http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8633642.stm
Google has just released the requests from countries for take-downs and
user details.
My stance on "freedom of Speech" now and always was that it was relative and licensed by the state. In a democracy that in theory means the voters, consequently it is should be both mandatory and the solemn responsibility to do so. if only to protect privileges like our level of freedom of speech.
These released details make it clear that all the huff and puff about a filter is commercially instigated. Keep in mind this is just one source of censorship.
It is naive to think that censor ship isn't and all ways has been a tool of power. Likewise, how much do commercial interests exert commercial pressure to censor etc.
Comments?

Interesting examinator. I read that Australia ranked about 10th or 11th. It would be interesting to know what sites were being marked for censorship by Brazil, Germany, US and India at the high end of the list.

Were the sites those with illegal content or were the requests politically motivated? Until we know that, it is difficult to make a judgement about whether the censorship requests were unreasonable.

I have no problems with the ideology of censorship on condition of transparency, oversight and legislation to confine it to illegal content without exception. It is all about how it is used and what for.

Any other content whether it be political or religious should be automatically excluded from censorship on the obvious grounds of freedom of speech and to prevent totalitarian regimes from stifling dissent.

Dear Examinator,

According to the site you've given us
we're told that:

"The tool doesn't break out the data for the
number of times Google complied or refused
requests for information on individuals.
It complies with take down requests, but
doesn't supply specifics..."

The next release of information from Google
will be in six months - and they hopefully
will supply better information. In the meantime
without knowing the specifics its hard to make
any judgements.

I'd be also interested to know what sort of
a deal was made with China. It doesn't appear
that Google is being very transparent at all.
They're only disclosing what suits them.
Or am I wrong?

@examinator: My stance on "freedom of Speech" now and always was that it was relative and licensed by the state. In a democracy that in theory means the voters, consequently it is should be both mandatory and the solemn responsibility to do so. if only to protect privileges like our level of freedom of speech.

Of course. But that is true of every right we have.

@examinator: Keep in mind this is just one source of censorship.

The google site http://www.google.com/governmentrequests/overview.html explains the bulk of these requests are for slander and deformation. There were deemed so by a court, and it is the court that made the request. Google specifically say a only a very small proportion are for political speech.

@examinator: Likewise, how much do commercial interests exert commercial pressure to censor etc.

Huge. But we don't call it censorship. For example, if someone sells you a product that is defective and they deliberately suppressed releasing information about the defect, we call it fraud. If a company develops a new process but keeps it secret, we call it a Trade Secret. If two companies want to keep their negotiations secret, we call it commercial in confidence.

@examinator: These released details make it clear that all the huff and puff about a filter is commercially instigated.

You've lost me completely. I can not see the connection to your statements above. What is it?

Rstuart,
Re. Commercially instigated.
I think it is a reasonable conclusion, based on previous experience with corporations and their fingerprint is clear.
e.g. why else do you suppose the USA has made its opinion clear on an other wise trivial internal matter?

Google, Facebook,Utube,Yahoo,Microsoft et al are all huge US corporations that are tapped into the rivers of gold (internet) they are concerned about the impact such an action my have on their profit line.
NB the Above are in the advertising business. all the other services are there to support that.

If say this filter was to slow the net down particularly in the social networking area they have a reasonable concern it may mean less hits less reliance on the services they offer.....less attractive as advertising. Likewise if their sites are targeted they stand to lose money.

They also fear that their product may be subject to control i.e. advertising GM foods or they are restricted on privacy matters.list generation etc.

But most of all they fear if the idea catches on and MANY countries go this route it would make their business more complex and vulnerable and less profitable.
Clearly control other than US control that they can lobby is of concern to them.

US based Corporations readily use their government to fight their battles.

i.e. look at what happened with Bopal and what happens when one of their industry groups interests are either not wanted or threatened.

The govt charges in with diplomacy then threats, and finally use and abuse of WTO. Yet they resist any real reciprocity. They then delay, drag issues out and ultimately simply change a law creating the a new issue i.e. look at their meat market etc.

In the final analysis there are very few reasons for US policy and all of them ultimately involve their COMMERCIAL interests or internal Politics.
This is merely a statement of perspective as our own Commercial interests would be lobbying too.

@examinator: If say this filter was to slow the net down particularly in the social networking area they have a reasonable concern

This is a theory worthy of Arjay, examinator.

Firstly, the filter will not slow the net down. I know claims it will are common enough. They are wrong. Off the top of my head NZ and UK have optional filters. The speed impact isn't noticeable.

Secondly, none of the companies you mention serve content from Australia. They can ignore our laws with impunity.

Thirdly, Facebook, Myspace, Youtube all police their sites vigorously. Try finding beastilaty on them, as an example. It doesn't exist. There is no sex on Youtube at all. It is in their pecuniary interest to be family friendly sites. If you doubt this, try the following experiment:

1. Turn safe search off on Google, and search for the work "cats". Saw a lot of cats? Good.

2. Repeat, but replace "cats" with "sex". See a lot of graphic pictures of sex? Excellent.

3. Repeat, but replace "cats" with "beastilaty". See a lot pictures of beastilaty? No. Not one.

Nor will you see kiddie porn or snuff films.

Have you got it yet? Google already does filter most of the stuff the mandatory filter would block. They block far more of it for China, or at least did until they such down their servers in China so they would not be subject to Chinese law.

You are so wrong it is not funny.

I tell you what. Google, Facebook and their ilk do regularly attempt to undermine one branch of our law, and some people get very unset by it. They do it to make money. Its American business morals running riot.

Tell me what it is.