Censorship of internet content can take many forms and ranges from governments blocking the dissemination of political opinion to blacklisting pornographic and pirate websites.
The OpenNet Initiative is a collaboration between three groups – the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk school of global affairs, Harvard University’s Berkman centre for internet society and the SecDev Group in Ottawa – that investigates internet filtering around the world.
ONI principal investigator and Citizen Lab director Ronald Deibert says:
Originally and probably still to a large extent, pornography is both the most widely targeted content and also the one that’s justified the most by countries. Most countries, if they’re going to engage in internet censorship, start by talking about a broad category of inappropriate content. But what we’ve found over the last decade is the spectrum of content that’s targeted for filtering has grown to include political content and security-related content, especially in authoritarian regimes. The scope and scale of content targeted for filtering has grown.
For each country, the ONI looks at the following four categories of filtering and gives each a rank ranging from “No evidence of filtering” to “Pervasive filtering”:
• Political – content opposing the current government or its policies; can also relate to human rights, freedom of expression, minority rights or religious movements
• Social – content that might be perceived as offensive by the general population such as sexuality, gambling, illegal drugs, etc
• Conflict/security – Content related to armed conflicts, border disputes, militant groups and separatist movements
• Internet tools – Tools enabling users to communicate with others, circumvent filtering or that otherwise provide a service. Each country is then classified in terms of consistency – how consistently these topics are filtered across internet service providers – and transparency – how visible the process is by which sites are blocked and whether users are able to view what’s on the blacklist.
According to the ONI data, Iran was the worst ranked, with “pervasive” filtering in the political, social and internet tools categories and “substantial” for conflict/security filtering. Tested in 2011, Iran’s filtering was rated as being “highly” consistent and had “medium” transparency. Even the country’s president isn’t immune to the blacklist – it was reported in February this year that censors had blocked access to several news sites supporting Ahmadinejad ahead of the parliamentary elections in March. Worse yet, Iran has proposed a national internet, which would both increase the government’s grip over individual connections but also restrict foreign users from accessing Iranian websites. Additionally, individuals are also required to provide personal details to even use a cybercafe.
After Iran was China, which had “pervasive” political and conflict/security filtering, along with “substantial” internet tools and social filtering. In addition to highly consistent filtering, China also had a lower transparency score than Iran. On April 12, Chinese users were cut off from all foreign websites, possibly due to a reconfiguration of the so-called “great firewall.”
Meanwhile, authorities have shut down 42 websites since March this year. “The market for filtering technologies has grown worldwide; what started out as a market primarily oriented to corporate environments in the west has now become a major growing business for government,” said Deibert.
Our research identified many corporations – mostly Silicon Valley corporations – that have provided products and services to regimes that have violated human rights. The market for these types of technologies that are used to implement control is growing more sophisticated
However, Deibert feels governments are moving away from widespread blacklists of websites to filter and towards what the ONI calls “next-generation filtering,” which includes targeted surveillance and “just in time” filtering, or temporarily filtering content only when it’s valuable – for instance, during an election. “We’re seeing a trend away from traditional internet censorship and towards next-generation controls,” he said. “The future is not in the great firewall but in the way countries like Iran have come to filter content.”
Do you agree with the ONI assessment? Let us know in the comment field below. You can also download the data too direct from the ONI – what can you do with it? And what would you want to see it compared with?
Data summary
ONI ranking of each country for internet censorship
Click heading to sort table. Download this data
SOURCE: ONI
United Arab Emirates
substantial
pervasive
pervasive
selective
Afghanistan
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Armenia
substantial
selective
selective
selective
Australia
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Azerbaijan
selective
selective
no evidence
no evidence
Bangladesh
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Bahrain
pervasive
pervasive
substantial
selective
Belarus
selective
selective
selective
selective
Canada
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
China
pervasive
substantial
substantial
pervasive
Colombia
no evidence
selective
no evidence
no evidence
Germany
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Denmark
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Algeria
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Egypt
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Ethiopia
substantial
selective
selective
selective
Finland
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
France
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
United Kingdom
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Georgia
selective
no evidence
no evidence
selective
Guatemala
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Croatia
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Hungary
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Indonesia
selective
substantial
selective
no evidence
Israel
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
India
selective
selective
selective
selective
Iraq
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Iran
pervasive
pervasive
pervasive
substantial
Italy
no evidence
selective
no evidence
no evidence
Jordan
selective
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Kyrgyzstan
selective
selective
no evidence
no evidence
South Korea
no evidence
selective
no evidence
pervasive
Kuwait
selective
pervasive
pervasive
selective
Kazakhstan
selective
selective
no evidence
no evidence
Laos
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Lebanon
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Sri Lanka
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Latvia
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Libya
selective
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Morocco
no evidence
selective
selective
selective
Moldova
selective
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Burma (Myanmar)
pervasive
substantial
substantial
substantial
Mauritania
selective
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Mexico
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
selective
Malaysia
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Nigeria
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Norway
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Nepal
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Oman
selective
pervasive
substantial
no evidence
Peru
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Philippines
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Pakistan
selective
selective
selective
substantial
Gaza and the West Bank
no evidence
substantial
no evidence
no evidence
Qatar
selective
pervasive
pervasive
selective
Romania
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Russia
selective
selective
no evidence
no evidence
Saudi Arabia
substantial
pervasive
pervasive
selective
Sudan
selective
substantial
substantial
no evidence
Sweden
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Singapore
no evidence
selective
no evidence
no evidence
Syria
pervasive
selective
pervasive
selective
Thailand
selective
selective
selective
no evidence
Tajikistan
selective
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Turkmenistan
pervasive
selective
selective
selective
Tunisia
no evidence
selective
selective
no evidence
Turkey
selective
selective
selective
no evidence
Ukraine
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Uganda
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
United States
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Uzbekistan
pervasive
selective
selective
selective
Venezuela
no evidence
selective
no evidence
no evidence
Vietnam
pervasive
selective
substantial
selective
Yemen
substantial
pervasive
pervasive
selective
Zimbabwe
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
no evidence
Download the data
• Download the latest dataset direct from the ONI
• DATA: download the data behind our interactive map
More data
Data journalism and data visualisations from the Guardian
World government data
• Search the world’s government data with our gateway
Development and aid data
• Search the world’s global development data with our gateway
Can you do something with this data?
• Flickr Please post your visualisations and mash-ups on our Flickr group
• Contact us at data@guardian.co.uk
• Get the A-Z of data
• More at the Datastore directory
• Follow us on Twitter
• Like us on Facebook