Continuity of the internet and its freedom

Analysts today recognise that this dynamics has gained attention because of the internet’s contribution towards global gross domestic product

Joseph S Nye, former US Assistant Secretary of Defence, currently a Professor at Harvard University has raised some interesting questions regarding the future of Internet. In this context he has referred to the issue of who owns the Internet. The answer as he has put it is –“no one and everyone”.
In this context, he has pointed out that ‘the internet is a network of networks’ and that each of the different networks belongs to different companies and organizations. These networks also rely on physical servers that might be located in diverse countries with varying laws and regulations. There are some common rules and norms that currently link these networks effectively. However, due to differing-national strategic interests, the rise of cybercrime and the need to tackle them- it is not unlikely that the prospect of fragmentation might eventually surface within this matrix. Such an eventuality is also being facilitated because of the extra costs imposed by the criminal actions of criminals and political controls imposed by some governments. All of these factors might end up in people losing trust in the internet and reduction in its use.
This is no longer an existential threat but has acquired realistic dimensions.
Analysts today recognize that this dynamics has gained attention because of the internet’s contribution towards global gross domestic product. It is now estimated that this figure is expected to cross $4.2 trillion in 2016.  The internet revolution of the past two decades, according to Nye has contributed something like 8 percent of global GDP and brought three billion users online, narrowing digital, physical, economic, and educational divides.
Consequently, Carl Bildt, former Swedish Prime Minister, presently Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance has noted that any devolution towards a fragmented “splinternet” process would be very costly for the world. The impact of such an evolution would particularly be serious for developing countries. Nye has underlined the gravity of the situation by remarking that “the internet now connects nearly half the world's population, and another billion people - as well as some 20 billion devices - are forecast to be connected in the next five years”.
Analysts tracking cybercrime across the world are now estimating that the cost of cybercrime might pass the very high figure of US $ 445 billion in 2016. They are also warning that this extraordinary situation might be affected even more by the end of this decade as more devices, ranging from cars to pacemakers, are placed online. Cybercriminals and hackers, it is being anticipated will try to take advantage of this expanded horizon of opportunity.  It is also being expected that cyber-attacks on civilian infrastructure, such as power grids- as has already been witnessed in Ukraine- could create greater insecurity and affect the trust that exists in the use of the internet.
It would of course be correct to note here that this devolving scenario would affect some countries less than others. This will be due to the existing parameter of protection in some countries against evolving cyber-crime. Bangladesh, one is afraid, being rather low in this table might suffer more than others. We have already witnessed the unfortunate heist that recently affected our foreign exchange reserve in the Bangladesh Bank.
Another factor has also been casting its own shadow on the expanded and diversified use of internet in certain developing countries- particularly among the Group of Least Developed Countries. The possibility of them exploiting the economic value that can be generated through the use of the internet in these countries is sometimes compromised through trade barriers, censorship, laws requiring local storage of data and other regulations that reduce the free flow of services and ideas.  Sometimes such restrictions are also given an international legal flavor by stressing that such constraint is related to national security and a country’s right of sovereign control over their portion of the internet network. We have seen such views guiding action sometimes in the case of Russia and China.
Such a scenario in the control of the internet is indirectly reducing people's privacy, free speech, access to knowledge and freedom according to some activists. They refer, in this regard, to the use by China of what has been termed as its “Great Fire Wall” that is aimed at protecting its digitalized areas of opportunity. We have also seen the other side of the coin with accusations by Chinese authorities that there are persistent attempts by their business rivals in the West trying to hack into Chinese domains.
Such contradictory approaches to the obtaining of benefit through the internet have now led to the view that the world leadership needs to sit down together and identify least common denominators. Such a course of action is recommended in view of the unprecedented opportunities for innovation and economic growth that would be available through a functional integrated internet structure. It is being mentioned that if a convergence of interests can be brought about then the IOT may result in up to $11 trillion in additional GDP by 2025.
The Global Commission has consequently recommended that stakeholders need to use “better digital hygiene” and pro-actively discourage hackers and create juxtaposition in terms of security and resilience in system design. It has also been proposed that countries can also avoid unnecessary encryption expenditure through necessary agreements whereby countries agree not to attack the internet's core infrastructure; and governments mandate liability and compel transparent reporting of technological problems. It is being hoped that this will also ‘provide a market-based insurance industry to enhance the IOT's security’. The American technocrats who who were directly associated with the development of the internet have particularly supported such a course of action. Some of them have also suggested that such a dynamics will have a greater chance of success if it includes the participation of each stakeholder - the technical commu­nity, private organisations, companies, govern­ments - through international confer­ences.
There has however been divergence of opinion among some European nations, countries from Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia. They believe that balance can be created within the internet only through a functional paradigm where greater control is exercised by the International Teleco­mmunications Union, a UN specia­lized agency. Critics have however poin­ted out that such a measure might ensure greater legiti­macy, but this will be at the cost of efficiency. More authoritarian coun­tries have gone one step more. They want international treaties guaranteeing no interference with states' strong sovereign control over their portion of the internet.
Another feature associated with the internet is also currently drawing attention of analysts. It may be recalled in this context that in 2014  World Wide Web founder Tim Berners-Lee, twenty five years after he first outlined his proposal for a “world-wide web”,  had called for a 'global constitution' to protect internet neutrality.
He had underlined that this was necessary to protect the “neutral, open internet”. This was proposed after a number of revelations about the extent of direct and indirect nature of state and corporate surveillance being carried out online. This important aspect of internet freedom has also came under the scanner over the past year because of the manner in which business dimensions associated with Facebook, Google and some other tech giants are deriving enormous profits by hovering up data from users of their ‘free services’ and then selling it to other businesses.
Daniel Hind has analyzed the ethos of liberty against the concept of internet freedom in an interesting manner. He has stressed that liberalists define liberty as absence of interference and that in turn allows us to freely go about our lawful business without running into arbitrary restrictions. He has also pointed out that it is this notion of freedom that enables intelligence agencies to operate in a framework of regulation and oversight, which should not be a source of fear for the law-abiding citizen.
This interpretation has however not been completely agreed with by some. They assert that there is also the question of pre-meditated manipulation of digital space that can add to our vulnerability- individually or collectively. Edward Snowden through his revelations has pointed out how this enables the State to manipulate civil society. That is a kind of covert domination. We are free to do what we want, but the state tailors information to ensure that what we want to do doesn't get in the way of their plans. Assange has also shown through Wikileaks that the barbed wire is then wrapped around inside our heads.
Consequently, the multi-faceted tasks of ensuring responsible freedom in the context of the internet have drawn different solutions in the contemporary world. The latest measure taken in this regard, a positive step by the United States Commerce Department deserves careful attention by the developing world including Bangladesh. The USA has decided to hand oversight of the so-called IANA functions - the "address book" of the internet - to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
Accordingly, ICANN, with a government advisory committee of 162 Members and 35 Observers has become a non-typical inter-governmental organization: the governments do not control. At the same time, ICANN is consistent with the multi-stakeholder approach formulated and legitimated by the Internet Governance Forum, established by the UN General Assembly. As expected in this US Presidential election year, some American Senators have complained that when President Barack Obama's Commerce Department handed over its power of oversight of the IANA functions to ICANN, it has given away US control over the internet.
I will conclude here by agreeing with Nye that the US cannot "give away" the internet, because the US does not own it.

Muhammad Zamir, a former ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs,
right to information and good
governance.  He can be reached at [email protected])

 

Continuity of the internet and its freedom

Analysts today recognise that this dynamics has gained attention because of the internets contribution towards global gross domestic product

Joseph S Nye, former US Assistant Secretary of Defence, currently a Professor at Harvard University has raised some interesting questions regarding the future of Internet. In this context he has referred to the issue of who owns the Internet. The answer as he has put it is no one and everyone. In this context, he has pointed out that the internet is a network of networks and that each of the different networks belongs to different companies and organizations. These networks also rely on physical servers that might be located in diverse countries with varying laws and regulations. There are some common rules and norms that currently link these networks effectively. However, due to differing-national strategic interests, the rise of cybercrime and the need to tackle them- it is not unlikely that the prospect of fragmentation might eventually surface within this matrix. Such an eventuality is also being facilitated because of the extra costs imposed by the criminal actions of criminals and political controls imposed by some governments. All of these factors might end up in people losing trust in the internet and reduction in its use. This is no longer an existential threat but has acquired realistic dimensions. Analysts today recognize that this dynamics has gained attention because of the internets contribution towards global gross domestic product. It is now estimated that this figure is expected to cross $4.2 trillion in 2016. The internet revolution of the past two decades, according to Nye has contributed something like 8 percent of global GDP and brought three billion users online, narrowing digital, physical, economic, and educational divides. Consequently, Carl Bildt, former Swedish Prime Minister, presently Chair of the Global Commission on Internet Governance has noted that any devolution towards a fragmented splinternet process would be very costly for the world. The impact of such an evolution would particularly be serious for developing countries. Nye has underlined the gravity of the situation by remarking that the internet now connects nearly half the worlds population, and another billion people - as well as some 20 billion devices - are forecast to be connected in the next five years. Analysts tracking cybercrime across the world are now estimating that the cost of cybercrime might pass the very high figure of US $ 445 billion in 2016. They are also warning that this extraordinary situation might be affected even more by the end of this decade as more devices, ranging from cars to pacemakers, are placed online. Cybercriminals and hackers, it is being anticipated will try to take advantage of this expanded horizon of opportunity. It is also being expected that cyber-attacks on civilian infrastructure, such as power grids- as has already been witnessed in Ukraine- could create greater insecurity and affect the trust that exists in the use of the internet. It would of course be correct to note here that this devolving scenario would affect some countries less than others. This will be due to the existing parameter of protection in some countries against evolving cyber-crime. Bangladesh, one is afraid, being rather low in this table might suffer more than others. We have already witnessed the unfortunate heist that recently affected our foreign exchange reserve in the Bangladesh Bank. Another factor has also been casting its own shadow on the expanded and diversified use of internet in certain developing countries- particularly among the Group of Least Developed Countries. The possibility of them exploiting the economic value that can be generated through the use of the internet in these countries is sometimes compromised through trade barriers, censorship, laws requiring local storage of data and other regulations that reduce the free flow of services and ideas. Sometimes such restrictions are also given an international legal flavor by stressing that such constraint is related to national security and a countrys right of sovereign control over their portion of the internet network. We have seen such views guiding action sometimes in the case of Russia and China. Such a scenario in the control of the internet is indirectly reducing peoples privacy, free speech, access to knowledge and freedom according to some activists. They refer, in this regard, to the use by China of what has been termed as its Great Fire Wall that is aimed at protecting its digitalized areas of opportunity. We have also seen the other side of the coin with accusations by Chinese authorities that there are persistent attempts by their business rivals in the West trying to hack into Chinese domains. Such contradictory approaches to the obtaining of benefit through the internet have now led to the view that the world leadership needs to sit down together and identify least common denominators. Such a course of action is recommended in view of the unprecedented opportunities for innovation and economic growth that would be available through a functional integrated internet structure. It is being mentioned that if a convergence of interests can be brought about then the IOT may result in up to $11 trillion in additional GDP by 2025. The Global Commission has consequently recommended that stakeholders need to use better digital hygiene and pro-actively discourage hackers and create juxtaposition in terms of security and resilience in system design. It has also been proposed that countries can also avoid unnecessary encryption expenditure through necessary agreements whereby countries agree not to attack the internets core infrastructure; and governments mandate liability and compel transparent reporting of technological problems. It is being hoped that this will also provide a market-based insurance industry to enhance the IOTs security. The American technocrats who who were directly associated with the development of the internet have particularly supported such a course of action. Some of them have also suggested that such a dynamics will have a greater chance of success if it includes the participation of each stakeholder - the technical community, private organisations, companies, governments - through international conferences. There has however been divergence of opinion among some European nations, countries from Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia. They believe that balance can be created within the internet only through a functional paradigm where greater control is exercised by the International Telecommunications Union, a UN specialized agency. Critics have however pointed out that such a measure might ensure greater legitimacy, but this will be at the cost of efficiency. More authoritarian countries have gone one step more. They want international treaties guaranteeing no interference with states strong sovereign control over their portion of the internet. Another feature associated with the internet is also currently drawing attention of analysts. It may be recalled in this context that in 2014 World Wide Web founder Tim Berners-Lee, twenty five years after he first outlined his proposal for a world-wide web, had called for a global constitution to protect internet neutrality. He had underlined that this was necessary to protect the neutral, open internet. This was proposed after a number of revelations about the extent of direct and indirect nature of state and corporate surveillance being carried out online. This important aspect of internet freedom has also came under the scanner over the past year because of the manner in which business dimensions associated with Facebook, Google and some other tech giants are deriving enormous profits by hovering up data from users of their free services and then selling it to other businesses. Daniel Hind has analyzed the ethos of liberty against the concept of internet freedom in an interesting manner. He has stressed that liberalists define liberty as absence of interference and that in turn allows us to freely go about our lawful business without running into arbitrary restrictions. He has also pointed out that it is this notion of freedom that enables intelligence agencies to operate in a framework of regulation and oversight, which should not be a source of fear for the law-abiding citizen. This interpretation has however not been completely agreed with by some. They assert that there is also the question of pre-meditated manipulation of digital space that can add to our vulnerability- individually or collectively. Edward Snowden through his revelations has pointed out how this enables the State to manipulate civil society. That is a kind of covert domination. We are free to do what we want, but the state tailors information to ensure that what we want to do doesnt get in the way of their plans. Assange has also shown through Wikileaks that the barbed wire is then wrapped around inside our heads. Consequently, the multi-faceted tasks of ensuring responsible freedom in the context of the internet have drawn different solutions in the contemporary world. The latest measure taken in this regard, a positive step by the United States Commerce Department deserves careful attention by the developing world including Bangladesh. The USA has decided to hand oversight of the so-called IANA functions - the address book of the internet - to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Accordingly, ICANN, with a government advisory committee of 162 Members and 35 Observers has become a non-typical inter-governmental organization: the governments do not control. At the same time, ICANN is consistent with the multi-stakeholder approach formulated and legitimated by the Internet Governance Forum, established by the UN General Assembly. As expected in this US Presidential election year, some American Senators have complained that when President Barack Obamas Commerce Department handed over its power of oversight of the IANA functions to ICANN, it has given away US control over the internet. I will conclude here by agreeing with Nye that the US cannot give away the internet, because the US does not own it. Muhammad Zamir, a former ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance. He can be reached at [email protected])