Internet Freedom 1 Running Head: INTERNET FREEDOM

Analysis of Internet Freedom in America in the 21st Century and its global impacts Ian Wong Kai Jing Class 3H1, Index No. 10 2896 words

Internet Freedom 2 Today, in the 21st century, 2 billion people have access to the Internet. The internet today is a platform used for a variety of activities: political, economic and social. It can be said that the internet is an extension of civil society. Digital tools are increasingly used for cross-border communication, launch cyber attacks, topple dictatorships and possibly strengthen others. It is therefore crucial that the internet remains free and open for all to express their opinions and ideas. As the world's advocator of freedom and arguably the most powerful country, "America needs a comprehensive internet freedom strategy, one that tilts the balance in favor of those who would use the Internet to advance tolerance and free expression, and away from those who would employ it for repression or violence" (Richard, F. and Will, R., 2011, p. 5). In the present paper, the global impacts of internet freedom in America in the 21st century will be investigated. It is hypothesized that internet freedom cannot simply spread democracy to oppressed peoples around the world as there are other restricting factors, such as political and military ones, and that internet freedom can potentially advance societies. The following two literature reviews will attempt to demonstrate and support the hypothesis, while the other two will present the arguments against it. In a research book titled "The Net Delusion - How Not To Liberate The World" written by Evgeny Morozov (2011), he argues that "internet freedom is an illusion, and that technology has failed to democratize the world. Not only that - in many cases the internet is actually helping authoritarian regimes. From China to Russia to Iran, oppressive governments are using cyberspace to stifle dissent: planting clandestine propaganda, employing sophisticated digital censorship and using online surveillance." There are two main arguments raised in his book; firstly, that people must look at other ways of promoting democracy abroad, and secondly, for policymakers and citizens alike to recognize that peoples' freedoms are at stake. Although due credit is given to the benefits of internet freedom, Morozov argues that the cons outweigh the pros. The only benefit stated is that "the Internet has been reviving many of the religious and cultural practices that globalization

Internet Freedom 3 was supposed to erode, if not eliminate altogether" (Morozov, 2011, p. 246). However, there are a multitude of reasons provided as to why internet freedom does more harm than good. Luke Allnut, an editor with Radio Free Europe, points out that "where the techno-utopianists are limited in their vision is that in this great mass of Internet users all capable of great things in the name of democracy, they see only a mirror image of themselves: progressive, philanthropic, cosmopolitan. They don't see the neo-Nazis, pedophiles, or genocidal maniacs who have networked, grown and prospered on the Internet" (Morozov, 2011, p. 254). This is an inherent problem in which all networks are treated as good, and therefore allows policymakers to ignore their political and social effects, delaying efficient and effective response to their otherwise harmful activities. Even worse, it is noted that "the supposed lawlessness and networked anarchy enabled by the Internet have resulted in greater social pressure" (Morozov, 2011, p. 256). For instance, a Russian white supremacist group that calls itself the Northern Brotherhood would have never existed in the pre-Internet era. It has, quite disturbingly, set up an online game in which participants are requested to videotape their violent attacks on migrant guest works and share them on YouTube in exchange for cash awards. Crime gangs in Mexico have also taken advantage of the Internet, such as through disseminating violent videos and promoting a climate of fear through YouTube. Not only so, they also go through social networking sites to track the personal details of people that they plan to kidnap. Ghaleb Krame, a security expert at Alliant International University in Mexico City, points out that "criminals can find out who are the family members of someone who has a high rank in the police. Perhaps they don't have an account on Twitter or Facebook, but their children and close family probably do" (Morozov, 2011, pg. 257). Morozov (2011) also noted that the Internet has also boosted another informal market known as organ trading. Desperate individuals are willing to sell their organs to those who are willing to pay up. Because of the vast amounts of such sites, most of them go unmonitored by the police. Finally, the issue of powerful gadgets in weak states is raised. Morozov (2011) noted that "All the recent chatter about how the Internet is breaking down institutions, barriers, and intermediaries can make us oblivious to the fact that strong and well-

Internet Freedom 4 functioning institutions, especially governments, are essential to the preservation of freedom. Even if we assume that the Internet may facilitate the toppling of authoritarian regimes, it does not necessarily follow that it would also facilitate the consolidation of democracy." Arthur Schlesinger Jr. (1997) also noted that if increasing computerization was left unchecked, "The computer turns the untrammeled market into a global juggernaut crashing across frontiers, enfeebling national powers of taxation and regulation, undercutting national management of interest rates and exchanges rates, widening disparities of wealth within and between nations, dragging down labor standards, degrading the environment, denying nations the shaping of their own economic destiny, accountable to no one, creating a world economy without a world polity." By placing powerful democracy tools in the hands of those without the capability to handle them, less democracy will be spread. Nowhere is this more evident than in countries like Afghanistan, where an already weak government is made even weaker by various political, military and social forces. Therefore, Gerald Doppelt, a professor of philosophy at the University of California at San Diego, notes that "In order to evaluate the impact of any particular case of technical politics on the democratization of technology and society, we need to ask who is this group of users challenging technology, where do they stand in society, what have they been denied, and what is the ethical significance of the technical change the seek for democratic ideals" (Morozov, 2011, pg. 265)? The findings of Morozov supports the hypothesis of how democracy is not as easily spread to oppressed people around the world as it is thought to, and the limitations of internet freedom. Next, in an article written by Ian Bremmer (2010) titled "Democracy in Cyberspace: What Information Technology Can and Cannot Do", he argues that "techno-optimists appear to ignore the fact that these tools are value neutral; there is nothing inherently prodemocratic about them. To use them is to exercise a form of freedom, but it is not necessarily a freedom that promotes the freedom of others." Bremmer (2010) noted that "Only in democracies -- the Philippines, Ukraine, Lebanon, and Colombia -- did these communications weapons accomplish an immediate objective. In Myanmar, Zimbabwe,

Internet Freedom 5 and Iran, they managed to embarrass the government but not to remove it from power. " Walter Wriston (1997) also noted that "The information revolution is a long-term process, cyberspace is a complex place, and technological advances are no substitute for human wisdom. Innovations in modern communications may help erode authoritarian power over time. But for the moment, their impact on international politics is not so easy to predict." There is, however, good reason for Americans to be optimistic towards the relationship of technology, information and democracy. Firstly, these communication tools are the epitome of twenty-first century innovation, and part of Americans' beliefs are promoting peace, advocating freedom and creating prosperity through new inventions. Secondly, Americans believe that the millions of people around the world who use the internet will eventually adopt American political beliefs and even the American culture. However, Bremmer (2010) noted that there are "Hundreds of millions who blog in their own languages -- there are more than 75 million in China alone -- (and) the vast majority have other priorities. Many more of them focus on pop culture rather than on political philosophy, on pocketbook issues rather than political power, and on national pride rather than cosmopolitan pretensions. In other words, the tools of modern communications satisfy as wide a range of ambitions and appetites as their twentieth-century ancestors did, and many of these ambitions and appetites do not have anything to do with democracy." There is no direct or explicit evidence that shows that the internet advocates freedom. Rather, Bremmer (2010) feels that the internet has taken up a neutral stance. There are far too many variables to predict with confidence the full, longterm impacts of modern communication tools on the political developments of authoritarian regimes. Besides, the ever growing threat of terrorism and the rapid pace of technology development are forcing policymakers to expand their definitions of national security and rethink their infrastructures. As a result, governments are turning towards high-tech communication firms to strengthen security, and patch up any emerging vulnerabilities. Bremmer (2010) noted that "political borders, which the rise of information technology once seemed set to dissolve, are taking on a new importance: if greater openness creates new opportunities, it also creates new worries. Unable to match U.S. defense spending,

Internet Freedom 6 China and Russia have become adept at information warfare. The Pentagon reported last August that China continues to develop its ability to steal U.S. military secrets electronically and to deny its adversaries access to information essential to conduct combat operations." And as cyber threats become increasingly complicated, these companies will collaborate more actively with national security agencies on developing new information and communication technologies. By entering the military-industrial field, it will make them even more susceptible to authoritarian regimes and likelier targets for hackers and spies of all kinds. Because of this, political borders will become extremely crucial. Bremmer (2010) comes to the conclusion that "The result will be a world that has not one Internet but a set of interlinked intranets closely monitored by various governments. The Internet is not about to disappear, but the prediction that a single Internet could accommodate both the West and the evolving demands of authoritarian states was never realistic. American and European users will access the same Internet as before, but the Chinese government has already made clear its intention to declare sovereignty over an Internet of its own. Other authoritarian states have every incentive to follow its lead." The findings of Bremmer also supports the hypothesis in showing how the internet is not a complete democracy tool as stated, and the factors that limit the effectiveness of internet freedom. However, there are alternative research articles that show that the hypothesis may be completely true. In an article written by Nicholas D. Kristof (2009) titled "Tear Down This Cyberwall", he argues that internet freedom broadens the minds of people inside closed societies, and provides them with many different perspectives towards their government. He also argues that because of this, "it does make a difference when people inside closed regimes get access to information which is why dictatorships make such efforts to block comprehensive Internet access." The accessibility of the internet inside authoritarian states allow for citizens to have a differing view from the government's propaganda. According to a Chinese journalist with dissident leanings that was interviewed in Kristof's article, he said that Freegate was a kind of bridge to the outside world for me. Before accessing the

Internet Freedom 7 Internet through Freegate, I was really a pro-government guy. Through propaganda, citizens are prompted to believe that there are no cons to the government's policies and that they are truly effective and beneficial. However, there may be conflicting views towards these policies on an international level. In order to prevent uprisings within the country, these authoritarian governments take the effort to block out the internet. For instance, in China, the government is fighting back against the hacktivists who invented proxy networks that allow users to bypass the Great Firewall of China. The government announced that all new computers will have internet filtering software, called Green Dam. But the people realise the importance of having accessibility to the internet, and these "hacktivists" have already developed a neutralisation software named Green Tsunami. Still, Kristof (2009) notes that "these technologies are not a panacea", "only 5 percent of the netizens in China use proxy bypass software" and that "at the end of the day, bullets usually trump tweets". It is evident, however, that people having access to the internet outside of these closed societies makes a difference, as seen from the actions of various governments like China and Iran. Bernard Kouchner (2010), former French minister of Foreign and European Affairs, notes that "Extremist, racist and defamatory Web sites and blogs disseminate odious opinions in real time. They have made the Internet a weapon of war and hate. Web sites are attacked. Violent movements spread propaganda and false information. It is very hard for democracies to control them. I do not subscribe to the nave belief that a new technology, however efficient and powerful, is bound to advance liberty on all fronts." Despite that, he accredits the internet in that "The Internet is above all the most fantastic means of breaking down the walls that close us off from one another. For the oppressed peoples of the world, the Internet provides power beyond their wildest hopes. It is increasingly difficult to hide a public protest, an act of repression or a violation of human rights. In authoritarian and repressive countries, mobile telephones and the Internet have given citizens a critical means of expression, despite all the restrictions." Kouchner acknowledges that even with all the possible negative effects that come along with freedom of expression on the internet, it has allowed people living in closed societies and authoritarian regimes some extent of freedom to express their

Internet Freedom 8 opinions without being arrested or prosecuted. This article demonstrates how the hypothesis is not completely true by showing how internet freedom can spread small amounts of democracy within closed societies, but still acknowledges that there are many limiting factors in using the internet to advocate freedom and democracy. In an article published by the United States Secretary of State, Hilary Rodham Clinton (2010), titled "Remarks on Internet Freedom", she notes that "Even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable" and that "Information freedom supports the peace and security that provides a foundation for global progress". Through allowing people to have access to information networks, they can generate ideas and helps encourage creativity and entrepreneurship. This is essential in the 21st century in order for societies to grow stronger and to forward the economy. However, similar to the article by Kristof, Clinton (2010) states that "Because amid this unprecedented surge in connectivity, we must also recognize that these technologies are not an unmitigated blessing. These tools are also being exploited to undermine human progress and political rights." For instance, the same information networks that people use to spread freedom are also used by al-Qaeda to incite violence and hatred. Technologies that can be used to open up governments and improve transparency can also be used by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights. This does show, once again, how internet freedom is can spread democracy to the people by allowing them to make the government accountable and more transparent. However, Clinton also acknowledges the hypothesis that there are other limiting factors in using internet freedom to promote democracy. Governments can also use these tools against the people. As for the second part of the argument, information freedom contributes to global progress as a whole. Clinton (2010) notes that "Historically, asymmetrical access to information is one of the leading causes of interstate conflict. When we face serious disputes or dangerous incidents, it is critical that people on both sides of the problem have access to the same set of facts and opinions." For example, in North Korea, the government has

Internet Freedom 9 attempted to completely isolate the people from outside opinions. This lopsided access to information, however, increases the likelihood of conflict and the probability of small disagreements escalating. In the interest of global stability, allowing access to information and internet freedom is crucial. This supports the hypothesis in stating how it can help to advance the world. From these four literature reviews, it is clear that the hypothesis still holds strongly over any alternative research articles that have been presented. There are still too many restricting factors to conclude that internet freedom can spread democracy to oppressed peoples around the world. However, it is acknowledged that internet freedom can promote the growth of the world as a whole. Across the course of the entire literature review paper, it is concluded that this field of research is relatively new as there are not many academic journals or books focused on this aspect and more research needs to be done. It is important to understand the impacts of such a major technological and communication tool of the 21st century on a global scale. More research into foreign and international policies with regards to internet freedom should be done to understand the rationale of each country's internet freedom policy, especially those of authoritarian states. This would allow for suggestions to be made and thereby improving the findings of an analysis of internet freedom.

Internet Freedom 10 References Bremmer, I. (2010). Democracy in Cyberspace: What Information Technology Can and Cannot Do. Retrieved from http://www.ihavenet.com/World-Technology-Democracyin-Cyberspace-Foreign-Affairs.html Center for a New American Security. (2011). Internet Freedom: A Foreign Policy Imperative in the Digital Age. Retrieved from http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_InternetFreedom_FontaineR ogers_0.pdf Clinton, H. (2010). Remarks on Internet Freedom. Retrieved from http://www.immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/US_DOS/S100121C.pdf Kouchner, B. (2010). The Battle for the Internet. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/opinion/14iht-edkouchner.html Kristof, N.(2009). Tear Down This Cyberwall!. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/opinion/18kristof.html?_r=2 Morozov, E. (2011). The Net Delusion: How Not To Liberate The World. United States of America: Allen Lane. Schlesinger, Jr., A. (1997). Has Democracy a Future?. Retrieved from http://www.fsa.ulaval.ca/personnel/vernag/eh/F/cause/lectures/Schlesinger.html