Actu
Jean-Loup Richet: US Makes A Stand Against ITU’s Desire To Acquire The Power Of Internet Governance
December 2012 by Jean-Loup Richet
While we are all waiting for the outcome of the World Conference on International Telecommunications, some concerned parties are experiencing frustration over proposals to limit the purview of the committee to telecommunications, as opposed to allowing them to make decisions regarding online service providers such as Google, Facebook and Twitter. American negotiators have learned that their proposal has been put on hold by some of the nations involved, after their having pushed for “quick ratification of the US/Canadian proposal to avoid entangling online services in the negotiations.” When it comes to censorship of the internet, it seems that the US have the most to lose if certain powers are given to governments or governing agencies to force online service providers to “pay for the privilege of reaching consumers.”
Google in particular have been vocal in their opposition to changes to the ITRs relating to Internet governance. Their argument is not simply based around an objection to having to pay to provide content – there is a real chance that if the ITU gains more control over how content is provided, countries who have a vested interest – social or political – may find it easier to censor any opinions or information that shows them in a poor light. Google are not alone in their stance: the activist groups Fight for the Future and Access Now have similar issues with the idea of some proposals granting the ITU an increased remit, saying that it could lead to “decisions about the Internet [being] made by a top-down, old-school government-centric agency behind closed doors. Some proposals allow for access to be cut off more easily, threaten privacy, legitimize monitoring and blocking online traffic. Others seek to impose new fees for accessing content, not to mention slowing down connection speeds."
The Mozilla Foundation has also been busy making a stand against censorship, creating its own webpage (similar to Google’s) urging people to act to keep the ITU from holding their discussions behind closed doors. After its significant involvement with protests against SOPA, Mozilla is once again choosing to make a political stance after previously avoiding such issues. They have gone as far as to create a free “kit of tools and resources” for anyone to use, explaining their mission as a wish “to promote openness, innovation and opportunity on the Web … The Internet depends critically on a human network of communities and relationships, and Mozilla builds movements that strengthen the Web.”
A timely foreshadowing of what can happen when a partisan governing body has the power to censor the internet has only increased the US’s urgency in restricting the ITU’s remit after a recent incident when Internet access was shut down in Syria; the US has been responsible for providing direct assistance to help keep the lines of communication open, contributing “’a thousand pieces of non-lethal equipment — largely communications gear’” to help opposition activists get around blocks to the Internet,” according to the US Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford. Ford said that the aim was to “help [the very brave and very dedicated opposition activists inside Syria] get around the restrictions on the Internet that the Syrian government imposes.” On Thursday 6th December, more than 90% of Internet access was shut down, and while it is unclear who was responsible, but CNN points out that the government has “intermittently cut off Internet access several times in the past two years.”
The slippery slope argument is being employed too, with the suggestion that some countries and organizations are allegedly becoming enamoured with the prospect of having greater control over the content they allow to be published: Reporters Without Borders have highlighted the growing trend of relatively free democracies moving up their list ’Enemies of the Internet.’ There are even some prestigious international bodies who seem to be acting in a way which does not support the freedom of the Internet, for example the Nobel Award Committee’s decision to honour Chinese author Mo Yan, who has “been criticized for his links to the country’s Communist leaders, defended state censorship and avoided discussing human rights issues as he prepared to accept the Nobel prize in literature.”
Some Internet reporters are lamenting the time when the Internet was being extolled as the new hope for “human rights activists to use to expose abuses, to defend victims, and push back against tyranny and oppression,” stating that experience has left many disillusioned after “the oppressive governments that comprise the usual suspects of human rights abusers are [shown to be] more than capable of using (or misusing) the internet for their own ends.”
Whether the ITU manages to garner support for its role in Internet governance remains to be seen, but the opposition to their grab for power makes it clear that it would leave a bad taste in the mouth of many people who will not be content with simply sitting back and taking it.
About the author:
Jean-Loup Richet is a research associate at the Canada Research Chair in Identity, Security and Technology at the University of Montréal. He graduated from the French National Institute of Telecommunications, Telecom Business School, and holds a research master’s from IAE/HEC Paris. A member of the post-graduate committee of the British Society of Criminology, his research interests include cybercrime, internet censorship and information systems security. Richet has been a speaker at several national and international conferences, and has published articles in academic and trade journals.
