CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 360Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare StudiesFreedom of Expression and DefamationDigitalization, Law, and Regulation

Access Denied The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering

Open access
Deibert, Ronald, Palfrey, John, Rohozinski, Rafal, Zittrain, Jonathan L.·2008·CrimRxiv
DOI 10.21428/cb6ab371.9034e9f7
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Internet filtering seems like an infringement of the civil liberties of all of us who use this free, public, unitary, global network of networks. But states have a strong argument that they have the right to control domestic matters, whether or not they occur in cyberspace, and there is often little that other states can do to influence them. The future of the Internet, if not all geopolitics, hangs in the balance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.21428/cb6ab371.9034e9f7

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Internet filters are costly to develop and maintain, and even if offered free at the point of use, their costs are ultimately borne by the consumer or taxpayer.

    “First, in financial terms, they are costly to develop and maintain,14 and even if offered free at the point of use, their costs are ultimate borne by the consumer or taxpayer.15”

    From Internet Filtering and Adolescent Exposure to Online Sexual Material (2018) · cites this paper as [15]

  • Digital and social media offer important new tools for social movements, activists, and state critics as well as substantial avenues for expanding state surveillance and suppression of those same actors.

    “Digital and social media offer important new tools for social movements, activists, and state critics (1) as well as substantial avenues for expanding state surveillance and suppression of those same actors (2, 3).”

    From Physical and virtual repertoires of contention (2022) · cites this paper as [3]

  • Nation states' use of digital surveillance is long-standing and well-documented.

    “Nation states’ use of digital surveillance (Table 1, cell 2) is long-standing and well-documented (2, 3, 52).”

    From Physical and virtual repertoires of contention (2022) · cites this paper as [3]

  • Corporate actions may be compelled through state ownership structures, domestic laws, or orders to private telecom companies to restrict specific topics or cut access to citizens.

    “Corporate actions may also be compelled, whether through state ownership structures, domestic laws, or orders to private telecom companies, to restrict specific topics or cut access to citizens (2, 3, 130, 131).”

    From Physical and virtual repertoires of contention (2022) · cites this paper as [3]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Deibert, R., Palfrey, J., Rohozinski, R., & Zittrain, J. L.
ORCID
Venue
CrimRxiv
Publisher
PubPub
Published
2008-02-01
DOI
10.21428/cb6ab371.9034e9f7
OpenAlex
W2138011829
Cited by
358
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 30
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • CrimRxiv (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Freedom of Expression and Defamation
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
internet filtering, civil liberties, internet governance, geopolitics, censorship, freedom of expression

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review