For some time I’ve been discussing with colleagues how to approach Internet policy related issues holistically. Not just from a technical point of view, or commercial, or “user”, or even civil society but rather from a perspective which encompasses all of these while focusing most specifically on an integrated approach to what we, as global citizens whose world is being remade on the Internet’s digital platform, might expect (and demand).
Much of the discussion to date has focused on “Internet users” as the most general category. The problem with this of course, is that it excludes those and still a majority of the world’s population — who, for whatever reason are not able or willing to use the Internet. Meanwhile, given the global reach and penetration of the Internet even those currently unable or uninterested in “using” the Internet are equally impacted by it. Based on simple principles of democratic participation even they should have some say in how the Internet is deployed and managed in relation to matters of most general concern.
We are all now citizens of an Internet-enabled world whether we are “users” or not.
And as citizens of an Internet-enabled world we have interests and perspectives on how the Internet is deployed and managed now and well into the future; and those need to be expressed and articulated as demands in all the forums where the future of the Internet is being discussed.
A preliminary list of what we might call the elements of “Internet Justice” would include:
- fair and equitable means to access and use the Internet–affordable by all and designed and deployed in such a manner that all may realize the benefits of effective use
- a fair and equitable distribution of the benefits of the Internet including the benefits of the widest possible access to information and the opportunities to communicate; the financial and other benefits that are accruing as a result of increased efficiencies and effectiveness of communications and information management; the benefits that result from users contribution to and participation in system development and content creation; and of the benefits that are rapidly accruing as a result of increased mastery over the elements of physical being in all its complexity and variety
- the right to use the Internet without systematic interference by government authorities or corporate interests in the messages which are being communicated
- the right to use the Internet in privacy and without surreptitious surveillance
- the right, means and opportunity to use the Internet to access and share without undue cost or hindrance the full intellectual heritage of mankind
- an Internet infrastructure which can be relied upon to ensure the maximum level of personal security and reliability
- an Internet where there is the opportunity for end users to build or manage Internet infrastructure as and when it is needed
- an Internet governed on the basis of democratic principles and processes but also one where those impacted by decisions have a role in making those decisions; and where there is a recognition that just as we need to invite and acknowledge the participation by the highest quality of disinterested information, advice and intervention in support of our physical environment so too in our technology and digital environments
- an Internet of peers within whose architecture each node or end point is equal in power and privilege to every other end point.
This list is as open ended as the Internet is open ended. Just as the horizon for enhancing the well-being of all global citizens through more efficient and effective communication and access to and use of information is continuously expanding, so is the need to ensure that the Internet is and continues to be a resource available, usable and of equitable benefit to all.
Comments, suggestions, edits, additions, endorsement gratefully encouraged…
Tweet: #internetjustice
Gerardo Sánchez
November 27, 2013
Thanks for such an eloquent statement. If I may point out a key addition, that would fall in to the field of education. Adding to the second point, I think creating channels to provide, and design the highest quality of information literacy interventions for all is vital for most of us to achieve what you have pertinently coined as “effective use” of the networked ecosystem in which we all live. For everything else I strongly agree with what has been said here. Best regards.
Franz Nahrada
November 28, 2013
very beautiful and powerful words!
I totally agree with Gerardo, the effect on education could be revoluitionary if we understand the potential of educational cooperation. But this triggers an additional thought in me, since I think we should relate to the essential purpose of the whole effort to have widespread Internet access.
When you write: ” the right, means and opportunity to use the Internet to access and share without undue cost or hindrance the full intellectual heritage of mankind”….
(…bravo!…)
….I would add: “the right to manifest the wealth of this information in enhanced community life, to realize, grow, implant, paint, sculpt, print out, build, learn, apply, modify, enhance, in one word USE as much of this distributed information as possible; wich includes the access to tools that bring this wealth into shaping the physical world, to fruitful presence; which implies the right to form networks of cocreation and sharing across the planet; which begets the encouragement to give back and share whatever has been emerging from this process of sharing. There is an increasing connection between the realm of creative possibilities the internet provides and the factual demand for infrastructure, and we think that Internet Justice cannot exist and does not make sense without the possibility not only to access, but also to create freely.”
Michael Gurstein
November 28, 2013
Thanks Franz and Gerardo… Great directions for a second and deeper version 🙂
Susan O'Donnell
November 28, 2013
Great start Mike. Many of your points come from a “rights” perspective (we should have the right to…) IMHO your list would be more powerful if you added some “responsibilities” as well because collective rights should imply collective responsibilities. If we’re going to get this, what are we going to give? Your one statement statement about “the opportunity to…” is moving in this direction. Some of the points that Franz makes could also be framed as “responsibilities.”
Michael Gurstein
November 28, 2013
Excellent point Susan… Norm Leech made the same point to me in a different context the other week. Let’s think about that for the next draft 🙂
Thomas Swann
November 29, 2013
Very interesting post. I would point out however that a focus purely on the potential benefits of internet access and online privacy misses out one of the key issues: that participation in things like google and facebook (by searching for things or sharing and liking things) is a form of labour that creates value and profit for these companies for which none of the user/producers benefit from financially. In other words, it’s completely unpaid labour. Any account of internet justice would have to take into account economic exploitation and justice, like any other account of justice. There’s more on this here: http://www.krigsmaskinen.se/index.php/Marazzi_om_Googlemodellen
Michael Gurstein
November 29, 2013
Thanks for your observation Thomas and for the very interesting link. I’ve added this to the second point “the benefits that result from users contribution to and participation in system development and content creation”. Do you think that this captures the issue concerning “unpaid labour” and the Internet economy?
Norbert Bollow
November 29, 2013
Thanks, Mike! Overall I like your text very much.
My main hesitation is about this point: “The
opportunity to control and configure the Internet infrastructure”.
The original architectural principles of the Internet (which are
however in the process of getting eroded in various ways) were based on
the idea that there should generally not be a need for end users to have any
control of the Internet infrastructure. (With exceptions to this rule e.g. in contexts of development initiatives, where infrastructure needs to be built together with the socioeconomic processes of making good use of the infrastructure.)
In my view, the communication protocols used on the Internet need to be
re-engineered for the post-Snowden era, in a way which should, together
with a net neutrality principle, put us again in a situation where
there is no need for end users to “control and configure the Internet
infrastructure”. I’d say that it suffices for end users to be able to
verify (in the sense of obtaining a reasonable level of assurance) that
the Internet infrastructure that they’re using conforms to reasonably
stringent standards in regard to privacy, performance and net
neutrality, and that if that isn’t the case, they’re able to take
effective action to get the situation fixed.
By contrast the second part of that clause, “the opportunity to control
and configure … the tools that support and distribute Internet
enabled information and communications” is fully valid in my eyes.
Michael Gurstein
November 29, 2013
Thanks Norbert! Maybe we together can capture your very useful point.
Norm Leech
November 29, 2013
Thanks for sharing Mike,
the First Nations perspective, as I understand it, leans more toward a responsibilities perspective than Rights. The underlying gap in the Rights paradigm is that only humans have rights. But my understanding is that humans accepted responsibilities in exchange for the many gifts we received, like consciousness, intellect, etc. from the Creator. So we are responsible for caring for, protecting, managing and using our territories in a good way.
It is more difficult to apply this different paradigm on existing legal and corporate structures that are all premised on a different worldview. How would governments or corporations be expected to fulfill any responsibility to some set of ethical or moral or spiritual values? And how could they possibly be held accountable to those responsibilities?
So in the larger picture, any workable reconciliation of the differing paradigms would need to include aspects of both, as Susan referred to, a balance of rights and responsibilities. But even that would be major adjustment and shift in perspective, especially for governments and corporations.
Keep up the challenging thoughts and dialogues Mike,
Michael Gurstein
November 29, 2013
Thanks very much for your most interesting and challenging comments Norm!
I completely agree that rights need to be balanced with responsibilities and that the Internet is something for which we should all feel responsible and be taking initiatives to nurture and protect. I think your perspective will resonate particularly strongly with many in the Tech community who were involved in building the Internet (and many of whom feel particularly betrayed by how the actions of the US NSA have undermined the Internet both technically and as a creature requiring deep measures of trust and collaboration).
As I mentioned to Susan, I’d very much like to work with you and others in a second round on this where we can deepen and extend the framework and at that time to be inclusive of the kind of “responsibility” framework that you are pointing to.
Josh
December 8, 2013
You might be interested in the work of the Detroit Digital Justice Coalition: http://detroitdjc.org/principles/
Michael Gurstein
December 9, 2013
Thanks very much for this Josh… I hadn’t thought to Google “Digital Justice”. Lots of interesting overlaps. You might like to join the Community Informatics e-list to further the discussion.
Mike