A recent report published by Privacy International suggests that internet censorship is at an all time high. In addition to extensive regulation by non-democratic states, the study points to the heightened sensitivity of many Western governments in response to a perceived terrorist threat. However, it is noted that an active censorship poses an even greater threat to activists and persons relying on the internet as a source of independent information:

This last comment is particularly incisive in relation to the present situation in the United States. The Patriot Act grants additional investigative powers to law-enforcement and anti-terrorism personnel, many provisions of which relate to the active monitoring of telecommunications (including e-mail). Interestingly, the article notes that much of the technology used to censor the internet (and other high-tech forms of communication) is provided by the West.

Did you know this site is blocked in China? I'm not quite sure what I might have written here to attract the information of the censors, but sure enough I have a threat rating of 2/5, based on the proportion of provinces in which the site is inaccessible. Perhaps I linked to a site on the same IP address as something questionable, or they found my blather unforgivably liberal.

Censorship has always been a sensitive issue, but it is essentially just another incarnation of the classic paradox of modern liberalism - tension between individual autonomy and government regulation. Ultimately, censorship exists in reaction to a perceived need to protect individual freedoms, but problematic in relation to what constitutes 'threat'. Authorities need to recognise that it is largely impossible to regulate the flow of information in a global society; even if a reasonable justification for the restriction of access to certain information could be made, it would not be practically feasible to implement.

Many governments are using terrorism to justify increased surveillance activities (such as censorship), but this comes at the cost of civil liberties. As the article notes, what this justification ignores is that intelligence is supposed to protect liberty, not be used to justify its curtailment. Increasingly, though, this is what is happening; frighteningly often, governments will refer to technology (of all things) as though its very existence is a threat to civil liberty.

As encryption technologies continue to develop, governments will face increasing hurdles in attempting to monitor and censor information. This is a Good Thing^TM, as present governments almost invariably seem to incorrectly determine 'threat' to individual autonomy, and impose additional restrictions upon liberty in the name of maintaining it. If quantum cryptography ever becomes widely available, a substantial reconceptualisation of censorship would need to occur. Effectively, governments would not be able to monitor information-flow at all, which is probably why (if the technology is ever developed) it will either be highly regulated or quietly tucked away.

Recent trends in the development of private communication mediums are definitely a sign of things to come, but until an unbreakable method of data security is employed, civil liberty remains a concern online.