Liberation vs. Control in Cyberspace

Liberation vs. Control in Cyberspace

Deibertt, Ronald & Rafal Rohozinski. "Liberation vs. control: The future of cyberspace."

Journal of Democracy, 21.4 (2010): 43-56

The Internet is a paradox. On one hand, You Tube and Twitter have been widely credited with creating a more open and liberated world, and giving rise to the Arab Spring and other global pro-democracy movements. Yet while the Internet facilitates communication, it also allows for a greater degree of control of ideas through surveillance. "Even in democratic countries, surveillance systems penetrate every aspect of life, as people implicitly (and perhaps unwittingly) consent to the greatest invasion of personal privacy in history" (Deibertt & Rohozinski 2010: 44). What is unique about the Internet is the degree to which people are complicit in sharing information, enabling themselves to be observed, not its 'liberated' aspects: users are completely unaware of the degree to which they are laying their lives bare for all to see, including governments and other organizations that do not have their best interests at heart [THESIS].

Liberation: From what and for whom?

The Internet has made it easier for 'hate groups' to connect and engage in nefarious online and off-line activities. It has made it far easier for cyber-criminals to harvest unwitting user's information. Users are unaware of this the extent to which they expose potentially sensitive information on Facebook and other sites which encourage the personal sharing of data between users.

Enclosing the commons: Next-generation controls

The Internet is no longer the wild, wild West of information it once was, and governments (including social democracies not simply repressive regimes like China) are growing more vigilant about suppressing the free and open discourse of citizens. "Whereas it was once considered impossible for governments to control cyberspace, there are now a wide variety of technical and nontechnical means at their disposal to shape and limit the online flow of information" (Deibert & Rohozinski 2010: 55).

Legal measures

There is also a rise in the drive to use capitalism as a defense to regulate the Internet. "At the most basic level, government interventions in cyberspace have come through the introduction of slander, libel, copyright-infringement, and other laws to restrict communications and online activities" (Deibert & Rohozinski 2010: 50). While some of these lawsuits may be necessary, the over-use of copyright protections can stifle smaller entities that do not have the means to defend themselves in the legal system against frivolous lawsuits. They can also be used by governments as a legitimized technique of censorship.

Informal requests

Governments can also use semi-coercive means or veiled threats to obtain information from private companies about users. "Authorities can make informal 'requests' of private companies" (Deibert & Rohozinski 2010: 51). Corporations may volunteer information simply because it is easier to do so -- after all it is not their information that is at stake, and the government may treat them better if they do so, yet their clients did not realize they would be disclosing such sensitive information to the government when doing business with the organization. In some instances, the government has directly affected services, such as the slowdown of telecommunications information during the recent demonstrations in Iran (Deibert & Rohozinski 2010: 51).

Outsourcing

It is well-known that many Internet companies 'outsource' their surveillance techniques when pressured to do so by the government. Although they themselves may not do the monitoring, they are aware it is going on and turn a blind eye. "Private companies often are compelled in some manner to censor and surveil Internet activity in order to operate in a particular jurisdiction, as evidenced most prominently by the collusion of Google (up until January 2010), Microsoft, and Yahoo in China's Internet censorship practices… the Chinese partner of Skype put in place a covert surveillance system to track and monitor prodemocracy activists who were using Skype's chat function as a form of outreach" (Deibert & Rohozinski 2010: 52).

Just-in time blocking

The fact that information is blocked is not the only way in which coercion is extended online, but also when information is blocked. Blocking information during elections or demonstrations can also be used as a tool of coercive governments, in a manner not immediately obvious to users.

Patriotic hacking

Not all 'hackers' are representatives of democratic movements. Many "take offense at criticism directed at their governments, however illegitimate those governments may appear to outsiders," such as pro-government hackers that have attacked the opposition in Iran and Russia (Deibert & Rohozinski 2010: 54). The tool of the powerless (the Internet) can also be a tool of those who represent the interests of the powerful, since they have the same 'hacking' skills, only with institutional support.

Targeted surveillance and social malware attacks