United States
  • Internet rights: strong free speech right in Constitution. Weaker privacy protections.
  • ISP safe harbor: DMCA safe harbors for copyright claims. CDA Section 230 immunity for non-IP claims.
  • Net neutrality: FCC rule protects net neutrality.
China
  • The Great Firewall of China blocks people's access to many websites, e.g., Facebook, Google.
  • Government engages in extensive censorship especially related to political organizing or protests.
  • Foreign social media apps are banned.  Users must use real names on social media. 
Australia
  • Internet rights: No bill of rights. Some censorship of content. Personal data protected.
  • ISP safe harbors: limited to Internet access providers, does not apply to other services.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Mexico
  • Internet rights: free speech, press, privacy in Constitution. Article 6 guarantees Internet access, though not implemented.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: law to protect net neutrality in 2014.
Canada
  • Internet rights: free speech, press in Constitution. Privacy law.  Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: for conduits, caching, hosting, search engines from copyright liability.  "Notice-and-notice" process.
  • Net neutrality: CRTC policy sets rules for Internet traffic management practices.
Brazil
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Internet bill of rights (Marco Civil da Internet) enacted.
  • ISP safe harbor: horizontal approach requires court order before takedown of infringing content.
  • Net neutrality: Marco Civil prohibits prohibits content-based discrimination of Internet traffic. 
  • Crowdsourced Internet bill of rights.
Russia
  • Russia has exercised tighter control online, including blocking websites. 
  • 2014 "Blogger law" requires bloggers with 3,000 daily users to register with government.
  • Websites collecting personal data of Russians must be stored in servers in Russia by 2016.
Chile
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law.
  • ISP safe harbor: 2014 law requires court review before takedown of content.
  • Net neutrality: law prohibits "arbitrarily distinguish[ing] content ... based on the source or ownership thereof.”
Argentina
  • Internet rights: Constitution protects Internet speech. Data privacy law. Policy for universal access. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none. ISPs have been subject to liability and injunctions. 
  • Net neutrality: Congress considering a proposal on net neutrality. 
Colombia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, personal data protected. 
  • ISP safe harbor: free trade agreement with U.S. yet to be implemented. 
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection; bill proposed in 2011.
Peru
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, personal data protected. 
  • ISP safe harbor: free trade agreement with U.S. yet to be implemented. 
  • Net neutrality: legal protection since 2012.
Venezuela
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, personal data right in Constitution. Government blocking of websites.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Ecuador
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, data privacy in Constitution. Data privacy bill in 2015.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: legal protection for net neutrality.
Bolivia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Paraguay
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, personal data protected. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Uruguay
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, personal data protected. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Guyana
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Suriname
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
French Guiana
  • Internet rights: follows French law, which protects speech, privacy, data privacy.
  • ISP safe harbor: follows French law, which protects conduits, caching, hosting.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Falkland Islands
Belize
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Costa Rica
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Access a fundamental right. Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: for conduits, caching, hosting, locator tools. Notice and takedown process.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection. 
El Salvador
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Guatemala
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Honduras
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, habeas data in Constitution. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Nicaragua
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Panama
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, data privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Austria
  • Internet rights: free speech, data privacy protections. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Belgium
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Bulgaria
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Croatia
  • Internet rights: free speech, data privacy protections. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Cyprus
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.  Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Czech Republic
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Statute for personal data. Hate speech outlawed.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach protects ISP conduits, caching, hosting.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Denmark
  • Internet rights: free speech, data privacy protections. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Estonia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, hosting, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Finland
  • Internet right: right of guaranteed access; free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute for personal data. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
France
  • Internet rights: free speech, strong privacy protections; hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality :2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Germany
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute for personal data. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage. ISPs duties go beyond take down.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Hungary
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Ireland
  • Internet rights: free speech, data privacy protections. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Italy
  • Internet rights: Constitution protects free speech, privacy. Statutory protection for personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach. AgCom agency has new takedown process, including fast track.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Latvia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, hosting, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Lithuania
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, hosting, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Malta
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, hosting, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality: no protection.
United Kingdom
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in ECHR and Human Rights Act. Personal data protection. ISPs filter pornography, adult materials.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal safe harbors for conduits, caching, storage.  
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Netherlands
  • Internet rights: free speech, press, privacy in Constitution. Personal data protected. 
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: law protects net neutrality since 2011. 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Poland
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute for personal data. Hate speech outlawed.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach protects ISP conduits, caching, hosting.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Portugal
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, data privacy.  Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Romania
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Slovakia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Slovenia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Spain
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, hosting, plus search engines.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Sweden
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, and passive hosting.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Iceland
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor:
  • Net neutrality: no legal requirement.
Norway
  • Internet rights: free speech in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: Obligated to apply EU horizontal approach for conduit, caching, and passive hosting.
  • Net neutrality: voluntary industry guidelines have been adopted.
Albania
  • Internet rights: free speech in Constitution, but media self censors. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: for access, caching, passive storage, and information locator tools.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection
Belarus
  • Internet rights: Constitution recognizes free speech, privacy but restrictions of speech in practice  Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Bosnia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some impairment. Personal data law.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: none.  
Macedonia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.  Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbors: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Philippines
  • Internet rights: Constitution protects free speech, privacy. Data privacy protected.  
  • ISP safe harbors: Section 30 of the Electronic Commerce Act provides safe harbor.
  • Net neutrality: not protected. 
Moldova
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.  Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Serbia
  • Internet rights: free speech in Constitution, but media self censors. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: for access, caching, passive storage, and information locator tools.
  • Net neutrality: No legal protection
Switzerland
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Statute protects personal data.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no protection, but voluntary industry code.
Turkey
  • In 2014, then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ordered blocking of Twitter and YouTube in Turkey.
  • Journalists and people critical of government frequently arrested. 
  • 2014 law gives government power to block sites without court order; requires retention of user records for 2 years. 
Ukraine
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.  Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: broad immunity without notice and takedown requirement.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Egypt
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Japan
  • Internet rights: Constitution protects free speech.  Data privacy protected by statute. 
  • ISP safe harbor: horizontal safe harbor for ISPs from copyright, defamation, and other liability; notice-and-takedown approach.  
  • Net neutrality: recognized by industry guidelines, subject to exceptions.
Algeria
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restricted in practice.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Angola
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.  Data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Botswana
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.  Data privacy bill. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Burundi
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. Speech restricted. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Cameroon
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.  No data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Cape Verde
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, and data privacy in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Central African Republic
  • Internet rights: new Constitution passed in Dec. 2015. Free speech and privacy protected.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Chad
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.  Data privacy bill. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Congo
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Greenland
Djibouti
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Speech restricted. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Egypt
Eritrea
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Censorship. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Ethiopia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restricted in practice.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Gabon
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Equatorial Guinea
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. Government censorship and restriction of Internet. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Gambia
  • Internet rights: free speech, press, privacy in Constitution, but restrictions in practice. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Ghana
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Guinea
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Guinea Bissau
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Kenya
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.  Data privacy bill. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Lesotho
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. Speech restricted. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Liberia
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Libya
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in interim Constitution, but restricted in practice.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Madagascar
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some monitoring of websites. Personal data protection.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Malawi
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.  Data privacy bill. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Mali
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some self-censorship.  Data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Mauritania
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Mauritius
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. Some restrictions. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Morocco
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy, and data privacy, but speech sometimes restricted in practice.  
  • ISP safe harbor: based on removal of the allegedly infringing material.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Mozambique
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions of speech.  No data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Namibia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. No data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Niger
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.  Data privacy bill. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Nigeria
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Reunion
  • Overseas territory of France following French law
Rwanda
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Speech restricted and website blocking. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
South Africa
  • Internet rights: Constitution protects free speech, free press, privacy, human dignity. Personal data protection law.
  • ISP safe harbor: for conduit, caching, hosting, locator tools. Notice-and-takedown.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Sao Tome and Principe
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Senegal
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Seychelles
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data protection not yet in effect.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Sierra Leone
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy in Constitution. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Somalia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restrictions of speech in practice.  No data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Cote d'Ivoire
  • Internet rights: free speech in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Sudan
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restricted in practice.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Swaziland
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Speech restricted. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Tanzania
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some monitoring of websites. Personal data protection.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Togo
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Tunisia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Uganda
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Speech restricted. No data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Zambia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions and monitoring. No data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Zimbabwe
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions of speech and online monitoring.  No data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Burkina Faso
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some self-censorship.  Data privacy law. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Saudi Arabia
  • Internet rights: Censorship of content, blocking of websites. Lack of privacy protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Israel
Iraq
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but restrictions of speech for morality. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Iran
  • Iran blacklists thousands of disapproved websites and blocked more than 5 million sites.
  • Extensive government surveillance of Internet content.
  • Bloggers can be jailed for posting disapproved content. 
Jordan
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy recognized but restricted in practice.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Kuwait
Lebanon
  • Internet rights: free speech in Constitution, but restricted in practice. No privacy right.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Lebanon
Lebanon
Lebanon
Oman
  • Internet rights: free speech and privacy recognzied, but censorship, website blocking, and Internet monitoring in practice. 
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Oman
Qatar
Syria
  • Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, but restrictions and website blocking.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Syria
United Arab Emirates
Yemen
  • Internet rights: Censorship of content. Lack of privacy protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Afghanistan
  • Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, but restrictions to stifle criticism of government.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Armenia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy and data privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Azerbaijan
Bangladesh
Bhutan
Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia
Indonesia
  • Internet rights: Censorship of pornography, defamation, blasphemy. Some personal data protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: none.
  • Net neutrality: not protected. 
India
  • Government engages in selective blocking of websites and accounts on social media.
  • The government's Central Monitoring System (CMS) surveils phone calls, emails, Internet content. 
  • Net neutrality: Department of Telecommunications report favors net neutrality. 
India
Kazakhstan
  • Internet rights: Censorship of content, blocking of websites. Lack of privacy protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
North Korea
North Korea
South Korea
  • Internet rights: Free speech right subject to exception. Government censors political criticisms, defamation, pornography. Personal data protected. 
  • ISP safe harbor: OSP safe harbors are more limited than US DMCA  
  • Net neutrality: KCC Guidelines allow reasonable traffic discrimination
Kyrgyz Republic
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Malaysia
  • Internet rights: free speech in Constitution, but censorship in practice. Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: no safe harbor, although scope of secondary liability for ISPs unclear.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Maldives
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Mongolia
  • Internet rights: privacy, free speech but broad defamation law and ban on 774 phrases.
  • ISP safe harbors: limited; Article 25 of Copyright Act imposes substantial duties on ISPs.
  • Net neutrality: TBD.
Myanmar
  • Internet rights: privacy, free speech but broad defamation law used to stifle speech.
  • ISP safe harbors: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Nepal
Pakistan
  • Pakistan has increased censorship and restrictions on access to the web for religious, political, and other reasons.
  • Government engages in blocking of websites.  YouTube has been blocked since 2012. 
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Taiwan
  • Internet rights: Constitution protects free speech, privacy of correspondence, personal data privacy.
  • ISP safe harbors: for access, caching, passive storage, and locator tools.
  • Net neutrality: not protected. 
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Thailand
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. But government censorship, monitoring, website blocking. 
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Timor Leste
Timor Leste
Turkmenistan
  • Internet rights: speech and privacy rights, but restrictions and website blocking.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Uzbekistan
  • Internet rights: Censorship of content, blocking of websites. Lack of privacy protection.
  • ISP safe harbors: no legal protection.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Vietnam
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Data privacy. Website blocking.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Cuba
  • Cuba restricts Internet access and requires people to apply for a permit to get full "international" access to the Internet, Decree Law 209 (1996).
  • Most Cubans do not qualify for full Internet access.  Only 5% of the population had Internet access in 2012. 
  • Cuba blocks websites, especially ones critical of the government, and deploys propaganda on social media.
Dominica
Dominican Republic
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Grenada
Haiti
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Trinidad and Tobago
Trinidad and Tobago
Fiji
Fiji
French Polynesia
French Polynesia
New Caledonia
New Zealand
  • Internet rights: protection for free speech, privacy, and personal data.
  • ISP safe harbors: for access, caching, and hosting. 
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Solomon Islands
Vanuatu
Angola
Benin
  • Internet rights: free speech and press in Constitution. Data privacy law.  
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Benin
Madagascar
Papua New Guinea
Democratic Republic of Congo
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution, but some restrictions.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Comoros
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data protection.
  • ISP safe harbor: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Georgia
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution.  Data privacy law.
  • ISP safe harbor: None.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.
Greece
  • Internet rights: free speech, data privacy protections, Internet access. Hate speech proscribed.
  • ISP safe harbors: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.
Singapore
Montenegro
Hong Kong
Luxembourg
  • Internet rights: free speech, privacy in Constitution. Personal data law. Hate speech banned.
  • ISP safe harbor: EU horizontal approach for conduits, caching, storage of content.
  • Net neutrality: 2015 EU Regulation bans discrimination or throttling of online traffic.  
Latvia
Montenegro
Hong Kong
Singapore
Luxembourg
Luxembourg
Cambodia
  • Internet rights: privacy, free speech but speech critical of government is restricted.
  • ISP safe harbors: none.
  • Net neutrality: no legal protection.

Compare Countries

Select any filter and click on Apply to see results

Select any filter and click on Apply to see results

Embed this map

Large Image (800px)

Medium Image (500px)

Small Image (200px)

Home

Latest News

05/18/2018
The new EU General Data Protection Regulation goes into effect May 25th, 2018.  You may have recently received notices of changes to privacy policies by Google, Twitter, and other tech companies.  The reason: the GDPR.  It attempts to create uniform rules for how personal data is managed in EU countries. The European continent’s first piece of legislation pertaining to the protection of personal data was the “Convention 108”, adopted in 1981 by the Council of Europe (a different international institution that the EU which brings together 47 countries). Later, in 1995, the European Union passed its directive “on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data”.  Unlike the 1995 personal data directive, which must be implemented by EU countries in their nationals laws, the new GDPR is EU law that applies without reliance on national implementing laws.  The GDPR is also broader than the personal data directive.  The key changes are discussed below.       OVERVIEW OF KEY CHANGES BY GDPR   1. Extensive territorial scope: controllers of data with no establishment in the EU can still be subject to the Regulation for processing related to the offering of goods and services in the EU, or to the monitoring of the behavior of data subjects located in the EU.
  • No longer matters whether controllers actually process data within the EU.
  • If an EU citizen's data is processed, the controller is subject to the GDPR.  
2. Enhanced rights of data subjects:
  • New right to ‘data portability’: in certain situations, controllers will be bound to transmit personal data to new controllers, on the request of data subjects who may wish to switch from on service to another;
  • Upgraded rights to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’) and to restriction of processing;
  • Substantial increase of the number of information items which must be provided to data subjects, including in particular the retention period of the collected data;
  • More stringent conditions for a valid consent (where required): it will have to be freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous, by statement or by affirmative action.
3. Redesigned obligations for controllers and processors:
  • Auto-compliance and accountability: controllers and processors must ensure and be able to demonstrate that they have implemented any technical and organizational measures in order to ensure that the processing carried out comply with the Regulation. Such demonstration may be helped through adhesion to codes of conducts, or through certifications;
  • The end of prior notifications: the obligation to notify the competent supervising authority prior to each processing is replaced by an obligation to keep detailed records of processing activities;
  • Data by design and by default: controllers and processors will be expressly bound to respect these principles which is viewed as an effective means for compliance;
  • Specific measures to be implemented in certain situations: (i) appointment of a data protection officer; (ii) privacy impact assessments; and (iii) notification of data breaches to supervising authorities and to concerned data subjects;
  • Other new obligations related in particular to the (i) joint controller regime (the breakdown of the different responsibilities will have to be determined); and to (ii) the choice of data processors and to the contracts between controllers and processors.
4. Reinforcement and clarification of the supervising authorities’ roles and powers:
  • Administrative fines up to 20 million Euros or 4% of the worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year;
  • For cross-border processing, a lead authority will handle issues in accordance to a new co-operation procedure between it and other concerned supervising authorities (which will remain competent alone in certain situations);
  • Supervisory authorities will have to offer each other mutual assistance, and may conduct joint operations when necessary;
  • A new entity, the “European Data Protection Board”, will replace the Article 29 Working Party and will be in charge of providing opinions to supervising authorities on certain matters, of ensuring consistent application of the Regulation (by supervising authorities) in particular through a dispute resolution mechanisms, of issuing guidelines, of encouraging the drawing-up of codes of conducts etc.
03/21/2018
Since the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to repeal the Obama-era net neutrality rules in December 2017, many states have been at work trying to safeguard against the possible negative fallout. On February 14, 2018, Illinois State Rep. Ann Williams filed House Bill 4819, the Broadband Procurement and Disclosure Act. HB 4819 requires that all internet service providers (ISPs) who do business with state agencies adhere to basic net neutrality principles. The bill requires that the ISPs make “clear and conspicuous” statement disclosing the ISP’s network management practices. Most importantly, the bill aims to restore basic net neutrality rules by mandating that all ISPs providing service to Illinois agencies “shall not block” users from accessing lawful content. The bill also provides that ISPs shall not “impair” or “degrade” lawful traffic to the user, based on content. Finally, the bill prohibits ISPs from manipulating broadband service to favor certain traffic, and from unreasonably interfering with either the end user’s ability to access desired content or content producer’s ability to make content available to users.
12/29/2017
  On December 14, 2017, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to repeal Obama's net neutrality protections. These now-eliminated protections include barring internet providers from slowing down or blocking access to online content, and prohibiting internet providers from promoting their own content. Ajit Pai, Chairman of the FCC, stated "[the repeal] is not going to destroy the internet. It is not going to end the internet as we know it. It is not going to kill democracy. It is not going to stifle free expression online." Others, have voiced strong opinions against the repeal. "This is a matter of enormous importance with significant implications for our entire economy and therefore merits the most thorough, deliberate, and thoughtful process that can be provided," stated Maine Senators Susan Collins, Republican, and Angus King, independent. The FCC also received millions of comments supporting current net neutrality protections. States have voiced their stance against the FCC's net neutrality protection repeals. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has declared intentions to sue to stop the FCC’s rollback of net neutrality, stating "We will be filing a claim to preserve protections for New Yorkers and all Americans. And we’ll be working aggressively to stop the FCC’s leadership from doing any further damage to the internet and to our economy.” Washington State Attorney Bob Ferguson also announced his intention to take action, stating "Today, I am announcing my intention to file a legal challenge to the FCC’s decision to roll back net neutrality, along with attorneys general across the country." Other states, including Oregon, Illinois, Iowa, and Massachusetts, will join the lawsuit as well.  
07/19/2017
China partially blocked the popular messaging service called What's App, owned by Facebook.  China reportedly blocked photos and videos from being shared on the service, and, in some cases, even messages.  The New York Times stated: "According to the analysis that we ran today on WhatsApp’s infrastructure, it seems that the Great Firewall is imposing censorship that selectively targets WhatsApp functionalities,' said Nadim Kobeissi, an applied cryptographer at Symbolic Software, a cryptography research start-up."  The conjecture was that the censorship was part of the government's leadup to the upcoming selections in Congress: "To complicate matters, the 19th Party Congress — where top leadership positions are determined — is just months away. The government puts an increased emphasis on stability in the run up to the event, which happens every five years, often leading to a tightening of internet controls."
06/30/2017
This week, in Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions, Inc., Canada's Supreme Court upheld (in a 7-2 decision) the grant of a preliminary injunction against Google to remove a link to a website that allegedly infringed the intellectual property of a small tech company.  The IP controversy was not against Google as a party, but the lower court ordered Google to remove the link to the defendant's website from access worldwide.  Google had delisted the website from searches in Canada (at google.ca).  But the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the grant of a worldwide preliminary injunction that affects people around the world.  [Download the decision.] The Supreme Court reasoned: 
  •  Google’s argument that a global injunction violates international comity because it is possible that the order could not have been obtained in a foreign jurisdiction, or that to comply with it would result in Google violating the laws of that jurisdiction, is theoretical. If Google has evidence that complying with such an injunction would require it to violate the laws of another jurisdiction, including interfering with freedom of expression, it is always free to apply to the British Columbia courts to vary the interlocutory order accordingly. To date, Google has made no such application. In the absence of an evidentiary foundation, and given Google’s right to seek a rectifying order, it is not equitable to deny E the extraterritorial scope it needs to make the remedy effective, or even to put the onus on it to demonstrate, country by country, where such an order is legally permissible.
  • D and its representatives have ignored all previous court orders made against them, have left British Columbia, and continue to operate their business from unknown locations outside Canada. E has made efforts to locate D with limited success. D is only able to survive — at the expense of E’s survival — on Google’s search engine which directs potential customers to D’s websites. This makes Google the determinative player in allowing the harm to occur. On balance, since the world‑wide injunction is the only effective way to mitigate the harm to E pending the trial, the only way, in fact, to preserve E itself pending the resolution of the underlying litigation, and since any countervailing harm to Google is minimal to non‑existent, the interlocutory injunction should be upheld.
Commentators, such as Michael Geist, pointed out the danger in the Canadian approach: if each country (isuch as China or Iran) used the same power to issue worldwide injunctions against Google, there would be a race to the bottom and massive censorship online.  ◢

About

The Free Internet Project is a nonprofit whose mission is to provide the public with information about the latest legal and technological efforts to protect Internet freedoms around the world.

Founded in 2014, TFIP provides a user-friendly resource for the public to follow and comment on the latest bills, decisions, constitutional amendments, and technologies to protect the “free and open Internet." The Project is based on the belief that the Internet is an amazing tool for sharing knowledge, and that people around the world can learn from and share in the efforts to protect Internet freedoms in other countries.

If you have a tip or would like to contact us, write us:  thefreeinternetproject[at]gmail.com

 

Privacy policy