existing projects than develop new structures. Pakistani blogger Sana Saleem:“There are already networks with people who work for hu-man rights, and it is possible to get help from them.”

One of the Chinese respondents:“You should raise the Swedish profile on transparency in the projects that you are already doing, like Sida-funded projects.”

Raising the profile of Sweden and the Nordic countries

According to many of those interviewed, Sweden and the other Nordic countries enjoy a high degree of credibility on issues involving freedom of expression and internet free-dom. However, what is missing to some extent is visibility. Journalist Nasry Esmat in Egypt:“You need a strategy. Internet freedom is strongly connect-ed to the US, so you need to differentiate yourselves from the US.”

There is a strong desire, especially among the respond-ents in Egypt and Pakistan, for Sweden to become more involved in issues concerning freedom of expression and internet freedom, in part because the US should not be the only country associated with these issues. Shahzad Ahmad of Bytes for All:“Stronger support from Sweden is extremely important to those of us who work for human rights in authoritarian states or developing democracies like Pakistan.”

The countries’ needs and Sweden’s importance

26

Conclusıons and recommendatıons.The purpose of this study is to examine the state of internet freedom in six selected countries, what channels are impor-tant in each country, what their view is of Sweden as an ad-vocate of internet freedom and what countries like Sweden can do to help increase internet freedom and development. The background to this is Sweden’s long-standing tradi-tion of democracy and freedom of expression. Our country is also one of the most ICT-mature and creative countries in the world. This combination makes Sweden particularly well suited to promoting issues concerning internet freedom.

The internet has already helped increase freedom of ex-pression around the world by dramatically expanding ac-cess to information. Even in countries where freedom of ex-pression is highly restricted, technology has made it easier for people to express their opinions. Unfortunately, how-ever, this freedom cannot be taken for granted. There is a constant tug-of-war between those seeking to facilitate the flow of free information and those who want to introduce greater control and censorship.

The conclusions of the projects can be summarised in the four general points below.

Our involvement is desired

It is clear that there is a desire for Sweden’s involvement on the issue of internet freedom. In a number of the countries investigated, freedom of expression online is under threat. The methods for silencing critics and restricting access to information are numerous and sophisticated, and they ap-pear to be gathering strength. A number of organisations and individuals continuously monitor developments in internet freedom in the countries studied. But democratic countries also need to exert pressure and voice criticism when freedom of expression is suppressed.

The issue of freedom of expression online is closely asso-ciated with the US, which according to the people inter-viewed could be considered a disadvantage, particularly in Muslim parts of the world. Many of the internet activ-ists we interviewed indicate that this makes their struggle more difficult. There is a strong desire to have European countries such as Sweden become more involved in order

to eliminate the one-sided association with the US, a con-troversial country. Sweden has a good reputation on issues of democracy and human rights, and thus enjoys consider-able credibility. This is also true of our Nordic neighbours. In Russia, attention is naturally focused on Finland, which like Sweden, boasts a high degree of ICT maturity. Ac-cording to the World Economic Forum Networked Readi-ness Index (2013), Finland has taken over as the world’s most ICT-mature country, while Sweden has fallen to third place. All the Nordic countries rank very high in the index. It is therefore advantageous to undertake projects aimed at increasing internet freedom in collaboration with the other Nordic countries in view of the greater impact.

It is also crucial in this connection to find the right narra-tive, terms and tone to fit the local context. For instance, if ‘freedom of expression’ and ‘internet freedom’ are terms closely associated with the US, it could be strategic to use expressions that do not have such loaded connotations.

Sweden can raise its profile

Although Sweden’s involvement with internet freedom is nothing new, few people are familiar with what we do as a country in terms of advocacy for online freedom of expres-sion. Such an understanding appears to be confined to those who take part in international forums where issues involving internet freedom are discussed.

It is clear that Sweden needs to raise its profile and expand its strategic communication on issues involving internet freedom and development. Sweden’s role as an advocate of internet freedom needs to be communicated externally to a greater extent. The issue could also be highlighted more clearly in existing projects involving or undertaken by Sweden, such as Sida-funded projects.

The internet is a superior channel

One finding from the study is that the internet is a crucial channel of influence in all the countries investigated. Free-dom of expression today is greater online than offline in

27

every country in the study except for India. However, there are growing threats of future restrictions to internet free-dom in a number of these countries.

In countries like Russia and Egypt, where there is a rela-tively high level of internet access, the internet is an obvious channel for anyone who wants to disseminate independent information. Even in countries such as India and Pakistan, where access is low, the internet is a natural channel for reaching out to younger people involved in advocacy.

Anyone who only studies statistics on the reach of differ-ent media risks drawing the wrong conclusions, although traditional media are still important. Newspaper circula-tion is gradually declining, while the number of internet us-ers continues to rise at a rapid rate. This means that in a few years the internet will be an even more important channel. Moreover, traditional media are being consumed online to an ever increasing extent. As the ‘digital’ and ‘analogue’ spheres are gradually being integrated, it is becoming even more difficult to differentiate between freedom online and offline.

Working together makes us stronger

Sweden needs to raise its profile on the issue of internet freedom. It is crucial that key actors in society work togeth-er if change is to be effected. Civil society, government and the business community all need to be encouraged to work together in order to expand opportunities to exert influence and achieve results.

Influence can be brought to bear through numerous chan-nels; it is by no means confined to high-level political or dip-lomatic contacts. Raising the issue in business discussions with Swedish companies or in exchanges with Swedish institutions of higher education can have a substantial im-pact. The Swedish Institute has a major and vital task to facilitate this and encourage the collaboration of different stakeholders.

28

Appendıx.

Lınks to organısatıons and ındıvıduals that monıtor ınternet freedom ın dıfferent parts of the world.

. Freedom House, www.freedomhouse.org

. Reporters Without Borders, www.rsf.org

. Open Net Initiative (ONI), www.opennet.net

. Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), www.eff.org

. Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), www.cpj.org

. Digital Civil Rights in Europe (EDRI), www.edri.org

. The Citizen Lab, University of Toronto, www.citizenlab.org

. Association for Progressive Communications (APC), www.apc.org

. The Public Voice, www.thepublicvoice.org

. Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (CELE), www.palermo.edu/cele/

. Bolo Bhi, www.bolobhi.org

. Mideast Youth, www.mideastyouth.com

. Free Press, www.freepress.net

. IT for Change, www.itforchange.net

. Internet & Society Co:llaboratory, en.collaboratory.de

. Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII), www.ffii.org

. Blocked on Weibo, blockedonweibo.tumblr.com/(tool)

. GreatFire.org, en.greatfire.org (tool)

29

EGYPT: “In the conservatıve Egyptıan mınd, freedom ıs not necessarıly seen as somethıng good.”

In Egypt, the internet has a comparatively strong position, in part because of the role the country played in connection with the Arab Spring. However, this does not mean there is freedom of expression online or that the privacy of internet users is re-spected. Since the revolution, the authorities have continued more or less as before, albeit with reduced capacity.

During the 2011 revolution in Egypt, the blogger and human rights activist Ramy Raoof was at the centre of events. He was interviewed on CNN and in other media about ongoing events in the country. He reported among other things on the Mubarak regime’s desperate countermove to shut down the internet and disrupt mobile phone service, which was aimed at the demonstrators.

Ramy Raoof views Facebook and Twitter as important tools “in the service of freedom”, but does not think they were decisive in the Egyptian revolution. The demonstrations against Mubarak continued for days even after the internet was completely shut down, he notes.

Expanding the ICT infrastructure was part of the Mubarak regime’s strategy for generating growth and creating new jobs. There was no extensive internet censorship, although according to Freedom House (2012) technology was used to monitor the opposition and spread propaganda. There were also cases of bloggers being imprisoned for something they had written. The first case involved the 23-year-old law stu-dent Kareem Amer, who in 2007 was sentenced to four years in prison for allegedly insulting Islam and Mubarak in a blog entry.

After the fall of the Mubarak regime, the military continued as before. In April 2011, the 26-year-old blogger Maikel Nabil was sentenced to three years in prison for allegedly insulting the Egyptian military in a blog entry. Nabil was released in January 2012, after more than 300 days in prison and today is living in exile in Germany (www.maikelnabil.com).

According to Ramy Raoof, the current Egyptian govern-ment also wants to collect any information it can get hold of, regardless of whether there is any reason to collect it:“It does not censor information in the sense that it makes web pages unavailable; we have no record of that.”

The Muslim Brotherhood

Elections to Egypt’s lower house of parliament were held in late 2011 and early 2012. The party backed by the Muslim Brotherhood won a majority of votes. A few months later, the Islamist Muhammad Morsi won the presidential elec-tion and became Egypt’s president.

According to Freedom House (2013), the country’s new leader shows no respect for principles such as democracy and human rights. The repression continues and freedom of expression in particular is being stifled. A large number of demonstrators have been killed by the security forces, and only in a few cases have police officers been convicted of a crime. Journalists and bloggers have been prosecuted following charges of ‘insulting the president’. In addition, there are legal proceedings underway against a number of NGOs, including Freedom House.

The interviewees believe that much continues more or less as before, with the difference that the authorities cannot work as unhampered as they did in Mubarak’s time. The journalist Nasry Esmat says that before the revolution the security forces used to monitor what activists did online. “What’s stopping them today is that they don’t have enough capacity; they are busy with other problems,” he says.

The general view is that the Egyptian authorities are not carrying out internet censorship in the sense that they fil-ter information or block websites. That is why many of the organisations that monitor internet freedom in different countries consider Egypt to have greater internet freedom than Russia and India, for example.

Egypt – a connected country

Mubarak invested in expanding Egypt’s ICT infrastructure, thereby enabling increased internet use. Only later did he re-alise that the new technology might constitute a serious threat to his reign. The role played by the internet in overthrowing the Mubarak regime led to a sharp increase in interest in social media. In late 2011, there were over ten million Facebook ac-counts registered in Egypt, placing the country among the top twenty nations with the highest number of Facebook users.

30

The respondents believe that the internet has helped boost freedom of expression in Egypt, in the sense that there is greater access to independent information. “The internet has created an alternative route for getting access to infor-mation, a source that the government cannot control,” says Nadine Sherif, who works at the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies.

“The web is a free, decentralised media channel, which al-lows people to freely bring up topics that concern them. Many taboos found in traditional media have been broken online,” explains Ramy Raoof. He also emphasises the im-portance of internet users themselves creating content, as opposed to just taking it in.

“Egypt is a really conservative society. I wouldn’t say that every taboo has been broken, but people can no longer pre-tend that there isn’t political and religious pluralism,” says the journalist Nasry Esmat. “Even people who are not ac-cepted by society can get their voices heard online,” he adds.

According to the interviewees, there really is no topic that cannot be discussed online in Egypt. “I’ve seen information related to military activities that breaks social and cultural ta-boos. I wouldn’t claim that this is popular with those in power, but one can find all kinds of information,” adds Nasry Esmat.

The internet as a news channel in Egypt

The internet is an increasingly vital channel for news in Egypt. Some 87 per cent of the population think it is important to have a free internet with no censorship (Pew Research Center, 2012). However, those interviewed would argue that the infor-mation Egyptians get online is not particularly reliable.

“There is extensive spreading of rumours. Of course, there is in every country, but the situation is especially problem-atic in Egypt, since Mubarak taught people to consider cer-tain opinions as facts,” points out the human rights activist Nadine Sherif. “Source checking is bad, and many internet users can’t distinguish between true and false.”

“The internet is a channel for sharing information. It’s up to the users themselves to decide what is true – and it also re-

quires some effort to get reliable information,” says blogger Ramy Raoof.

How freedom of expression is viewed in other countries

The blogger Maikel Nabil, who today lives in exile in Germany, describes himself on his website as, among other things, ‘liberal’, ‘secular’, ‘capitalist’, ‘feminist’ and ‘pro-Western’ – designations which are clearly controversial in Egypt.

“When people think about freedom, they usually think about the US. The West in general is associated with free-dom, but in the conservative Egyptian mind this is not neces-sarily seen as something good,” says journalist Nasry Esmat.

“Freedom is to some extent connected to moral decay. The Islamists equate freedom to gay rights, and that is not seen as something good in Egypt – not something you want to be associated with.”

The view of Sweden as a champion of internet freedom

As blogger Ramy Raoof has limited knowledge of Sweden, he is reluctant to say anything about the extent to which Sweden represents internet freedom.

“Sweden is generally regarded as a role model for how its citizens are treated. I don’t know about Sweden and inter-net freedom, but I have never heard anything bad about Sweden,” says the human rights activist Nadine Sherif.

The journalist Nasry Esmat notes that he previously knew nothing about Sweden. After having taken part in training organised by the Swedish Institute, he definitely associates Sweden with freedom issues and specifically freedom of expression. However, he thinks that the image of the coun-try as a champion of internet freedom has been marred by the legal proceedings against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

31

“As a journalist, I was very enthusiastic when we got access to information about the connections between the US Em-bassy in Cairo and the Mubarak regime. We feel that we have the right to know about this,” he explains.

Nasry Esmat is aware that the charges against Assange are unrelated to WikiLeaks, but still thinks the proceedings against Assange place Sweden in an unfavourable light.

How Sweden can help

The human rights activist Nadine Sherif wants countries like Sweden to press for the adoption of international agree-

ments protecting the rights of internet activists to freedom of expression. “The internet has no boundaries,” she points out, “and common regulations, for example governing the right of individuals to protect their privacy, are needed.”

The journalist Nasry Esmat wants Sweden to adopt what he calls ‘the WikiLeaks model’, and guarantee universal unre-stricted access to information. “I think unrestricted access to the internet should be a human right,” he says.

“You need a strategy; internet freedom is strongly associat-ed with the US, so you need to differentiate yourselves from the US,” he advises.

Summary for Egypt

. The Mubarak regime’s investment in ICT led to a dramatic expansion of internet use in Egypt. This in turn provided a basis for the subsequent immense importance of social media during the Egyptian revolution.

. There is no extensive internet censorship in place in the country, but technology is used to monitor the opposition and spread political propaganda.

. Since the revolution, the Egyptian authorities have continued much as before, though with reduced ca-pacity. The Islamists show no respect for principles such as democracy and human rights. Journalists and bloggers have been prosecuted following charges that they insulted President Morsi.

. The respondents nonetheless believe that the inter-net has helped increase freedom of expression in Egypt, as there is now greater access to independ-ent information. Any topic can be discussed online; there is no systematic filtering of information.

. According to the interviewees, many Egyptians have an unfavourable view of the US. The term ‘freedom’ is associated with the West and is not necessarily viewed by conservative Egyptians as

positive. At the same time, most Egyptians think the internet should be unrestricted and uncensored.

. The people interviewed have limited knowledge about Sweden, but there is a desire for greater involvement on the part of European countries in issues concern-ing freedom of expression online and protecting the privacy of internet users.

Facts about Egypt

Number of inhabitants: 80 million

Internet access: 39% of the population (ITU, 2011)

Number of mobile phone subscriptions: 83 million (ITU, 2011)

Number of Facebook accounts: 12 million (Internet World Stats, 2012)

Purchasing power parity GDP per capita: $6,281 (World Bank, 2011)

Important social media

Facebook and to some extent Twitter. YouTube videos are spread via Facebook.

Appendix

32

INDIA: “Easıer to censor onlıne than offlıne.”

India is usually described as the world’s largest democracy. Though public discourse is lively in many respects, this does not preclude those governing the country from trying to restrict freedom of expression online and introducing laws that allow arbitrary censorship.

Alok Dixit, 25 years old, is an internet activist and was in-volved in launching ‘Save Your Voice’, a campaign aimed at safeguarding freedom of expression online. He started his professional career as a journalist, and without the internet, as the saying goes, he would be “nothing more than a poor Indian bloke”.

The ‘Save Your Voice’ movement has attracted consider-able attention, in part thanks to the hunger strike carried out by Alok Dixit and the movement’s founder, Aseem Trivedi, in protest against Section 66 A of India’s Informa-tion Technology Act (ITA). One of the provisions of the law is that anyone can file a complaint against ‘offensive’ web content. The internet provider is then required to remove the content criticised within 36 hours, with no recourse to a court of law. A court ruling on the legality or otherwise of the complaint may be sought but only after the content has been removed.

As recently as September 2012, the police arrested Alok Dixit’s partner in Mumbai, Aseem Trivedi, for satirical drawings he had posted online. The drawings were part of a campaign against corruption, but the censorship was jus-tified on the grounds that Aseem Trivedi had made fun of India’s national symbols.

However, when we talk to Alok Dixit, he does not think that internet censorship is a serious social problem in India. “The authorities try to censor the internet, but they’re not successful – they don’t have a chance to keep up,” he ex-plains.

According to Alok Dixit, the internet has in practice meant a dramatic increase in freedom of expression in India. “It’s a true revolution. Even a girl in the country, who can barely leave her parents’ house, can express her opinions on Facebook.”

Misused censorship laws

Nevertheless, the laws that India has introduced to restrict freedom of expression online have met with harsh criticism. “These laws are actually really bad from the perspective of freedom of expression,” says Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bangalore. “There are greater restrictions on what a person can say online than offline,” he notes.

CIS monitors the practical application of the laws. Prakash and his colleagues contacted various internet providers seven times to request that web content be removed. Con-tent that could hardly be considered illegal was deliberate-ly chosen. “In six of the seven cases, the internet provider removed the content. We were only told no once – and that was when it involved an ad that the internet provider would lose money on if it was removed,” Prakash recalls.

Internationally, the case involving internet censorship in India that attracted the most attention was the arrest of two 21-year-old women by police in Mumbai in November 2012. They had criticised the authorities for basically shutting the city down during mourning for the deceased leader of Shiv Sena, Bal Thackeray for fear of disturbances. The women were later released, and the case against them was dropped. But the incident shows that the law can easily be misused – and that this clearly happens.

More accepting view of censorship

Anja Kovacs heads the progressive think tank Internet Democracy Project in New Delhi. In her opinion, it is easy to submit a complaint and demand that web content be re-moved, but she doubts whether that many cases will be up-held in a court of law. “Legal proceedings in India are very slow so we don’t know yet,” she explains.

Anja Kovacs is originally from Belgium but has lived in India since 2001. She believes that censorship in India is gen-erally more extensive than in many Western countries and that Indians also have a more accepting view of censorship. “The reason for this is that censorship has been used as an

33

instrument to defuse social and religious conflicts. The gov-ernment, with the support of large sections of Indian society, restrict freedom of expression in different groups by prohib-iting them from speaking ill of one another.”

But Anja Kovacs thinks that this has to change. “If we want to maintain a free, open internet, India has to give up some of its obsession with controlling what is said,” she insists.

Extensive laws have also been introduced for internet cafés, which means that visitors must be carefully registered and monitored. One of the purposes of these laws is to get rid of pornography and make it safer for women to visit internet cafés, but in Anja Kovacs’ view, this has the opposite effect. “Young women feel more vulnerable when they are regis-tered and monitored by the young men who run the internet cafés,” she explains.

The internet is slowly growing in importance

Many advocacy movements in India are active online. Al-though they have other channels – the majority of their sup-porters do not have an internet connection – online cam-paigns are nonetheless becoming more common, according to the respondents, especially via Facebook.

The number of internet users in India is growing at a rapid rate – although it is easy to read too much into the figures. According to official statistics, there are currently over 900 million mobile phone subscriptions. However, most Indians cannot use their mobile phones to surf online. The rapid rise in the number of mobile phone subscriptions is due in part to well-to-do households acquiring additional and new mobile phones, which is not the same thing as an increase in the number of mobile phone users.

“There is a major generational gap in terms of internet use,” says Alok Dixit. “Those in power don’t understand the new technology, so they’re afraid. They consider the internet to be a threat rather than an opportunity,” he explains.

How Sweden can help

Alok Dixit knows almost nothing at all about Sweden, so he is reluctant to give advice on what countries like Sweden should do. In general, he believes training is the best way to strengthen freedom of expression online in the long term. He argues that if more people are likely to use the internet in the right way, attempts to censor it will fail.

He is backed up here by Pranesh Prakash, who thinks a lot can be done for internet access in India. One important measure is to spread constructive examples of how the in-ternet can be used. He also believes that Sweden and other countries should continue to support the Internet Govern-ance Forum, IGF, which has the potential to become a com-mon forum in which countries around the world can discuss issues involving freedom of expression online.

Anja Kovacs appreciates that Sweden is involved in free-dom of expression and human rights issues. “Greater in-volvement is needed from more countries,” she says. In her view, the Stockholm Internet Forum is an excellent initia-tive. But Kovacs regrets that Sweden has helped under-mine its own credibility through its actions in other areas. The examples she gives are the prosecution of Pirate Bay’s founder (she does not remember his name), the handling of the case involving WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and the Swedish government’s unqualified support for Swedish companies that sell bugging devices to dictatorships (she does not remember the names of the companies). “There are too many murky parts to these stories,” she objects.

Otherwise, Kovacs has a favourable view of Sweden and be-lieves that European countries such as Sweden have greater credibility among Indians than the US.

Appendix

34

Summary for India

. India has introduced laws that allow arbitrary inter-net censorship. In a way, it is easier to censor infor-mation online than offline.

. Taking a broader view, freedom of expression on the internet is nevertheless greater than it was as more people than before are able to share views. Existing censorship is far from comprehensive.

. The interviewees have a positive view of Sweden’s involvement in issues concerning freedom of expres-sion online. They feel it is important to have interna-tional forums where these issues can be discussed. Sweden has a good reputation essentially, but in-formed Indians are surprised by Swedish actions on some issues – including the treatment of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

. As for India, they feel that training is the most effec-tive instrument for strengthening freedom of expres-sion online in the long run. With more internet users who have had training, it will be more difficult to ex-ercise censorship.

Facts about India

Number of inhabitants: About 1.2 billion (Census of India, 2011)

Internet access: About 137 million users, 10% of the population (Internet & Mobile Association of India, 2012)

Number of mobile phone subscriptions: About 894 mil-lion (ITU, 2011)

Number of smartphones: 58 million (FICCI & KPMG International, 2012)

Number of Facebook accounts: 63 miljoner (Internet World Stats, 2012)

Purchasing power parity GDP per capita: $3,650 (World Bank, 2011)

Organisations in India that seek to promote freedom of expression online

Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Internet Democ-racy Project, Save Your Voice, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC), Free Software Movement of India.

Important social media

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Orkut.

Also noteworthy

One in five women in India and Egypt think it is inappropriate for women to use the internet.

Source: Pew Research Center

35

CHINA: “We feel lıke we are constantly beıng monıtored.”

China is the country with the most advanced system for internet censorship and surveillance. Despite hundreds of millions of in-ternet users – more than in any other country – the government manages to maintain broad control over the flow of information.

We hear examples of how censorship in China is exercised in concrete terms when we talk to a free-spoken Chinese blogger in Beijing whom we have called Wu Fang. (The names of the people interviewed have been changed in or-der to conceal their identities.) He has been interviewed about a dozen times by the police because of something he wrote online. They have visited him at home and at work, and on one occasion he was even summoned to the police station. “They order you to delete what you’ve written, and if you don’t they shut down your website. They can threaten you by saying your family will be harmed or that you’ll lose your job,” he says.

Wu Fang seems surprisingly unconcerned about these po-lice visits. “So far they haven’t done anything – they’ve just threatened,” he notes.

It is clear that the system of controls works, according to the Chinese respondents. “In practice it’s based to a large ex-tent on self-censorship. There’s always a limit to what risks you’re prepared to take. You don’t want to end up in prison because you wrote something in a blog,” explains Cheng Lian, a woman who works on human rights issues, and who also wishes to remain anonymous.

An important feature of this control system is search en-gines that identify suspicious words and combinations of words. No one knows exactly what people are forbidden to write, which makes internet users more cautious. But it is clear that bringing up certain topics is not allowed: the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, Taiwan, Falun Gong and demands for Tibet’s independence, for example. It is also clearly forbidden to criticise the Chinese Communist Party or China’s political system.

Not comprehensive

The system of controls is not comprehensive. “Several hun-dred million Chinese use the internet, and it’s impossible to

track everyone,” says Wu Fang. A common method of con-veying criticism which is not allowed is to use code words, symbols and images that the search engines do not capture, he notes.

There are also ways of circumventing ‘the Great Firewall’ and accessing blocked foreign websites such as Facebook and Twitter. “We use VPNs. There are different types of software to get around the firewall. Obviously, that costs money and your connection will be slower. But if somebody really wants to, there’s always a way of getting around the firewall,” explains Cheng Lian.

But completely private communication online is not pos-sible; there is no guarantee that someone is not recording what is being said. “We feel like we are constantly being monitored,” she says.

Greater freedom of expression nonetheless

Yet, in spite of censorship, the respondents agree that the internet has helped boost freedom of expression in China. “The limits of what people can say have been stretched,” says Deng Bo, an academic specialising in human rights.

Free speech online has rubbed off on other parts of society to some extent. “TV is still strictly controlled, but freedom of expression in newspapers has increased somewhat,” he feels.

“That’s right. Before, there were just newspapers and TV, which are easy for the authorities to control. But with the internet, the quantity of information is so vast, and just about anyone can post information, even from other parts of the world, which makes it very difficult to control every-thing.”

The authorities also understand that some criticism of so-ciety has to be allowed. “The authorities have been forced to be more transparent. Information still trickles out, and often it’s better for them to communicate it than have it de-velop into a bigger scandal,” explains Cheng Lian.

Appendix

36

“They can’t censor everything – both because it costs too much and because some breathing space is needed. Other-wise, the discontent will grow,” agrees Wu Fang.

His impression is that most average Chinese do not attach that much importance to freedom of expression on political issues. “That’s not something they have time to think about. People care mainly about making money and how they’ll be able to make a living,” he explains. “For many people, it is important what music they can listen to, what mov-ies they’re allowed to see and what products they can buy. They’re less bothered about what they’re permitted to say.”

More permissible issues

Some issues in society can be raised without repercussions. The government even encourages discussion of certain problems. This is particularly true of revelations about cor-rupt local officials, whom leaders in Beijing would like to see imprisoned.

“People are allowed to criticise corruption, especially in isolated cases. Pornography can also be criticised,” says Deng Bo.

“Topics like the fight against poverty, social injustice, envi-ronmental destruction, domestic violence against women and the child sex trade can be discussed online,” affirms Cheng Lian.

However, there do not seem to be any organisations within China’s borders which are fighting for greater freedom of expression online. “You can’t have any organisation like that, because then the police will come after you,” Wu Fang explains.

“Some traditional media are trying to stretch the limits. They might post a news bulletin online, but it will usually be removed within a few hours,” he adds.

Views on freedom of expression in other countries

When Wu Fang is asked which countries have more free-dom of expression than China, he cites the US, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan. He also mentions Europe but says that he does not know anything about specific European coun-tries.

Deng Bo thinks there is greater freedom overall in every country outside China. “However, I haven’t been to Cuba, so I don’t know about there,” she adds. She thinks Sweden has transparency and freedom of expression, but does not know any details.

Cheng Lian: “I think Sweden is a role model when it comes to openness and transparency. But if you ask average Chinese people, they would probably answer the US – al-though I don’t agree on that point.”

How Sweden can help

The respondents have different suggestions for what Swe-den can do to help increase freedom of expression in coun-tries like China.

Wu Fang notes that the US supports organisations that develop proxy servers for Chinese internet users. But that is not really very effective because a proxy server can be blocked rather easily. “[The Chinese authorities] have enough technology and clever people to block any proxy. If things go really badly, the government could develop a local internet, just for Chinese people.”

In Deng Bo’s view, Sweden should highlight constructive examples of how freedom of expression can contribute to better economic growth. “Show how freedom of opinion makes it easier for a country to develop, and that countries that suppress opinions have problems,” she says.

“You should raise the Swedish profile with regard to trans-parency in the projects you’re already doing, like Sida-funded projects,” suggests Cheng Lian.

37

Summary for China

. China carries out extensive internet censorship, with self-censorship being an important element in prac-tice; people dare not risk falling into disfavour with the authorities.

. The people interviewed nevertheless believe that the internet has enhanced freedom of expression in China, and that the limits of what people can say are gradually being stretched. Chinese people’s access to information has increased dramatically thanks to the internet.

. Most Chinese do not care that much about what they are permitted to say; more important are what mu-sic they can listen to, what movies they can see and what products they can buy. The likelihood of people expressing discontent about these matters is greater than the probability of people protesting because they are not allowed to criticise the government.

. The image of Europe and Sweden is basically positive. However, the Chinese have limited knowledge of this part of the world. The country mainly associated with freedom of expression is the US. Hong Kong is a con-ceivable role model, that is less controversial.

. Among the things that Sweden can contribute are examples from its own experience which show that freedom of expression can stimulate economic devel-opment. The respondents are confident that China’s rulers are interested in doing anything that will pro-mote economic growth.

Facts about China

Number of inhabitants: About 1.3 billion

Internet access: 38 % av befolkningen (ITU, 2011)

Number of mobile phone subscriptions: 986 million (ITU, 2011)

Number of Facebook accounts: 0.6 million (Internet World Stats, 2012)

Purchasing power parity GDP per capita: $8,400 (World Bank, 2011)

Important social media

Sina Weibo (the Chinese counterpart of Facebook/ Twitter) with 46 million daily users in 2013

Appendix

38

PAKISTAN: “Blasphemy ıs used as a pretence to exercıse censorshıp.”

Pakistan is not a stable democracy, and there is limited respect for freedom of expression. There is broad political support in the country for censoring web content considered blasphemous, anti-Islamist, pornographic or a threat to national security.

Sana Saleem is a 25-year-old Pakistani writer and activist. She writes for, among other publications, the British news-paper The Guardian, and her blog, Mystified Justices, was named the best activist blog in Pakistan.

“Sadly, freedom of expression in Pakistan is seen as a West-ern notion,” she says. “We actually avoid that term, instead using terms like ‘free flow of information’ or ‘open access’.”

“The problem is that as soon as someone mentions freedom of expression, the discussion immediately shifts to whether blasphemy and obscenities should be allowed. It’s easy to end up in a defensive position.”

Sana Saleem herself is a proud Muslim and wears a hijab. But she questions whether it is always so easy to define what blasphemy against Islam is.

“Those governing Pakistan say that they are in favour of freedom online – with the exception of pornography and blasphemy. But what is blasphemy – who decides? Blasphe-my is often used as a pretence to exercise censorship,” she argues.

More people should be held accountable

Sana Saleem is contradicted by Murtaza Zaidi, CEO of CyberVision International, an IT company in Islamabad. “Censorship is not a major issue in Pakistan. We have other much bigger problems to think about. Freedom of expres-sion is more of a side-issue,” he says.

Murtaza Zaidi thinks that the internet has sharply in-creased access to information in Pakistan. Most topics can be discussed online, and the number of internet users is rap-idly rising. “Pornography is prohibited and the government has blocked YouTube. That’s basically all.”

He is critical of the decision to block YouTube. “I would ar-gue that it’s bad for Pakistan. YouTube can also be used for educational purposes, but now that opportunity has been lost,” he says.

But in other areas, he is not as critical of the restrictions the authorities have put in place. In a way Murtaza Zaidi would really like to see more people accountable for the opinions they express online. “It would be good if there were more controls and greater balance,” he insists.

Among the positive effects of increased internet use is greater knowledge about other countries. Trade is stimu-lated and the world has become more of a ‘global village’. But there are also negative effects: the internet can be used to spread hate and extremist views. “Pakistan is a conserva-tive society, and technology can be used in a way that pro-vokes strong feelings,” he explains.

Murtaza Zaidi himself gives the example of caricatures of the prophet Mohammed. “In my view, it’s very disrespect-ful to spread such pictures. There are over a billion Muslims in the world who may be offended.”

“It is not a question of freedom of expression but rather of showing respect for one another. We can’t joke about the gulags and Nazism because in that case people in Europe will be upset. It’s really the same thing.”

Plans for more extensive surveillance

Bytes for All is the largest and most influential human rights organisation focused on internet freedom in Pakistan. Shahzad Ahmad is Country Director and also lives in Islamabad. He voices serious concern about the Pakistani authorities’ plan to further restrict freedom of expression online.

“Computer programmes like FinFisher and other ad-vanced surveillance technology are being installed on a huge scale at the national level. These surveillance meas-ures are aimed especially at human rights activists, jour-nalists and people who work politically,” Shahzad Ahmad explains.

39

He thinks that unfortunately among the Pakistani popu-lation there is no strong opposition to increased internet censorship. “There are still a lot of people who support the blocking of YouTube for religious reasons. They don’t realise that it affects their own rights.”

“Ordinary people in Pakistan are not aware of the basic rights they have, and even less of the digital rights they really ought to have.” In Shahzad Ahmad’s view, there is no legal security, and the authorities use concepts like ‘na-tional security’ and the ‘greatness of Islam’ as an excuse to abuse people’s rights.

The punishment for saying something illegal could be draconian. Blasphemy is subject to the death penalty, and there are examples of this penalty being imposed because someone allegedly blasphemed Islam in a text message.

There is greater freedom of expression online than in other contexts. “But anyone who wants to say something about religion or express opinions that go against popu-larly held views must still be extremely careful. Otherwise they risk being tracked down and arrested or killed by a mob,” concludes Shahzad Ahmad.

Views on freedom of expression in other countries

According to the Pew Research Center, 80 per cent of Pa-kistan’s inhabitants have an unfavourable view of the US, compared to only 12 per cent in neighbouring India. Anti-American sentiment in Pakistan has been reinforced by US drone attacks and the raid on Osama bin Laden.

Shahzad Ahmad would prefer that the US not dominate the debate on freedom of expression since it makes his work in Pakistan more difficult.

“The US is not associated with internet freedom, at least not if you’re from Pakistan”, says Murtaza Zaidi. The coun-try that Murtaza Zaidi considers to be a role model for internet freedom is India. “In some respects, Pakistan and India are very similar. It’s the only area where I think India is good,” he says.

Sana Saleem is careful about identifying role models, but she thinks that Sweden is free compared to other countries. “The models for Pakistan when it comes to freedom of ex-pression are European countries – not the United States in any respect,” she emphasises.

“But for Pakistan’s government, unfortunately I think that the role models instead are China and Iran, the countries that have gone furthest in internet censorship,” she adds.

“Overall, Scandinavia is the best example of citizens’ rights, especially freedom of expression,” says Shahzad Ahmad. “Sweden is a country known for investing in inter-net freedom all across the world.”

Some connection with the West

In spite of obvious religious differences, Pakistan is still a country that for historical reasons has some connection with the West. A comparatively large number of Pakistanis speak good English, and the largest social media channel in the country is Facebook. Today there are some 10 million Facebook accounts in Pakistan, a country with 184 million inhabitants – with more than half of them under 25.

According to Shahzad Ahmad, there is good potential for carrying out advocacy work online in Pakistan as long as this involves issues that are not sensitive.

Appendix

40

How Sweden can help

Shahzad Ahmad believes it is important that countries like Sweden provide support to Pakistan on internet freedom is-sues. “It could involve anything from technical assistance in order to get around censorship to funding for NGOs work-ing for freedom of expression online.”

Another problem that many people in Pakistan’s legal system still do not understand is how the new technology works, which means that the laws are lagging behind.

“Legal gaps can be used by those in government to intro-duce further restrictions, so legal assistance could be of great help,” Shahzad Ahmad explains.

Sana Saleem emphasises the importance of VPN servic-es, especially for countries like Pakistan, which carry out widespread surveillance of citizens. She also thinks that economic aid for research and training on issues involving internet use is valuable.

Summary for Pakistan

. Internet censorship in Pakistan is growing, and the Pakistani state is installing more advanced surveil-lance technology. The role models for this move are countries like China and Iran, where there is exten-sive surveillance of citizens.

. Overall, the internet has helped to increase freedom of expression in Pakistan, and a growing number of Pakistanis are connected. But there is popular sup-port for internet censorship, especially of content considered to be blasphemous or anti-Islam.

. Pakistan has a very unfavourable view of the US; even the term ‘freedom of expression’ has been tar-nished. This means that Pakistanis who are fight-ing for internet freedom prefer to identify European countries as role models. The respondents feel that Sweden could play a greater role here.

. The organisations working for internet freedom in Pakistan are greatly in need of assistance. Pakistan is a country where the relative freedom of expression that exists is under threat, and the trend is unfortunately moving in the wrong direction.

Facts about Pakistan

Number of inhabitants: 184 million

Internet access: 9% of the population (ITU, 2011)

Number of mobile phone subscriptions: 109 million (ITU, 2011)

Number of Facebook accounts: 8 million (Internet World Stats, 2012)

Purchasing power parity GDP per capita: $2,745 (World Bank, 2011)

Important social media

Facebook (YouTube is frequently blocked).

41

The internet is the most important source of news in Russia today, especially for younger people. The Russian government is searching for legislative means to tighten control over the in-ternet in order to eliminate awkward criticism. Journalists and bloggers who criticise abuse of power have no legal security.

Russia today has over 300 TV channels, three of which are nationwide. But the people we interviewed all agree that Russian TV is not free. “TV is completely controlled by the government – no opposition is allowed,” says Boris Bulatov, who works at an NGO in Moscow. Bulatov wants to remain anonymous to avoid any risk that the project he is work-ing on will run into problems with the authorities. We have therefore changed his name.

“In television, there is no freedom at all,” says Ilya Stechkin, who teaches journalism at Moscow State Uni-versity. On the radio and in the newspapers there is a little more freedom. But he argues that this is in part because newspaper circulation is falling and the authorities are less interested.

“The level of censorship in Russia is really high. All news-papers are more or less censored, making the internet the only news channel,” says Oksana Chelysheva, who also has a background in journalism.

All three agree that the internet is the only alternative for anyone who wants to access free Russian media. There is also some censorship online, but this is more limited.

Attempts to censor the internet

“The internet in Russia is free, almost completely free,” says Boris Bulatov. The government is trying to tighten control of the internet, but so far they have not been very successful.

People can basically go to any website, and there are blog-gers who write about any topic at all. “Censorship is not nearly on the same level as in China and Burma.”

“Some of the most popular websites in Russia are news blogs. They look like real media, and some of them carry out investigative journalism,” he says.

However, Ilya Stechkin is worried that internet censor-ship in Russia could be more extensive going forward. He is critical of two new proposals put forward by the govern-ment which would allow websites to be shut down without a court order.

One proposal officially concerns protecting children from extremism and other aggressive web content. “Believe me, they were not primarily thinking of the kids when they de-signed this proposal.”

One of the problems is that the term ‘extremism’ is not de-fined. As a result, it would be easy to misuse the law and use it for other purposes, Ilya Stechkin argues. It would be up to the owner of the website that is criticised to defend it and demonstrate that the content is not unsuitable.

The second proposal that worries him is officially con-cerned with copyright protection. “The proposal is very strange and it really goes against the whole idea of the inter-net, namely to be able to share and spread information.”

“The internet’s influence is based on the viral effect. But the proposal strangles the viral effect by making it a crime to spread other people’s information.”

The way the proposal is drafted, it is not even enough for the owner of the information to give his or her permission. “For instance, if you publish an extract from a text that someone else has written. In that situation, even if you have the author’s permission, the authorities may still declare the publication illegal.”

“Many experts have expressed concern about the propos-al’s effects. But they have not been able to change the con-tent,” he adds.

RUSSIA: “If you crıtıcıze powerful people, anythıng can happen.”

Appendix

42

What the government wants to censor

According to Boris Bulatov, there are opinion polls show-ing wide popular support for increased censorship. Among the things Russians want to censor are child pornography and information that promotes suicide and drug abuse.

But none of the people we interviewed believe that the pro-posals are intended merely to address these social problems.

Journalists and bloggers in Russia occasionally run into trouble, often in connection with their revelations about corruption or other abuses of power.

“If you criticize powerful people, anything can happen, es-pecially if you interfere with their business interests,” says Ilya Stechkin.

“Another sensitive issue is the person of the president. Aside from these issues, you can talk about almost any-thing,” he adds.

Unconventional methods

The Russian government’s strategy is to use laws to intensify internet control. However, this does not prevent other meth-ods from being used to silence embarrassing journalists and bloggers.

Oksana Chelysheva works with the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society. She worked previously at Novaya Gazeta, one of Russia’s most outspoken newspapers, but she now lives in exile in Finland.

“When the Russian authorities have identified you as criti-cal of the government, your privacy is not protected. I have personally experienced several times that my Facebook account and my Gmail account have been hacked. Fortu-nately, I have been able to take some measures to protect my information, but I still get notifications when there are intru-sion attempts.”

A few years ago, a popular blogger had her Facebook page shut down. She wrote about conditions in Russian prisons,

but someone had reported to Facebook that her page con-tained offensive content. Since Facebook could not check the information, the company relied on the party submit-ting the complaint and closed the page.

Another method used is virus attacks against individual computers or computer systems, says Oksana Chelysheva. A large share of the world’s distributed-denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks originate in Russia or Ukraine.1

One event that had a strong impact on Oksana Chelysheva was the murder of her friend and colleague Anna Politkov-skaya, who was shot in the lift of her apartment building. The murder is still unsolved, but Politkovskaya was known for her criticism of the Russian war in Chechnya and of Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin.

Oksana Chelysheva is convinced that the motive for the murder was to silence Anna Politkovskaya.

“It’s not necessary to murder everyone – it’s enough to kill a dozen or so to silence a thousand people,” she says.

How Sweden can help

The interviewees seem to agree that the internet has great potential as a channel for opinion formation in Russia, es-pecially for a younger target group. Many older people also have experience using the internet thanks to the Russian version of Facebook, VKontakte, which mostly attracts people over the age of 35.

Both Oksana Chelysheva and Ilya Stechkin identify Finland as a role model for freedom of expression online. Finland has traditionally had particularly close relations with Russia, which in their view the other Nordic countries do not.

One topic that the respondents bring up repeatedly is the question of language. Most Russians do not speak English so it is important to be able to communicate in Russian. From the perspective of the Russian authorities, English-

1 TechSpot (27/2 1012), Kaspersky: DDoS attacks 57% more powerful in H2 2011, Russia tops list

43

language media are not a threat – they still do not reach a broad audience.

Ilya Stechkin sees three areas in which Sweden could help to strengthen internet freedom in Russia in the long term: 1) training in journalism and internet use, 2) services that protect against computer hacking and 3) the provision of news aimed at a Russian audience – in Russian.

Boris Bulatov also suggests that Sweden help by providing training – for journalists and NGOs.

Oksana Chelysheva has four proposals: 1) monitor individ-ual cases where Russian journalists/bloggers are silenced, 2) help move Russian websites under threat to other coun-tries, 3) meet people in Russia who are fighting for freedom of expression and invite them to visit Sweden, and 4) share information in Russian about what is happening in Russia.

Summary for Russia

. The internet has developed into the most important source of news, especially for the younger generations.

. Attempts are made to censor the internet, but there is still a fairly high degree of freedom of expression online.

. The government is trying to tighten control over what is published online through legislation, which could have very negative consequences in the long term for freedom of expression.

. There is good potential for training people and influ-encing them online, if this is done in the right way.

. Examples of how Sweden can help to enhance internet freedom in Russia in the long term are training in in-ternet use and disseminating information in Russian.

Facts about Ryssland

Number of inhabitants: 143 million

Internet access: 49% of the population (ITU, 2011)

Number of mobile phone subscriptions: 256 million (ITU, 2011)

Number of Facebook accounts: 8 million (Internet World Stats, 2012)

Purchasing power parity GDP per capita: $21,921 (World Bank, 2011)

Important social media

VKontakte (the Russian counterpart of Facebook) with 45 million active users in 2013.

Appendix

44

US: “Amerıcans always thınk that freedom ıs good – perıod.”

In the US, the internet is free and there are few restrictions to freedom of expression online. The criticism that is expressed largely concerns deficiencies in privacy protection and sur-veillance of suspected terrorists. The Americans maintain a high profile on issues concerning internet freedom and want to spread their message to other parts of the world.

The US is usually described as ‘the home of freedom’. Amer-icans voice clear ambitions in the area of internet freedom, and the country’s former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has delivered a series of speeches on the theme of what can be done to increase internet freedom in the world. Many of the people interviewed for this study, even outside the US, re-fer to Hillary Clinton’s speeches on internet freedom. They believe she and thus Americans were the first to coin the ex-pression ‘internet freedom’.

Whether this is true or not, it is striking how many people refer to the US when issues of freedom of expression and pro-tection of privacy online are discussed. This is one of the rea-sons why we chose to include the US as a reference country, even though conditions there in many respects differ consid-erably from conditions in the other countries studied.

The Americans we interviewed all take the view that the internet in the US is free. “What do get censured on the in-ternet in the US are basically two things – child pornogra-phy and things related to terrorism,” says Josh Levy of Free Press.

Freedom House draws a similar conclusion in its 2012 coun-try report on the US. The report states, “Access to informa-tion on the internet is generally free from government inter-ference. There is no government-run filtering mechanism affecting content passing over the internet or mobile phone networks. Users with opposing viewpoints engage in vibrant online political discourse and face almost no legal or techni-cal restrictions on their expressive activities online.”

The restrictions that do exist involve activities that are gener-ally prohibited in the US and which therefore are not allowed online. They include child pornography, copyright infringe-ment, publication of classified information, illegal gaming and financial crime.

The limits have been stretched

Alan Rosenblatt at the Internet Advocacy Roundtable be-lieves that the internet has made American society more tolerant and open. “Anything at all can be said online, even something the traditional media would never publish.”

He also thinks the internet has stretched the limits of what can be published, including in traditional media. One example he gives is the book written by an elite soldier involved in the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden. “People at the Defense Department were obviously not pleased, but they couldn’t stop the book.”

The authorities refrain from prosecution

The principle applied in the US is that the authorities do not prosecute individuals for something they have pub-lished online unless it involves child pornography or copy-right infringement. The US authorities have investigated the possibilities of prosecuting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, but so far this has not happened. Their attitude is that the crime is committed by the person who leaks classi-fied information, not by someone who reproduces the infor-mation online or in other media.

Comparatively low level of internet access

Compared with the other countries in the study, the US has by far the highest level of internet access; 78 per cent of Americans have internet access. But Freedom House notes in its country report that this is a low percentage compared to other industrialised countries such as Japan, South Ko-rea, Norway and Sweden.

In rural areas and among poor Americans, the figure is lower. Thus the access to information and the opportunities for people to express their views afforded by the internet are not available to the entire population.

45

Privacy of internet users

The privacy issue clearly receives more attention in the US than in the other countries studied. “Our privacy is threat-ened, both by companies that collect and sell our private in-formation, and by the government, which can obtain access to private information to a degree most people are not aware of,” says Josh Levy of Free Press. He thinks better laws are needed to protect the privacy of internet users.

However, Alan Rosenblatt of the Internet Advocacy Round-table is not as convinced that more extensive legislation is needed. “The biggest privacy problem is actually people giv-ing out their information voluntarily,” he says.

Surveillance of suspected terrorists

Many of the people interviewed in the other countries, Pa-kistan in particular, do not consider internet freedom in the US to be as extensive as Americans claim. They refer to the privacy issue – that companies collect and use private information – as well as to the surveillance carried out by the US of suspected terrorists. “If I lived in the US, I would constantly be worried about who was monitoring me online and how my information is used,” cautions IT entrepreneur Murtaza Zaidi in Pakistan.

The US Patriot Act, introduced in the country after the September 11 attacks, provides authorities with far-reach-ing powers to monitor people suspected of terrorism or other crimes. There are examples of police forces in the US monitoring websites to track people involved in suspicious activities. One example is the New York police, who have spied on Muslim students in the US for a number of years by monitoring blogs, websites and chat forums aimed spe-cifically at younger Muslims.

Views on Sweden as a champion of internet freedom

Alan Rosenblatt at the Internet Advocacy Roundtable be-lieves that most Americans do not think particularly much

about other countries, but if they do, they think internet freedom is also needed there. “Americans always think freedom is good – period,” he says.

The Americans interviewed all have a positive impression of Sweden and think it is a given that Sweden stands for freedom and openness. “Sweden has a good government policy to make affordable and open internet accessible to everyone,” says Josh Levy at Free Press.

But the Americans do not consider Sweden to be actively driving the issue of freedom of expression online. “I know a fair amount about Sweden, but I honestly don’t know what Sweden is doing to support internet freedom. If you are do-ing things, maybe you should promote it more,” suggests Alan Rosenblatt at the Internet Advocacy Roundtable.

Jillian York at the Electronic Frontier Foundation is con-vinced that Sweden, like other European countries, has good laws governing internet freedom. But she points out that she is an expert on countries where internet freedom is under threat, not on countries with no problems.

How Sweden can help

Americans have a few suggestions as to what Sweden can do to encourage internet freedom elsewhere in the world, which are based in part on what the US already does. “There are mainly two things you can do,” says Alan Rosenblatt of the Internet Advocacy Roundtable. “First, create web servers abroad that can’t be shut down.” To help the Chinese, for instance, Sweden can set up servers in other countries that Chinese activists can use. That makes it difficult for the Chinese authorities to shut down those servers. “Second, develop tools that protect the anonymity of internet users.”

Josh Levy at Free Press thinks that it is risky for the West to attempt to force their views on other countries. “It will probably backfire if we tell other countries how they should act,” he warns. “Instead we need to promote open dialogue about the advantages of internet freedom.”

Appendix

46

Summary for the US

. The internet in the US is in principle free, and there are few restrictions on what Americans can say online or how they can express themselves.

. The principle applied in the US is that authorities do not prosecute individuals for something they have published online unless it is child pornography or infringes copyright law.

. The issue of privacy attracts more attention in the US than in the other countries studied. The main con-cerns here are the collection and selling of private information and monitoring of citizens by the authorities.

. The US Patriot Act, introduced after the September 11 attacks, gives the authorities far-reaching powers to track people suspected of terrorism or other crimes.

. The people interviewed in the US all have a positive impression of Sweden, but they do not consider Sweden to be actively driving issues involving freedom of expression and the protection of privacy online.

Facts about USA

Number of inhabitants: 315 million

Internet access: 78% of the population (ITU, 2011)

Number of mobile phone subscriptions: 290 million (ITU, 2011)

Number of Facebook accounts: 166 million (Internet World Stats, 2012)

Number of Twitter users: 25 million (Pew Internet, 2012)

Purchasing power parity GDP per capita: $48,112 (World Bank, 2011)

Important social media

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

Notes

© Swedish Institute 2013Swedish Institute & United Minds ISBN: 978-91-86995-31-7Translation from Swedish: Susan LongLayout: Mu ABPrinting: Ineko, Stockholm, 2013

The Swedish Institute (SI) is a public agency that promotes interest and confidence in Sweden around the world. SI seeks to establish co-operation and lasting relations with other countries through strategic communication and exchange in the fields of culture, education, science and business. SI works closely with Swedish embassies and consulates around the world.

www.si.se

Under surveillance

No censorship

Pervasive censorship

Some censorship

Source: Reporters Without Borders