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

"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…