Technologies Used In Internet Censorship and Control
Murdoch (2013) opines the Internet as an entity where control is always fought over for by those that use it. He further demystifies the internet, breaking it down to the two protocols that define it. These are the transmission control protocol – TCP- and the Internet Protocol –Ip. It is these protocols that enable the connection of two separate networks to each other. The protocols enable the easy connection of separate networks, without the need to make the hardware in the networks the same. It also enables restriction abstraction, where networks can be interoperable irrespective of the underlying architecture. It is important to note that the protocols are not the product of a bug; instead they are a deliberate effort to make internet connectivity seamless.

The nature of the internet (which unlike other services and goods doesn’t have a single straight forward owner) raises some logical implementation queries related to its restriction. In the beginning, there were some mechanisms of control which were fronted by the members that make up the larger internet community. There existed as norms, that lacked any legal backing form the courts and law enforcement. To ensure adherence to these laws, the internet community leaders (in this case the administrators) would threaten to disconnect the perpetrators and then further block them if they persisted. At the time, it was the hope of many users and administrators that this method of checks and balances would be sufficient. The rationale was that these methods that were developed inherently covered the spirit of the internet and would therefore make sense to the majority of the users. In so doing, the ability of the internet to function seamlessly would be preserved. It was further believed that keeping the internet’s control out of the influence and interference of the government would promote ‘ freedom of speech and freedom from prejudice.’ (Murdoch, 2013, p. 6)

In recent years Parliament has passed laws to deal with a variety of misuses to which internet technology can be put. Legislation has been enacted to prohibit spam (through the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act, 2007), unauthorized access to computers (through the Crimes Amendment Act 2003), covert filming (through the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Act, 2006), copyright infringement (through the copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill) and other online offending. ( Wilson, 2008).

Censorship: A Necessary Evil or a Mandatory Tool?
In reality, the ease with which a company can be affected by a breach in its security is dependent on its growth and its development. Therefore, it pays to have the financial security matters well spelled out. Information about an organization or vital data of an individual is better kept safely. This indulgence is left for the experts, but should be coined in a simplistic manner, to ensure that even the non-computer savvy user can be protected. The threats, when they come, do not discriminate the experts versus then novices. As such more and more companies are developing sets of guidelines that govern their operations. It is these policies that work hand in hand to make sure they provide a clear guideline to be able to run the organization. These guidelines are extended to apply to computer usage and data security. Despite the fact that there is usually a clear policy that guides the protection of information sensitive about the company, there is need for extra organizational help to help protect the user. This is the approach by the government to protect some rights of its people and the security of the others by restricting access to some sites. This is usually met with hostility and scorn, interpreted as draconian.

As Gorman (2005) shows, any country that practices censorship is likely to be labeled a dictator. In the spirit of a free internet, the restriction of websites would be deemed to be going contrary to the very idea that fronted the formation of the internet in the first place. Looking at the way in which censorship has been justified though, there is always a line about how it will in the long run protect the users of the internet, leading to the users accepting it.

The technological Trends
Bambauer (2013) points to the evolution of the technology used to censor the internet, classifying in a tri-faceted evolutionary cycle. Censorship has adapted to stay in sync with the advances of the internet itself. At the moment the latest version of censorship ‘Censorship v3.1, is particularly pernicious because it’s less visible, less transparent, and less vulnerable to challenge than previous iterations.’ (Bambauer, 2013, p.26).

A way of working round this would be to seek alternative routes round the censorship. This bold idea was the brainchild of the belief that the internet would just pass by any barriers to information. This marked the passing of censorship v1.0. The realization that screening of information was possible marked the advent of Censorship v2.0. It also opened the window for the governments to set themselves at the center of the censorship. In this sense, there was a checks and balances system to the governments too, to see that they were aligned to the norms. As such, only those governments that are benighted would engage in censoring. Most internet users though felt that the act of censorship was tantamount to a government exercising authoritarian rule.
‘The list grew rapidly. France blocked hate speech; South Korea filtered North Korean sites; Great Britain censored child pornography and then copyright infringement; India curtailed access to political and religious content.’ (Bambauer, 2013, p. 27)
Censorship v3.0 was borne out of the necessity to ingrain censorship to all internet facets, and give it a truly ubiquitous nature. Bambauer (2013) further points to the fact that the US joined in the fray, taking control of domain names and deliberately blocking the access to the said sites. The tenets that guided this censorship were devoid of any political inclinations. This, they argued, was fundamentally based on their fight against infringement of intellectual property. These overtures were justified by the explanation that their actions were guided by the greater need to protect and enforce property rights. They argued that it was in a bid to protect the children, and also to prevent harm in the dignitary sense. It makes sense to note that censorship on the internet can also be a good thing. It can be applied to eradicate the vices of child it helps therefore to curb the distribution and consumption of such material. The legitimacy of the blocking cannot just be determined by examining the content that is blocked. This is because of the varying political, social, cultural and religious connotations that justify the blocking. The legitimacy of censorship can therefore be determined by the transparency of how it is carried out. In this case, the examination into the blocked content. The manner in which it is blocked is also of importance. This should be done openly and with a good explanation to the material that is being blocked. It should also be able to provide accountability

Conceptual and Technological Issues for Internet Censorship
Wagner (2012), in trying to show the importance of the technology:
As with any other form of technology, the hardware and software at the basis of censorship technology is essentially value neutral. Hence ‘censorship technology’ and ‘surveillance technology’ are relational concepts, which exist in certain contexts but cannot be generalized to all possible uses of this technology. ( Wagner, 2012, p.7)
This idea points to the uniqueness of every company and the need to exhaustively analyze each of the methods on offer versus the type of risk that is deemed viable in the reason.

Pirated Software Software Piracy marks the initial break in the defense of any security. Due to copyright matters, it is not legal to copy a company’s software. Pirated software also carries with it malwares and viruses, or opens up ports through which the viruses can enter. The line between being an authoritarian cyber dictator and protecting the rights of patented software is usually thin, and is essential in classifying censorship.

Access of mail through the Internet Accepted as the internet’s postman, web mail is pivotal in keeping in touch. Abuse has however turned it into a gateway for cyber-attacks and bottlenecks. Whitman (2003) pints out that if this service is abused it can act as the enemy within, posing as a good Trojan horse gateway that will bring down the system. In keeping with the need to protect the users, a policy may be drawn to govern the utilization of the service. Intrinsic to many mail servers is also a mandatory virus check that ascertains the absence of malicious items in any sent mail. This can be deemed as censorship since one’s hand is forced to scan documents but this is for the greater good.

Outsourcing Outsourcing can be described as delegation of service provision by an organization to a third part entity. It is a common practice these days for outsourcing to be done in order for a company to concentrate more on its core services and therefore not risk running in with the internet norms. This would give the organization an advantage against playing by the internet’s norms. Interaction with the outsourcing firm may however expose it to other firms who may end up taking advantage and launching cyber-attacks.

Activism the Online Way: Hacktivism
Hacktivism is herein classified as an act where a programmer illegally accesses a system with malicious intent, and proceeds to pass a message that had political undertones. These types of persons pose the greatest risk to censorships.
Action Reaction Forces of Censorship
But the current flurry of censorship activity by the Chinese government could be in reaction to their 16th National Party Congress in November. Laws and policies are often loudly announced, only to be selectively enforced or ignored. The blocking of Google and other similar search engines, for example, lasted only several weeks. Zacks, (2013).
As Zacks (2013) points out, the activism by the internet free wills will usually determine the way that these censorships go. Making the right kind of noise in the right forums will make even the deafest of ears to listen to what is being said. The initial logic behind censorship can be to block the security loopholes can be used by programmers wreak havoc into a countries data. For countries like China too, there is just the general feeling that too much exposure will paint the country grim and cause dissent among the citizens. As such the country will not have qualms about reviewing the existing source code in a bid to seal vulnerability spots that can pose as a danger to infiltration.