Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
FREEDOM
ON THE NET
2016
Major Developments
10
15
17
18
19
20
22
24
26
28
Methodology 30
Checklist of Questions
33
Contributors 38
This report was made possible by the generous support of the U.S. State Departments
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL), Google, the Schloss Family
Foundation, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Facebook, the Internet Society, Yahoo,
and Twitter. The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of Freedom House and
does not necessarily represent the views of its donors.
This booklet is a summary of findings for the 2016 edition of Freedom on the Net. A full volume with 65
country reports assessed in this years study can be found on our website at www.freedomhouse.org.
on the cover
A Bahraini woman uses a mobile phone to take photos during clashes with riot police in Sitra, south of the capital Manama,
January 2016.
Photo credit: Mohammed al-Shaikh/AFP/Getty Images
Freedom
oN THE NET
2016
Internet freedom has declined for the sixth consecutive year, with
more governments than ever before targeting social media and
communication apps as a means of halting the rapid dissemination of
information, particularly during antigovernment protests.
Public-facing social media platforms like Facebook
and Twitter have been subject to growing censorship
for several years, but in a new trend, governments
increasingly target messaging and voice communication apps such as WhatsApp and Telegram. These
services are able to spread information and connect
users quickly and securely, making it more difficult for
authorities to control the information landscape or
conduct surveillance.
The increased controls show the importance of social
media and online communication for advancing political
freedom and social justice. It is no coincidence that the
tools at the center of the current crackdown have been
widely used to hold governments accountable and facilitate uncensored conversations. Authorities in several
countries have even resorted to shutting down all
internet access at politically contentious times, solely to
prevent users from disseminating information through
social media and communication apps, with untold
social, commercial, and humanitarian consequences.
Some communication apps face restrictions due to
their encryption features, which make it extremely
difficult for authorities to obtain user data, even for
the legitimate purposes of law enforcement and
national security. Online voice and video calling apps
like Skype have also come under pressure for more
mundane reasons. They are now restricted in several
countries to protect the revenue of national telecommunications firms, as users were turning to the new
www.freedomhouse.org
Freedom
ON THE NET
2016
Freedom on the Net is a comprehensive study of internet freedom in 65 countries around the globe, covering 88 percent of the worlds internet users. It tracks
improvements and declines in governments policies
and practices each year, and the countries included in
the study are selected to represent diverse geographical regions and types of polity. This report, the seventh
2
Freedom House
-6
-5
-4
-4
-4
Free
Partly Free
Not Free
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
Uganda
Bangladesh
Cambodia
Ecuador
Libya
Brazil
Hungary
Russia
Thailand
Turkey
Venezuela
Armenia
Australia
Egypt
The Gambia
Indonesia
Italy
Kazakhstan
Malaysia
South Korea
Angola
Azerbaijan
Ethiopia
France
Georgia
Germany
India
Jordan
Malawi
Morocco
Nigeria
Rwanda
Ukraine
Uzbekistan
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
Freedom
ON THE NET
2016
Major Developments
Social Media and Communication Tools under Assault
In the past year, social media platforms, communication apps, and their users faced greater threats than
ever before in an apparent backlash against growing citizen engagement, particularly during politically sensitive times. Of the 65 countries assessed,
governments in 24 impeded access to social media
and communication tools, up from 15 the previous
year. Governments in 15 countries temporarily shut
down access to the entire internet or mobile phone
networks, sometimes solely to prevent users from disseminating information through social media. Meanwhile, the crackdown on users for their activities on
social media or messaging apps reached new heights
as arrests and punishments intensified.
Governments in 24 countries
impeded access to social media and
communication tools, up from
15 the previous year.
New restrictions on messaging apps
and internet-based calls
Freedom House
WhatsApp was blocked more than any other tool, while Facebook users were
arrested for posting political, social, or religious content in 27 countries.
Platform restricted
40
User arrested
38
35
30
25
27
24
20
15
12 11
10
5
0
12
9
6
7
1
Total number
of countries
restricting
apps, arresting
users
been met with periodic blocks on services including WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and Twitter. In
Bahrain, Telegram was blocked for several days around
the anniversary of the February 14, 2011, Day of
Rage protests, likely to quash any plans for renewed
demonstrations.
In Bangladesh, the authorities ordered the blocking of
platforms including Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp,
and Viber to prevent potential protests following a
Supreme Court ruling in November that upheld death
sentences for two political leaders convicted of war
crimes. The longest block lasted 22 days. In Uganda,
officials directed internet service providers to block
WhatsApp, Facebook, and Twitter for several days during the presidential election period in February 2016
and again in the run-up to the reelected incumbents
inauguration in May. In both instances, the unprecwww.freedomhouse.org
YouTube
Telegram
3
0
Skype
edented blocking worked to silence citizens discontent with the presidents 30-year grip on power and
their efforts to report on the ruling partys notorious
electoral intimidation tactics.
New security and encryption features
also trigger blocking
Governments increasingly imposed restrictions on
internet-based messaging and calling services due to
their strong privacy and security features, which have
attracted many users amid growing concerns about
surveillance worldwide.
Freedom
ON THE NET
2016
35%
Not Assessed
12%
Partly Free
29%
Free
24%
Free
Partly Free
Not Free
Not assessed
Freedom House
Freedom
ON THE NET
2016
EthioTelecom, announced plans in April 2016 to introduce a new pricing scheme for mobile users of popular communication applications. Companies in the
European Union (EU) pushed EU officials throughout
2016 to regulate new communication services, calling
for a level playing field that subjects messaging and
calling platforms to the same regulatory framework,
licensing fees, and law enforcement access requirements as traditional telecoms.
Freedom House
Governments Censor
More Diverse Content
This year featured new trends in the type of content
that attracted official censorship. Posts related to
the LGBTI community, political opposition, digital
activism, and satire resulted in blocking, takedowns,
or arrests for the first time in many settings. Authorities also demonstrated an increasing wariness of the
power of images on todays internet.
A 22 year-old student
in Egypt was sentenced
to three years in prison
for posting this photo
depicting President Abdel
Fattah al-Sisi with Mickey
Mouse ears on Facebook.
2015. A court in Kazakhstan ordered an oppositionaffiliated magazine to shutter its Facebook page along
with its print edition in October 2015. In Bahrain,
prosecutors questioned Sheikh Ali Salman, leader of
the countrys largest political organization, for allegedly tweeting about democracy, even though he was
already imprisoned; police are now investigating who
continues to operate the account.
Digital activism, including petitions, campaigns for
social or political action, and protests, were subject
to censorship in 20 countries in Freedom on the Net,
up from 16 in 2015. Campaigns using smartphones or
social media can appear dangerous because they are
particularly effective at reaching young people. In The
Gambia, a Facebook post calling on young people
to join peaceful protests disappeared in April 2016
and was replaced with a warning to abide by the law;
the protest organizer left the country, citing death
threats. Because online mobilization amplifies discontent, authorities in many countries sought to shut
it down even when the issues at stake were local. In
Kazakhstan, two activists were arrested in May 2016
for planning on social media to attend land-reform
protests scheduled to take place the next day.
Authorities in 26 of the 65 countries assessed, up
from 23 in 2015, tried to suppress satire, which
often skewered public officials. A poet in Myanmar
was charged in November 2015 for posting a satirical poem on Facebook that described a newlyweds
dismay at discovering a tattoo of the president on her
husbands genitals.
9
5 In
don
esia
ar
IA
ya
nm
Pa
ki
st
an
A
es S I
in
p
illi
Ph
e
or
ap
ing
M
ya
nm
ar
Pa
ki
st
an
Ma
lay
sia
0J
ap
an
5 Ind
ia
ia
Ma
lay
sia
0J
ap
an
5 I nd
ia
10 Chin
a
2 Cambodia
4 Bangladesh
10 Chin
a
2 Cambodia
5 In
don
es
uth
o s
5 Spine
i
4 Bangladesh
ST
ST
AU
m 1
Kingdo
1
Italy
United States
United
AU
ary
ng
d 0
lan
Ice
Hu
Uga
nd
bia
lia
y
an
rm
a
ank
ri L re
S
1 apo
g
d
Sin
ilan a
4 6 Tha Kore
ill
Ph
uth
o
5S
d
eannia
0 ATrm
hail
Suda
m
rba
tnaan
5 8Aze
Vie
n 7
South A
frica 0
Nigeria 2
Malawi
2 Ky 0 Georgia
rgyz
s
7 tan
a 2
Keny
AM
ER
ICA
ICA
Egypt 8
Bahrain 7
Iran 1
0
4 10
n yp
Eg
4t 8
Jord
a
noIrnan
Leb
a
roc
Mo
ya n
3
Sy 4
Sa
ri
ud Li
i A bya a 5
ra
3
bi
a
LMeb
9
ora
n
o
oc n
co 4
JLoibrd
a
ia
ra
bi
co
Bahrain 7
ER
iA
ek
ist
an
r
ado
AM
Sy
r
Uz
b
tin
en
2 ia
mb Cuba
6
Ecu
a rg
in A
nt 0
zil
a
ge
Br
ia
Ar
4
mb
il
olo
lo
Co
az
Br
2
ico
r ex
oM
ela
u
Venez
6
xico
2 Me
zuela
6 Vene
Sa
ud
Uz
b
Widespread,
ongoing,
Sporadic
Widespread, or limited
or repeated
ongoing,
Sporadic
censorship censorship
Criticism of Authorities
AF
R
IC
N ST
O
RT A N
DN
H
OR
T
FR
I
CA
MIDD
LE E
A
M
S
ITDAD L
N DE E A
Criticism
of Authorities
Corruption
Corruption
Conflict
10
ra 9
ine Tu
rke
y
2
ek
Uk
ist
ra
i
ne
4 an
ASI
d2
cua
3E
isi
n
Tu
a
ub 3
6C
e
nit
ira
E
ab
Ar
ite
yrgy
9T
zsta
urk
n
ey8
2
Ru
s
Uk
sia
EUR
3 ambia 8
la
go The G
n
0
A
8 pia 1
es Ethio
t
3
ira
la
5
Em
a Ango
i
b
s
8
ra
ni
s
dA
te
Tu
Kaza
8R
khsta
n
uss
i2a
K
ASI
0
a 1
pi
thio
7 Kaz5 Belarus
akhst
an
TIN
LA
ia 8
mb
e Ga
Azerbaan
0 Ge5org
ia
TIN
LA
a 2
Keny
Armsenia
5 Bel
0 aru
Internet
Topics
Censored
by Type
Rwanda 4
2
Malawi
tnaka
8 Vrie
Lan
Si
a 4
Nigeria 2
rea
Ko
EUR
S U B - SAHA R AN A F R ICA
1
Italy
d 0
Zam
Rwanda 4
# of topics censored
n 7
EL
AS
ba
bw
e
Suda
IC
Ge
ce
an
Fr
a 4
na
da
Au
str
a
Zim
ni
to
Es
Ca
lan
South A
frica 0
DA
I ce
ary
ng
Hu
Uga
nd
A
AN
,
EU
U.S.
AND
ND
bia
Un
ny
a
rm
Zam
lia
,C
A
LI
Au
str
a
ba
bw
e
ia
na
da
m
Kingdo
by Country
Ge
ce
an
Fr
n
to
Es
Ca
Th
0
United States
EL
ND
United
IC
U,
E
A,
D
CensoredN Atopics
A
,C
A
LI
A
Zim
U.S.
Freedom
ON THE NET
2016
Conflict
Political Opposition
Political Opposition
Satire
Satire
Social Commentary
Social Commentary
Blasphemy
Blasphemy
Mobilization
for Public
Causes
Mobilization
for Public
Causes
LGBTILGBTI
Issues
Issues
Ethnic and
Religious
Minorities
Ethnic
and Religious
Minorities
or repeated
censorship
or limited
censorship
Freedom House
Other topics that have long been subject to censorship remained in authorities crosshairs this year:
News and opinion on conflict, terrorism, or outbreaks of violence were subject to censorship in 27
out of 65 countries. Sensitivity about ongoing conflict resulted in legitimate content being censored.
In May 2016, British journalist Martyn Williams
challenged South Korean regulators for blocking his
website, North Korea Tech.
Freedom
ON THE NET
2016
or policies that could have a disproportionately negative effect on free speech or privacy, with especially
threatening consequences for government critics
and journalists in countries that lack democratic
checks and balances. Meanwhile, high-profile terrorist attacks in Europe and the United States led to
increased pressure on technology companies to cooperate more closely with law enforcement regarding
access to user data.
Freedom House
rizing security agencies to monitor and detain individuals with little judicial oversight. Germany passed
a law mandating the retention of telecommunications
data by providers for up to 10 weeks, despite fierce
protests from the opposition and a 2014 ruling by the
EUs Court of Justice that such blanket requirements
contravene fundamental rights. In August 2016,
interior ministers from both countries called on the
European Commission to draft an EU-level framework
for compelling the makers of encrypted chat apps to
hand over decrypted data in terrorism cases.
Authoritarian states have also joined the fray, but with
far fewer scruples about individual rights. In Russia,
for example, a draconian antiterrorism law passed in
June 2016 requires all organizers of information onlinewhich in theory could include local service providers as well as foreign social media companiesto
provide the Federal Security Service (FSB) with tools
to decrypt any information they transmit, essentially
www.freedomhouse.org
Venezuelans rely on
secure messaging tools
to exchange information
about scarce goods.
Online content about
currency exchange rates
is pervasively censored.
Faced with growing pressure to comply with government requests, some tech companies have pushed
back. Shortly after the Apple case, Microsoft sued
the United States over the right to tell customers
when data stored on the companys servers has been
handed over to government agencies (Twitter initiated
Freedom
ON THE NET
2016
Types of key
internet controls
NO KEY
INTERNET
CONTROLS
OBSERVED
O KEY
TERNET Argentina
ONTROLSAustraliaFOTN
Colombia
Score
BSERVED
Estonia
Germany
gentina
27
Iceland
stralia
21
Italy
lombia
32
Japan
onia
6
Phillipines
rmany
19
South Africa
land
6
United Kingdom
y
25
United States
pan
22
llipines
26
uth Africa
25
ited Kingdom
23
ited States
18
FOTN
Score
27
21
32
6
19
6
25
22
26
25
23
18
COUNTRY
ICs
em
p
Angola
Armenia
Azerbaan
Bahrain
COUNTRY
Bangladesh
2
Angola
3Belarus
Armenia
6 Brazil
Azerbaan
8
Bahrain Cambodia
5Canada
Bangladesh
5 China
Belarus
2 Cuba
Brazil
4Ecuador
Cambodia
1 Egypt
Canada
9Ethiopia
China
5 France
Cuba
Ecuador The4Gambia
7Georgia
Egypt
Hungary
8
Ethiopia
2 India
France
Indonesia
7
The Gambia
Iran
1
Georgia
Jordan
1
Hungary
4
India Kazakhstan
3 Kenya
Indonesia
5
Iran Kyrgyzstan
Lebanon
5
Jordan
9 Libya
Kazakhstan
2 Malawi
Kenya
Malaysia
2
Kyrgyzstan
3Mexico
Lebanon
4
Libya Morocco
1
Malawi Myanmar
4Nigeria
Malaysia
Pakistan
4
Mexico
4 Russia
Morocco
3Rwanda
Myanmar
Saudi
2 Arabia
Nigeria
7
Pakistan Singapore
7 Korea
RussiaSouth
2 Lanka
Rwanda Sri
5 Sudan
Saudi Arabia
1 Syria
Singapore
Thailand
4
South Korea
1 Tunisia
Sri Lanka
4 Turkey
Sudan
6Uganda
Syria
4Ukraine
Thailand
United
Arab Emirates
4
Tunisia
6
Turkey Uzbekistan
4
Uganda Venezuela
Vietnam
4
Ukraine
5Zambia
United Arab Emirates
7
Uzbekistan Zimbabwe
#K
Freedom House
documented how
governments censor
and control the digital
sphere. Each colored cell
represents at least one
occurrence of the cited
control during the reports
coverage period of June
2015 to May 2016; colored
cells with an asterisk (*)
represent events that
occurred between June
and September 2016,
when the report was
sent to press. The Key
Internet Controls reflect
restrictions on content
of political, social, or
religious nature. For a
full explanation of the
methodology, see page 31.
2
3
6
8
5
5
2
4
1
9
5
4
7
8
2
7
1
1
4
3
5
5
9
2
2
3
4
1
4
4
4
3
2
7
7
2
5
1
4
1
4
6
4
4
6
4
4
5
7
6
8
2
2
6
June 2015 Venezuela
May 2016 coverage
period
8
Vietnam
June
2016 September
2016
2
Zambia
Total June
2015 September
2016
2
Zimbabwe
www.freedomhouse.org
OR
oye
Soc
d
i
comal me
mu dia o
blo
nic
r
cke
atio
d
ns #
appKI
Pol
s Cs e
i t ic
mp
a
reli
loy
gio l, soc
S
i
ed
u
a
o
blo
sc
l, o cia
o
cke
rc
lm
n
t
o
e
d
mm edia
nt
blo unic or
Loc
cke
atio
a
d
ns
ICT lized
app
Pol
shu or n
s
tdo atio r itica
wn
elig l, s
nw
o
ideiou
c
Pro
i
a
blo
s
l
g
cke cont , or
com overn
ent
d
m
m
onl enta ent L
o
ine
t
dis ors m IC calize
cus
a
d
Ne
sio nipTusahu or n
wl
ns
ltetdo atio
inc aw o
wn
nw
rea
r
ide
pun sing direct Prog
ism cen ivceo over
sor mm nm
ent
e
s
pas ohnip ent nt
Ne
w
sed linoer ato
inc law o
dis rs m
rea
r di
cus
a
s
sio nipua
ing rect New
res
ns
lte
sur ivie
tric
l
a
ting veil ncr w or
e
ano lapnc asin dire
Blo
e o g c ct i
nym un
gge
imp r o
ity isrme enso ve
rI
pa nt
ri
r
for sone CT us New ssed pass ship o
ed
pol d, o eri a law
r
r in ncrrre or
itic
al o
d
p eas
Blo
r so rreoslon stiendg, irecti
gge
cia tricgted surv ve
phy r o
l co ingde eill
r IC
si
a
kill cally T us Blog ntentantoennytio nce o
att
ed
e
g
r
mnit
(inc ack irmp er or
yp
riso IC
e
ass
l
u
d
din foor
T
Tec
ed
n
u
se
g in r po ed,
h
gov nical
cus litic or in r arre
ern atta
tod al o
pro ste
B
d
r so
hum men cks log y)
lo
cia nged ,
ap ge
t
an
l co
righ critic ghayisnisc r or IC
nte deten
tal
T
ts o sko
nt
tio
rga illred ly att user
n
FO
niz (inc ack
TN
a
e
Tec tions ludin d or
SC
g in
hni
OR
cus
E gove cal a
tod
tt
r
y)
hum nmen acks
t cr aga
an
righ itic ins
ts o s or t
rga
FO
niz
TN
atio
SC
ns
Freedom House
21
3
24
21
3
24
32
0
32
32
0
32
13
2
15
13
2
15
26
0
26
26
0
26
18
2
20
18
2
20
11
3
14
11
3
14
45
1
46
45
1
46
20
2
22
15
40
30
57
71
56
62
32
52
16
88
79
41
63
83
25
67
25
27
41
44
87
51
63
29
35
45
58
41
45
38
44
61
34
69
65
51
72
41
36
44
64
87
66
38
61
42
38
68
79
20 60 25
2 76 0
22 38 25
56
25
0
25
40
30
57
71
56
62
32
52
16
88
79
41
63
83
25
67
25
27
41
44
87
51
63
29
35
45
58
41
45
38
44
61
34
69
65
51
72
41
36
44
64
87
66
38
61
42
38
68
79
60
76
38
56
Freedom
ON THE NET
2016
16
Freedom House
2013
2014
2015
2016
20
27
30
Ukraine
38
40
46
48
50
52
Venezuela
60
60
61
Turkey
65
Russia
70
75
80
83
Ethiopia
Free
Partly Free
Not Free
www.freedomhouse.org
0 = Most Free
100 = Least Free
17
Freedom
ON THE NET
2016
Free
Partly Free
Not Free
Not assessed
Estonia 1.2
United
Kingdom
59.9
= 1 million
Internet users
Russia
105.8
Belarus
5.9
Germany
71.3
Ukraine 22.3
Hungary
7.2
France
56.6
Kazakhstan
12.8
Italy 39.9
South
Korea
45.5
Uzbekistan
13.4
Georgia 1.7
Canada 31.7
Kyrgyzstan 1.8
Armenia 1.8
Turkey
42.3
United States
239.6
Mexico
72.9
Lebanon 4.3
Iran
34.9
Pakistan
34.0
Syria 5.5
Jordan 4.1
Bahrain
1.3
Saudi Arabia
22.0
UAE
8.4
Cuba 3.5
Equador
7.9
Malaysia
21.6
Singapore
4.5
Egypt 32.9
Libya 1.2
Nigeria
86.4
Uganda 7.5
Argentina
30.1
Tunisia
5.4
Morocco
19.6
Brazil
122.8
Rwanda 2.1
Angola 3.1
Zambia 3.4
Sudan 10.7
Ethiopia
11.5
Kenya 21.0
Malawi 1.6
Zimbabwe 2.6
South Africa
28.5
18
Myanmar
11.7
Thailand
Bangladesh
Vietnam
26.7
23.2
48.3
India
340.9
Venezuala
19.2
Colombia
27.0
China
689.7
Azerbaijan 7.4
Australia
20.1
Cambodia 3.0
Indonesia
56.6
Japan
118.5
Philippines
41.0
Freedom House
67%
60%
49%
47%
33%
38%
27%
38%
www.freedomhouse.org
19
United States
Iceland
Canada
United Kingom
Ger
France
United States
Morocco
Mexico
Cuba
The Gambia
Venezuela
Colombia
Ecuador
Brazil
Argentina
Free
20
Partly Free
Not Free
Not assessed
Niger
Russia
Estonia
Belarus
rmany
Italy
Ukraine
Hungary
Georgia
Turkey
Tunisia
Libya
Kazakhstan
Azerbaijan
Armenia
Syria
Lebanon
Jordan
Egypt
Uzbekistan
Bahrain
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
India
Bangladesh
Myanmar
Thailand
Zambia
Philippines
Malaysia
Singapore
Rwanda
Angola
Vietnam
Cambodia
Sri Lanka
Kenya
Japan
Pakistan
Ethiopia
Uganda
South Korea
China
Iran
UAE
ria
Kyrgyzstan
Indonesia
Malawi
Zimbabwe
Australia
South Africa
Status Countries
Free 17
Partly Free 28
Not Free 20
Total 65
www.freedomhouse.org
21
100
Freedom on the Net measures the level of internet and digital media freedom
in 65 countries. Each country receives a numerical score from 0 (the most free)
to 100 (the least free), which serves as the basis for an internet freedom status
designation of FREE (0-30 points), PARTLY FREE (31-60 points), or NOT FREE
(61-100 points).
80
60
40
40
25 25 25 25
20
16
18
19
21
22
26
27 27
29
30
32 32
34
35
36
41 41 41 41
38 38 38 38
23
Est
on
Ice ia
lan
Ca d
n
Un
ited ada
Sta
tes
Ge
rm
any
Au
stra
lia
Un
ited Japa
n
Kin
gdo
m
Fra
nce
Ge
org
ia
Ital
Sou
th A y
fric
Ph
a
ilip
pin
e
Arg
s
ent
ina
Hu
nga
ry
Ken
y
Arm a
eni
a
Bra
z
il
Co
lom
bia
Nig
eri
Kyr
gyz a
s
Sou
ta
th K n
ore
a
Me
xic
o
Tun
isia
Uk
rain
Zam e
bia
An
gol
Ecu a
ado
r
Ind
ia
Ma
l
Sin awi
gap
ore
Freedom
ON THE NET
2016
22
Ug
a
Ind nda
one
Mo sia
roc
co
Sri
Lan
Leb ka
an
Ma on
lay
sia
Jor
dan
Rw
and
Ca
a
m
Ban bodia
gla
d
Zim esh
bab
we
Aze
rba
ijan
L
Ven ibya
ezu
ela
Tur
My key
anm
ar
Be
laru
s
E
Kaz gypt
akh
sta
n
Sud
an
Ru
s
Tha sia
i
l
Un
a
T
nd
he
ited
Ara Gamb
bE
mir ia
at
Pak es
ista
n
B
Sau ahrai
n
di A
rab
i
a
Vie
tna
m
Cu
Uzb
ba
eki
st
Eth an
iop
ia
Iran
Syr
ia
Ch
ina
A. O
to Abstac
cce les
ss
B. L
imi
Co
t
nte s on
nt
C. V
of Uiolatio
ser ns
Rig
hts
Freedom House
Free
Partly Free
Not Free
42
44 44 44
87 87
0 = Most Free
100 = Least Free
60
56 56
51 51
www.freedomhouse.org
57
61 61
62
63 63
64
65
66
67
68
69
71
88
83
79 79
76
72
58
52
45 45
23
Freedom
ON THE NET
2016
Asia
AsiaAsia
Japan
Japan
Phillipines
Phillipines
South
South Korea
Korea
India
India
Singapore
Singapore
Indonesia
Indonesia
Sri
Sri Lanka
Lanka
Malaysia
Malaysia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
Myanmar
Myanmar
Thailand
Thailand
Pakistan
Pakistan
Vietnam
Vietnam
China
China
A. Obstacles to Access
B. Limits on Content
C. Violations of User Rights
A B C
Free
Partly Free
22
22
26
26
36
36
41
41
41
41
44
44
44
44
45
45
52
52
56
56
61
61
66
66
69
69
76
76
88
88
00
Not Free
0 = Most Free
100 = Least Free
SCORES
Regional Graphs
20
20
40
40
60
60
80
80
100
100
20
20
40
40
60
60
80
80
100
100
Sub-Saharan
Sub-Saharan Africa
AfricaAfrica
Sub-Saharan
South
South Africa
Africa
Kenya
Kenya
Nigeria
Nigeria
Zambia
Zambia
Angola
Angola
Malawi
Malawi
Uganda
Uganda
Rwanda
Rwanda
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe
Sudan
Sudan
The
Gambia
The Gambia
Ethiopia
Ethiopia
25
25
29
29
34
34
38
38
40
40
41
41
42
42
51
51
56
56
64
64
67
67
83
83
00
America,
Australia,
Canada, European Union, Iceland & United States
America, Australia.....
Australia.....
Estonia
Estonia
Iceland
Iceland
Canada
Canada
United
United States
States
Germany
Germany
Australia
Australia
United
United Kingdom
Kingdom
France
France
Italy
Italy
Hungary
Hungary
66
66
16
16
18
18
19
19
21
21
23
23
25
25
25
25
27
27
00
24
20
20
40
40
60
60
80
80
100
100
Freedom House
Middle East
and North Africa (MENA)
Middle East and N. Africa
SCORES
Middle
East and
38 N. Africa
Tunisia
Tunisia 38
Morocco 44
38
Tunisia 44
Morocco
Lebanon 45
44
Morocco 45
Lebanon
Jordan 51
Lebanon
Jordan 5145
Libya 58
51
Jordan
Libya 58
Egypt 63
58
Libya 63
Egypt
United Arab Emirates 68
63
Egypt 68
United Arab Emirates
Bahrain 71
United Arab Emirates
Bahrain 7168
Saudi Arabia 72
71
Saudi Bahrain
Arabia 72
Iran 87
Saudi Arabia
72
Iran 87
Syria 87
Iran 87
87
Syria
Syria 87
0
0
0
Eurasia
20
20
20
40
40
40
60
60
60
80
80
80
100
100
100
20
20
20
40
40
40
60
60
60
80
80
80
100
100
100
Eurasia
Eurasia
Georgia 25Eurasia
Georgia 25
Armenia 30
25
Armenia
Georgia 30
Kyrgyzstan 35
30
Kyrgyzstan
Armenia 35
Ukraine 38
35
Ukraine 38
Kyrgyzstan
Azerbaan 57
38
Azerbaan
Ukraine 57
Turkey 61
57
Turkey 61
Azerbaan
Belarus 62
61
Belarus
Turkey 62
Kazakhstan 63
62
Kazakhstan
Belarus 63
Russia 65
63
Russia 65
Kazakhstan
Uzbekistan 79
65
Uzbekistan
Russia 79
Uzbekistan 79
0
0
0
Latin America
Latin America
Latin America
Latin
America
Argentina
27
Argentina 27
Brazil 32
Argentina
27
Brazil 32
Colombia 32
Brazil 32
32
Colombia
Mexico 38
Colombia
32
Mexico 38
Ecuador 41
Mexico
38
Ecuador 41
Venezuela 60
Ecuador 6041
Venezuela
Cuba 79
Venezuela
60
Cuba 79
Cuba 79
0
0
0
www.freedomhouse.org
20
20
20
40
40
40
60
60
60
80
80
80
100
100
100
25
Freedom
ON THE NET
2016
Estonia
Georgia
South Africa
Philippines
Argentina
Hungary
Kenya
Armenia
Brazil
Colombia
Nigeria
Kyrgyzstan
Mexico
Tunisia
Ukraine
Zambia
Angola
Ecuador
Singapore
Uganda
Morocco
Sri Lanka
Lebanon
Malaysia
Jordan
Rwanda
Cambodia
Zimbabwe
Azerbaijan
Libya
Venezuela
Myanmar
Turkey
Belarus
Egypt
Kazakhstan
Sudan
Russia
Thailand
Gambia, The
United Arab Emirates
Bahrain
Saudi Arabia
Cuba
Uzbekistan
16
Free
49
36
44
40
Partly Free
50
Not Free
58
46
51
63
56
64
52
53
67
61
57
56
71
66
67
66
64
67
66
69
79
74
89
75
80
73
71
77
77
78
20
40
60
91
84
85
83
87
87
86
91
95
80
100
Freedom on the Net 2016 and Freedom of the Press 2016 scores
In the majority of the 65 countries featured in this report, the internet is significantly more free than news media
in general. This difference is evident from the comparison between a countrys score on Freedom on the Net 2016
(represented as the bar graph) and Freedom Houses Freedom of the Press 2016 assessment (represented as the
scatterplot, ), the latter of which assesses a combination of broadcast, print, and online news media.
The figure above shows the 45 countries with a score difference of 10 points or higher, reflecting how the internet provides citizens with unprecedented access to information, even in the most repressive media environments. Nevertheless, Freedom on the Net research has consistently found that government intentions and efforts to control the internet
are on the rise, particularly as citizen journalism and traditional media have become more dependent on social media
and communications platforms.
26
Freedom House
100%
Iceland
Gross Domestic
Product per capita
Japan
United Kingdom
Canada
United Arab
Emirates
South Korea
Bahrain
Singapore
80%
Estonia
Germany
France
Australia
60%
Brazil
Armenia
Malaysia
South Africa
Belarus
Morocco
Vietnam
Turkey
Jordan
Colombia Ukraine
China
Ecuador
Kenya
Georgia
Not Free
Saudi Arabia
Venezuela
Mexico
Partly Free
Kazakhstan
Russia
Lebanon
Argentina
Italy
Uzbekistan
Nigeria Tunisia
Thailand
40%
Philippines
Iran
Egypt
Cuba
Sri Lanka
Kyrgyzstan
Indonesia
Cambodia
Uganda
Angola
Syria
Sudan
India
Zambia
20%
Smallest
Free
Azerbaan
Hungary
United States
Largest
Rwanda
Zimbabwe
Myanmar
Pakistan
Libya
The Gambia
Bangladesh
Ethiopia
Malawi
20
40
60
80
Freedom on the Net 2016, Adjusted Score (0=Most Free, 100=Least Free)
The figure above depicts the relationship between internet freedom, internet access, and a countrys gross domestic product
(GDP) per capita. The x-axis considers a countrys score in the 2016 edition of Freedom on the Net, adjusted to exclude
aspects related to internet access. Levels of internet penetration are plotted against the y-axis, using 2015 statistics from the
United Nations International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Finally, the size of each plot is indicative of its GDP per capita
(at purchasing power parity, PPP), according to the latest figures from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
While wealth generally translates to greater access, neither are a decisive indicator of free expression, privacy, or access to
information online, as evidenced by the range of internet freedom environments represented at the top of the chart. The
Gulf countries lead a cluster of rentier economies investing in high-tech tools to restrict online freedoms. Meanwhile, as
partly free countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia continue to develop, they would be wise to consider a free
and open internet as a mechanism for a prosperous, diversified economy.
www.freedomhouse.org
27
100
Freedom
ON THE NET
2016
Country
FOTN
2015
FOTN
2016
Overall
Trajectory
A. Obstacles
to Access
B. Limits on
Content
Status
C. Violations of
User Rights
Freedom on
the Net 2016
Asia
Bangladesh
51
56
14
14
Cambodia
48
52
15
15
28
22
China
88
88
18
30
India
40
41
12
40
20
Indonesia
42
44
11
14
19
Japan
22
22
Malaysia
43
45
16
Myanmar
63
61
17
17
Pakistan
69
69
18
Philippines
27
26
Singapore
41
41
South Korea
34
36
Sri Lanka
47
44
Thailand
63
66
Vietnam
76
76
Armenia
28
30
Azerbaijan
56
57
14
Belarus
64
62
Georgia
24
25
t
t
l
t
11
20
27
20
31
12
14
21
15
18
14
12
18
10
23
33
14
28
34
Eurasia
10
14
19
24
13
21
28
11
14
23
26
18
32
21
27
11
19
31
61
63
35
35
Russia
62
65
10
23
Turkey
58
61
13
Ukraine
37
38
Uzbekistan
78
79
20
28
Argentina
27
27
Brazil
29
32
Colombia
32
32
Cuba
81
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
10
Latin America
6
12
17
16
79
21
26
32
12
21
Ecuador
37
41
Mexico
39
38
10
Venezuela
57
60
18
17
l
t
20
s
25
l
l
A Freedom on the Net score increase represents a negative trajectory (t) for internet freedom, while a score
decrease represents a positive trajectory (s) for internet freedom.
28
Freedom House
Overall
Country
FOTN
2015
FOTN
2016
Overall
Trajectory
A. Obstacles
to Access
B. Limits on
Content
Status
C. Violations of
User Rights
Freedom on
the Net 2016
72
71
Egypt
61
63
Iran
87
87
10
27
15
15
19
31
13
Jordan
50
51
Lebanon
45
45
Libya
54
58
20
Morocco
43
44
12
14
Saudi Arabia
73
72
Syria
87
87
13
33
37
16
22
12
20
13
24
34
25
23
24
34
26
37
Tunisia
38
38
10
20
68
68
14
22
32
Angola
39
40
14
Ethiopia
82
83
23
28
The Gambia
65
67
18
Kenya
29
29
Malawi
40
41
Nigeria
33
34
Rwanda
50
51
Sub-Saharan Africa
22
16
10
10
10
19
32
27
14
15
17
21
20
South Africa
27
25
11
Sudan
65
64
16
18
30
l
t
Uganda
36
42
13
11
18
Zambia
40
38
11
10
17
Zimbabwe
56
56
15
16
25
l
PF
Australia
19
21
Canada
16
16
Estonia
France
24
25
Germany
18
19
Hungary
24
27
Iceland
Italy
23
25
United Kingdom
24
23
United States
19
18
t = Decline s = Improvement
Blank = No Change
www.freedomhouse.org
13
16
11
10
12
2
Free
4
15
s
16
13
Partly Free
l
l
l
l
l
Not Free
29
Freedom
ON THE NET
2016
Methodology
Freedom on the Net provides analytical reports and
numerical scores for 65 countries worldwide. Assigning scores allows for comparative analysis among the
countries surveyed and facilitates an examination of
trends over time. The accompanying country reports
provide narrative detail to support the scores.
The countries were chosen to provide a representative sample with regards to geographical diversity
and economic development, as well as varying levels
of political and media freedom. The numerical ratings and reports included in this study particularly
focus on developments that took place between
June 1, 2015 and May 31, 2016, although the analysis in the Key Internet Controls graph and the Topics
Censored table covers developments through the
end of September, when this years edition was sent
to press.
Freedom on the Netis a collaborative effort between
a small team of Freedom House staff and an extensive network of local researchers and advisors in 65
countries. Our in-country researchers have diverse
backgroundsacademia, blogging, traditional journalism, and tech and track developments from their
country of expertise. In the most repressive environments, Freedom House takes care to ensure researchers anonymity or, in exceptional cases, works with
individuals living outside their home country.
What We Measure
The Freedom on the Net index measures each countrys level of internet and digital media freedom based
on a set of methodology questions developed in
consultation with international experts to capture the
vast array of relevant issues that enable internet freedom (see Checklist of Questions). Given increasing
technological convergence, the index also measures
access and openness of other digital means of trans30
Freedom House
Freedom
ON THE NET
2016
Freedom House
Checklist of Questions
Each country is ranked on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0
being the best and 100 being the worst.
A combined score of 0-30=Free, 31-60=Partly Free,
61-100=Not Free.
Freedom
ON THE NET
2016
Freedom House
www.freedomhouse.org
35
Freedom
ON THE NET
2016
3. Are individuals detained, prosecuted or sanctioned by law enforcement agencies for disseminating or accessing information on the internet or via
other ICTs, particularly on political and social issues?
(0-6 points)
Are writers, commentators, or bloggers subject to
imprisonment or other legal sanction as a result of
posting material on the internet?
Are citizens subject to imprisonment, civil liability,
or other legal sanction as a result of accessing
or downloading material from the internet or for
transmitting information via email or text messages?
Does the lack of an independent judiciary or other
limitations on adherence to the rule of law hinder
fair proceedings in ICT-related cases?
Are individuals subject to abduction or arbitrary
detention as a result of online activities, including
membership in certain online communities?
Are penalties for irresponsible journalism or
rumor mongering applied widely?
Are online journalists, bloggers, or others regularly
prosecuted, jailed, or fined for libel or defamation
(including in cases of libel tourism)?
4. Does the government place restrictions on anonymous communication or require user registration?
(0-4 points)
Are website owners, bloggers, or users in general
required to register with the government?
Are users able to post comments online or purchase mobile phones anonymously or does the
government require that they use their real names
Freedom House
Does the state attempt to control access providers through less formal methods, such as codes of
conduct?
Can the government obtain information about users without a legal process?
7. Are bloggers, other ICT users, websites, or their
property subject to extralegal intimidation or physical violence by state authorities or any other actor?
(05 points)
Are individuals subject to murder, beatings, harassment, threats, travel restrictions, or torture as
a result of online activities, including membership
in certain online communities?
Do armed militias, organized crime elements,
insurgent groups, political or religious extremists,
or other organizations regularly target online commentators?
Have online journalists, bloggers, or others fled the
country or gone into hiding to avoid such action?
Have cybercafes or property of online commentators been targets of physical attacks or the confiscation or destruction of property as retribution for
online activities or expression?
8. Are websites, governmental and private entities, ICT users, or service providers subject to
widespread technical violence, including cyberattacks, hacking, and other malicious threats? (0-3
points)
Are financial, commercial, and governmental entities subject to significant and targeted cyberattacks (e.g. cyberespionage, data gathering, DDoS
attacks), including those originating from outside
of the country?
Have websites belonging to opposition or civil
society groups within the countrys boundaries
been temporarily or permanently disabled due to
cyberattacks, particularly at politically sensitive
times?
Are websites or blogs subject to targeted technical attacks as retribution for posting certain
content (e.g. on political and social topics)?
Are laws and policies in place to prevent and protect against cyberattacks (including the launching
of systematic attacks by nonstate actors from
within the countrys borders) and are they enforced?
37
Freedom
ON THE NET
2016
Contributors
Freedom House Research Team
Sanja Kelly, Director, Freedom on the Net
Mai Truong, Program Manager (Africa)
Adrian Shahbaz, Research Manager (MENA)
Madeline Earp, Senior Research Analyst (Asia)
Jessica White, Research Analyst
(Latin America & EU)
Rose Dlougatch, Senior Research Associate
(Eurasia)
38
Freedom House
Freedom
ON THE NET
2016
Notes
40
The internet is an
indispensable tool
for promoting social
justice and political
liberty, used by
citizens worldwide
to fight for their
rights, demand
accountability, and
amplify marginalized
voices.
www.freedomhouse.org
facebook.com/FreedomHouseDC
@FreedomHouseDC
202.296.5101 | info@freedomhouse.org