The big story for the 2012 Internet Governance Forum in Baku was the almost overwhelming (and overpowering) emphasis placed by the US government delegation and its corporate allies (primarily Google) and its associates in (primarily US based) Civil Society on what was termed “Internet Freedom” and Multistakeholderism as its primary governance modality.
The campaign was very well orchestrated and coordinated (through the US delegation led by a US Ambassador and the head of the NTIA Lawrence Strickling) who insisted that any “Internet governance” position which included any form of “government involvement” would necessarily imply or result in government’s “takeover” or “control” of the Internet. Further, it was vociferously asserted that any deviation from this path was by definition an infringement of “Internet Freedom” and part of a slippery slope leading to full-on government suppression of “free speech” on the Internet.
Those who pointed out that there already was quite considerable involvement of various governments in various aspects of Internet management were effectively shouted down as being sympathizers with the autocrats and enemies of “freedom” in such states as China, Russia and Saudi Arabia. The overwhelming response was that Internet “governance” was optimal as it was (or at least the corporate, (inter) governmental, and technical mechanisms governing its evolution were optimal); and that the only possible position for “lovers of the Internet” was to support the existing status quo with respect to Internet (“non”) governance.
Precisely what might be meant by “Internet Freedom” apart from rather fuzzy libertarian notions of keeping “the dead hand of government” as far as possible from the Internet as a hub of innovation and enterprise, was never made very clear beyond the level of slogan and exhortation. Rather it was loudly proclaimed that any form of formal governance of the Internet would be the greatest sin that could be perpetrated against the Internet as a burgeoning global infrastructure.
In choosing among the various ways in which “Freedom” might be characterized this lobbying steamroller made quite clear that they were referring to Freedom “from”–government interference, government oversight, government regulation of anything to do with the Internet. And this theme and its ITU focused counterparts were equally evident at the ITU policy meeting held in Dubai some few months later (the WCIT).
When some few small voices suggested that this full court press in support of “Freedom from” might also mean for example a freedom from the means for countries, particularly Less Developed Countries to introduce some form of taxation on the currently small but rapidly growing flow of Internet based revenues from already impoverished economies to already stupendously wealth private (and primarily US based) Internet corporations; or that there might be something wrong with the current way in which the basic “naming system” of the Internet via ICANN might be structured (as a sub-contractor to the US Department of Commerce); or that some issues such as privacy might require mechanisms for policy development and global enforcement, these comments were met with derision and howls that the authors of such positions were secret sympathizers of communications censors (ComSymps) of those on the other side of the emerging Internet cold war — i.e. the Russia’s, China’s, Saudi Arabia’s of the world.
But that was then and this is now and as startling revelation after revelation tumbles from the thumb drives of Mr. Edward Snowden the import if not the intent of (one hopes) certain of those Internet Freedom warriors (speculating on precisely who knew what, when, and how in this context makes for an interesting exercise) becomes clear.
While so loudly advocating for Freedom “from” (whatever…), the (de facto) Internet Freedom coalition was in fact, providing the diplomatic cover and lobbying campaign to ensure that no outcome of Internet governance would interfere with what would appear to be the overall US strategy of Freedom “to” — surveille, subvert, suborn and overall embed and maintain (as the NSA so aptly put it)–“total information dominance” of the Internet and all of its various manifestations now and presumably forever, in the service of US “security” and US interests.
Such “security”, it is clear from the Snowden documents, means not only security against terrorism but also it seems (as enabled by the NSA’s surveillance machine) security against potentially independent comment (and ultimately action) by both opposing and allied states; against fair competition since one side has access to all its information and the information from the other side as well; and quite startlingly the security of having the means to listen in on and ultimately control independent action, comment, commerce, and thought itself not only among “foreigners” (i.e. everyone else) but also even among those (in theory) protected by that most oft cited of documents the US constitution.
That this “Freedom from” campaign has now been fully revealed for what it was (providing the ideological justification for an on-going coup d’etat against the republic of the Internet), leaves the matters of Internet Governance (where this all started) completely up in the air.
But once having been revealed that we are no longer in Kansas and that the wicked witches of the North, South, East and West will be relentless in their pursuit of control including through the use of their boundless financial and technical resources; a response of some sort however reluctantly and with what trepidations seems to be in the cards as per the recent excellent speech to the UN General Assembly by President Rousseff of Brazil.
And so we have the upcoming 8th session of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Bali with many of the main protagonists having been more or less completely discredited (it might be fun if the same coalition were to try for another round of “Internet Freedom” confabulations but one can’t imagine that even those folks have been sufficiently well trained to carry that one off with a straight face).
So, what will be discussed at the IGF apart from the usual empty rhetoric about capacity building for LDC’s and legitimate campaigns against online skullduggery of the spam, kiddieporn, phishing variety.
Perhaps I could make a modest suggestion for the discussion. Perhaps we could discuss “Internet Freedom” but Internet Freedom in a post-Snowden world and without the hypocrisy and sanctimony of the previous discussions.
Perhaps we could discuss Internet Freedom as Freedom from undue and unaccountable surveillance; Internet Freedom as true Freedom of Expression where the forces of repression whether in Langley or in Moscow or Shanghai are made transparent and accountable; where Internet Freedom is anchored in the rule of law–not the, shall we say, rather “flexible” law of the world’s single superpower, but a rule of law to which all are expected to adhere and where mechanisms are in place to ensure that, to the degree possible, all are responsive and accountable; where Internet Freedom is not just for some but where it’s responsibilities and most importantly its protections are available for all of us — “foreigners” or no — and where all have some degree of input into how those laws are constructed and administered; where Internet Freedom does not mean that actions on and through the Internet will be subverted and directed simply to further enrich the already obscenely enriched, but rather to ensure that the benefits including financial benefits accruing from the Internet serve to reduce global inequalities.
I look for those who a year ago, were so eager to rally forces in support of Internet Freedom, to rally again to this somewhat battered standard; but now, one that is rather less naive and rather more reflective of the underlying reality of this technology enabled world in which we live.
David Golumbia (@dgolumbia)
September 24, 2013
Thank you for this report and analysis; i cannot tell you how important and welcome I find it. This is exactly naming what cyberlibertarianism is up to (as I discuss in some detail here: http://www.uncomputing.org/?p=276): getting people who do not identify themselves with overt libertarian & neoliberal points of view to side with corporations and anti-regulatory governmental practices in the name of “digital freedom,” and in so doing arguing for almost the opposite of what anyone but libertarians understand as freedom. The opposition to democratic oversight of the internet, framed in particular as a democratization of the world itself, is a remarkable paradox that it is nearly impossible to get true believers to see for what it is. “The US government delegation and its corporate allies (primarily Google)” is exactly the side these “total internet freedom” people are on, while claiming to be on the side of some kind of vague absolute democracy. I honestly do not think they even fully understand the consequences of their beliefs. The routine discrediting of democratic bodies of government in the name of democracy: it’s really a shocking thing to behold.
Michael Gurstein
September 24, 2013
Very well said and thanks David.
M. Fioretti
September 25, 2013
> Perhaps we could discuss Internet Freedom as Freedom from undue and
> unaccountable surveillance.
here’s my proposal on how to make this freedom easily accessible by as
many people as possible:
It won’t “anchor Internet Freedom in the rule of law”, which is a
separate, but necessary task, but it could be a feasible, short term
migration path from the current centrally managed, centrally spiable
networks.
Marco
Michael Gurstein
September 25, 2013
Thanks Marco, looks interesting… Certainly some alternative to Gmail (which as you can see I use along with so many other people) is sorely needed.
Danny
September 25, 2013
Excellent piece Michael! I have taken leave of the tiresome IG debates (not because they are unimportant, just have other things happening) but it’s great to know you are there talking sense.
Michael Gurstein
September 25, 2013
Tks 🙂
Malcolm
September 25, 2013
That’s all very well as a polemic, but what to do about it?
The arguments of the “Freedom from” brigade at WCIT and so forth (and I cheerfully admit to being one of them) were directed to ensuring that the institutions of the ITU did not assume global authority for Internet content. In direct opposition to this position, Putin famously and publicly declared that the purpose of WCIT was to place the Internet under intergovernmental control under the auspices of the ITU.
In the end, pretty much the entire “free world” (mainly USA, the EU 27, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and India, plus a mere handful of other countries) rejected the outcome of WCIT, while Russia, China, the Arab States and /nearly every other country/ enthusiastically signed on.
Whatever charges of hypocrisy, ineffectiveness or naivity you may choose to level at those like my who fought against increased ITU authority, those are facts: one side wants to give the UN institutions, answerable to their member governments, more power to control content, the other side wants to resist this.
I get that you’re dismayed and appalled by NSA behaviour. Fine. But what do you think should be done about it?
In particular, do you seriously think that using this behaviour as an excuse/reason to give the UN/ITU the power it seeks over content will help?
Do you honestly believe giving power to institutions dominated by non-Western countries will do more to restrain US intelligence than it will to restrict freedom of expression and protect despotic regimes from Internet-organised activism?
If you accept, as I do, that that’s a pipedream, then you should not be lending aid ITU-boosters but looking for other ways to address the NSA. For those who are Americans (I’m not) start by writing to your Congressman.
Michael Gurstein
September 25, 2013
Hi Malcolm,
I think I covered your question in my post. I think we should be working for real “Internet Freedom”, not more freedom of the rich and powerful to use the Internet to get more rich and powerful. That means some form of global management of the Internet. I’ve no particular attachment to the ITU but if not the ITU then some equivalent body that isn’t dominated by the US and its entourage.
And what the nature of the “management” should be — well it should be among other things ensuring that the Internet is not a machine for domination by and in the interests of one of its users as against everyone else. How we do that, at this point isn’t clear at all but that that needs to be a bedrock element of the Internet going forward is I think clear to most everyone who isn’t a direct beneficiary of the current system.
Best,
Mike
Jean-Claude Lapointe, B.A., LL.B., M.A.P.
September 25, 2013
Nice way of calling out the double-talk in Internet Governance at the last ITU-WCIT 2012.
Diego Rafael Canabarro
September 25, 2013
As usual, a very compelling argument! Thank you!
Juan Fernández
September 25, 2013
Michael:
Very good article. The speech by the Brazilian president in the United Nations General Assembly is certainly a landmark.
Another interesting recent speech with useful concepts is this: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-09/09/c_132705681.htm
Best regards.
Juan
Michael Gurstein
September 25, 2013
Tks Juan,
Interesting reposte to the Internet Freedom meme by Mr. Lu Wei and worth having this included as part of the on-going discussions post-Snowden.
Since neither China nor the US bear close scrutiny on the “do as I say not as I do” invocation perhaps putting together a suitable Internet Governance framework will mean drawing from the “do as I say” side of the equation and seeing who can be made to live up to those ideals.
Best,
Mike
Poor Richard
September 26, 2013
Spot on, Michael, and well said, David. “Freedom” rhetoric certainly makes for some strange bedfellows, the most ironic of which (to me) is the multitude of libertarian technophiles (“free software” zealots, for instance) who misconstrue their own best interests.
Carrie T. Wyatt
December 30, 2013
The freedom to connect to these technologies can help transform societies, but it is also critically important to individuals. I was recently moved by the story of a doctor – and I won’t tell you what country he was from – who was desperately trying to diagnose his daughter’s rare medical condition. He consulted with two dozen specialists, but he still didn’t have an answer. But he finally identified the condition, and found a cure, by using an internet search engine. That’s one of the reasons why unfettered access to search engine technology is so important in individuals’ lives.