Internet and Democracy: The Sequel

April 26

A decade ago, the Internet was widely seen as a means to diminish the power of countries to regulate the flow of ideas and information. However, we have witnessed the resurgence of national sovereignty in cyberspace, with many countries now resorting to a combination of technology, law and intimidation to reign in the spread of free speech via the Net. Often aided by the technological support of the private sector in the United States, for this class, we will debate the ethics, practicality and implications of Internet censorship.

Readings

• Read John Palfrey and Jonathan Zittrain: Reluctant Gatekeepers: Corporate Ethics on a Filtered Internet
• Take a look at the ONI blog
• And the ONI global filtering map
• Explore the Global Network Initiative website GNI, with particular attention to the Principles, Implementation Guidelines, and Governance Framework

Class Discussion

According to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all policy makers must cultivate a culture that promotes the fulfillment of human rights. However numerous policy markers grossly violate their duties to fulfill the declaration, and many governments, especially in the developing world- brutally exploit and corrupt their citizens. So, how are ICT companies suppose to fulfill online rights in volatile environments? I think it’s interesting how GNI believes ICT companies will abide by their guidelines and try to strategically execute the human rights framework on a global scale within in environments, where violating human rights is considered part of societal norms. Thus, I’m surprised GNI’s Implementation Guidelines entail, “Participating companies will encourage governments to be specific, transparent and consistent in the demands, laws and regulations (“government restrictions”) that are issued to restrict freedom of expression online. 

Participants will also encourage government demands that are consistent with international laws and standards on freedom of expression. This includes engaging proactively with governments to reach a shared understanding of how government restrictions can be applied in a manner consistent with the Principles.” Freedom of expression and privacy are severely neglected worldwide the recent events in Egypt to overthrow Mubarak in Egypt and ongoing Civil War in Libya exemplify severe abuse of freedom of expression and human rights. I doubt companies can convince autocratic governments to abide by GNI’s guidelines especially in corrupt environments. Though “ICT companies have the responsibility to respect and protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of their users”. It doesn’t mean the governments will necessarily facilitate such efforts. by Alex

Zittrain and Palfrey suggest a viable model for defining filtering parameters may be to allow the voluntary industry consensus to evolve into established law over time. I liken this to a policy version of the type of production model we saw in our von Hippel readings. If some of the most successful products can be borne out of manufacturer improvements on initial user innovations, I think it is arguable that the same can be said of policy. Proof in practice. Jsanfilippo 16:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The goals of protecting individual privacy and minimizing the regulation of speech are indeed worthy of attention. Unfortunately, Zittrain and Palfrey’s solution falls short of the mark. They do concede that any industry consensus does not carry the force of law, and instead hope that the solution proposed by industry will be workable enough so that it is eventually adopted as law. They assert, however, that industry self-regulation is the “most likely – and most desirable – means of resolving this problem in the near term.” They are correct to a point in that a great deal of the technical expertise resides in the ranks of industry, but industry “cooperation” is notoriously complex. First, there is more than one industry type: content providers will favor a different solution than search engines, with each industry biased to its advantage. Second, there are legal barriers to industry collusion. An industry consortium can easily set operating standards or principles that favor the business model of its members while putting non-member competitors at a disadvantage. Third, members are free to abandon the standards at will. Note how GNI membership includes representation from search engine providers (Google & Yahoo) but there are no member network providers or telecommunication companies like Cisco or AT&T at the table, even though the group purports to represent “information and communications technologies.” The members associate voluntarily, and may choose to disassociate ust as easily. In fact, they may choose to not share all information with third party compliance assessors, as business contracts and corporate law departments may supersede any all principles. Ultimately it will come down to a question of international law. Perhaps the UN or WTO is not such a long shot after all.-Chris Sura 19:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Links

Here is a link to the link to the extensive Freedom House "Freedom on the Net 2011" report. (Honestly, at 410 pages I haven't really had time to read and evaulate this, but I thought I would throw it up on the wiki for those who might be interested.) http://www.freedomhouse.org/images/File/FotN/FOTN2011.pdf BrandonAndrzej 17:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

On the Today show this morning, one of the lead headlines was about your location can be followed thru your IPhone and IPad which is something we have been chatting about for the last two classes in the chat room. Also, there was an interesting article for corporate counsel on law.com regarding the idea that the government is watching corporations on the internet: http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202484184534 [[sjennings 18:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)}}

The goals of protecting individual privacy and minimizing the regulation of speech are indeed worthy of attention. Unfortunately, Zittrain and Palfrey’s solution falls short of the mark. They do concede that any industry consensus does not carry the force of law, and instead hope that the solution proposed by industry will be workable enough so that it is eventually adopted as law. They assert, however, that industry self-regulation is the “most likely – and most desirable – means of resolving this problem in the near term.” They are correct to a point in that a great deal of the technical expertise resides in the ranks of industry, but industry “cooperation” is notoriously complex. First, there is more than one industry type: content providers will favor a different solution than search engines, with each industry biased to its advantage. Second, there are legal barriers to industry collusion. An industry consortium can easily set operating standards or principles that favor the business model of its members while putting non-member competitors at a disadvantage. Third, members are free to abandon the standards at will. Note how GNI membership includes representation from search engine providers (Google & Yahoo) but there are no member network providers or telecommunication companies like Cisco or AT&T at the table, even though the group purports to represent “information and communications technologies.” The members associate voluntarily, and may choose to disassociate ust as easily. In fact, they may choose to not share all information with third party compliance assessors, as business contracts and corporate law departments may supersede any all principles. Ultimately it will come down to a question of international law. Perhaps the UN or WTO is not such a long shot after all.-Chris Sura 19:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)