Is cyber sovereignty hacking its way to your Internet freedoms?
Let’s begin with an interesting fact about the Internet. It was born in 1969 and wasn’t conceived in a typical Silicon Valley business fashion. Early users such as Steve Wozniak, recommended that information should be free, and thought that Internet access would create a better world. Fast forward to 1991 and the creation of the World Wide Web, free for everyone to copy and use. A few years later, the “Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” stated:
“I declare the global space that we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to improve on us (…) we are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic, military forces, or station of birth.”
Yet, the Covid-19 pandemic may lead us to reevaluate this standard. Health may not be the only issue to worry about. The 2020 Freedom House Report indicates that our global internet freedom has declined for the 10th year in a row. The Coronavirus pandemic exposes the technology’s tremendous importance in health and economic flexibility, making the world’s digital shift and nation sovereignty a question of massive importance. Today, as you may (or may not) know, all our lives have shifted to the digital world of the Internet. Our work, our education, and even our favourite shopping places. The Internet has become an absolute necessity, yet it presents clear issues for human rights and democracy. Not only states but also private companies are using the pandemic as a tool to format our lives online, censor critics, and try out new control technologies.
Recoding democracy
The current crisis has accelerated the Internet’s access importance in protecting our health, our contact with friends and family, and our access to information. Yet, political concerns destabilize public health and freedom of speech. Governments obstructed access to reliable websites, commanded the elimination of undesirable content, and shockingly shut out internet access in some countries. Authorities boosted their online control by charging users, arresting journalists, and activists for voicing their doubts in governments’ practices.
“The pandemic-related Internet freedom are discouraging, because they may stay in place after Covid-19 has faded. History has shown that new state powers acquired during an emergency tend to outline the original threat” — Allie Funk, senior research analyst for technology and democracy at Freedom House
The pandemic is indeed increasing society’s dependence on digital technology at a time when the internet is short on freedom. Let me give you an example. China is the clearest example of what I mean. Since the Coronavirus outbreak began, the country expanded its internet regulations: increase in digital surveillance, automated censorship, and standardized arrests. Is it really to refrain from the pandemic or is it more to refrain from government criticisms? I must be clear here, these procedures are not particular to China and are carried out worldwide.
As Anthony Giddens argues: “Demagogic leaders can communicate with their supporters in ways that were never possible before — and can keep whole swathes of the population under direct surveillance. New forms of resistance and even insurgency (…) also arise.” Giddens raises important questions: Who own the technology? Who monitors it? and who creates it? What the pandemic highlights is the capacity of the world’s nations to appropriate the technology for their own benefits. In short, governments seek to extend their digital sovereignty in controlling online technologies and their sociopolitical impacts.
Error 404: Information not found
Inaccuracy in world’s issues representation existed way before the Internet age. Historical democratic pressure was often correlated with media and technology. The radio, for example, represented a great tool for totalitarian establishments. The pandemic, then, doesn’t highlight anything fundamentally new; but the Internet makes the handling of public opinion considerably faster. This raises an issue about the kind of algorithms determine what is available to the public and what is not. Although restricting the circulation of fake information is crucial during a pandemic, I’m not sure using opaque algorithms to reduce freedom of speech is the right option.
So, what do we do now?
The Freedom House supplies us with a list of recommendations. It includes urging policymakers to institute data protection and encryption. It also asks for an accessible Internet connection for everyone, especially with schooling and work tasks moving online. The statement also advocates for private companies to guarantee objective moderation separated from governments' attempt to control the internet’s accessibility.
“Government should support and maintain access to the Internet and refrain from banning social media and messaging platforms. While such services present genuine social and national security concerns, bans constitute and an arbitrary and disproportionate response that unduly restricts users' cultural, social, and political speech.”
Policymakers need to guarantee that recent surveillance programs fit international rights principles. Companies may need to prioritize user’s freedom of speech, in particular for journalists, educational, social, and religious content. As José Ignacio Torreblanca argues, the crisis has increased our understanding of how technology can function to meet an array of political programs. The problem is complex, as many of the Internet social media is owned by American companies, which means that the rest of the world may struggle to find appropriate regulations leading to possible geopolitical consequences.
Understanding issues around internet freedoms can lead us to work out how to weaken them. The massive issue with internet governance is that it doesn’t have a clear meaning. Some nations see governance as a technical concern, some other as the instrument of the American power, leading countries such as China to privatize their own internet access. As Internet technologies are shaping our societies' daily lives, governance issues are almost omnipresent. While it may be conceivable to reach a global agreement on governance, geopolitics may be a constraint for progress, with political agendas embedded in Internet technologies. I will leave you with this: Can technology be completely free of political constraints, or is it in itself fundamentally political?
