Promoting global Internet freedom: policy and technology

This report provides information about US government and private sector efforts to promote and support global Internet freedom and a description of Internet freedom legislation and hearings from the 112th Congress. Modern communication tools such as the Internet provide a relatively inexpensive, accessible, easy-entry means of sharing ideas, information, and pictures around the world. In a political and human rights context, in closed societies when the more established, formal news media is denied access to or does not report on specified news events, the Internet has become an alternative source of media, and sometimes a means to organize politically. The openness and the freedom of expression allowed through social networking sites, as well as the blogs, video sharing sites, and other tools of today’s communications technology, have proven to be an unprecedented and often disruptive force in some closed societies. Governments that seek to maintain their authority and control the ideas and information their citizens receive are often caught in a dilemma: they feel that they need access to the Internet to participate in commerce in the global market and for economic growth and technological development, but fear that allowing open access to the Internet potentially weakens their control over their citizens. Internet freedom can be promoted in two ways, through legislation that mandates or prohibits certain activities, or through industry self regulation. Current legislation under consideration by Congress, the Global Online Freedom Act of 2011 (H.R. 3605), would prohibit or require reporting of the sale of Internet technologies and provision of Internet services to “Internetrestricting countries” (as determined by the State Department). Some believe, however, that technology can offer a complementary and, in some cases, better and more easily implemented solution to ensuring Internet freedom. They argue that hardware and Internet services, in and of themselves, are neutral elements of the Internet; it is how they are implemented by various countries that is repressive. Also, Internet services are often tailored for deployment to specific countries; however, such tailoring is done to bring the company in line with the laws of that country, not with the intention of allowing the country to repress and censor its citizenry. In many cases, that tailoring would not raise many questions about free speech and political repression. This report provides information about federal and private sector efforts to promote and support global Internet freedom and a description of Internet freedom legislation and hearings from the 112th Congress. Three appendixes suggest further reading on this topic and describe censorship and circumvention technologies

Regional Address Registries, Governance and Internet Freedom

Regional Internet Address Registries (RIRs) are private, nonprofit and transnational governance entities that evolved organically with the growth of the Internet to manage and coordinate Internet Protocol addresses. The RIR's management of Internet address resources is becoming more contentious and more central to global debates over Internet governance. This is happening because of two transformational problems: 1) the depletion of the IPv4 address space; and 2) the attempt to introduce more security into the Internet routing system. We call these problems "transformational" because they raise the stakes of the RIR's policy decisions, make RIR processes more formal and institutionalized, and have the potential to create new, more centralized control mechanisms over Internet service providers and users. A danger in this transition is that the higher stakes and centralized control mechanisms become magnets for political contention, just as ICANN's control of the DNS root did. In order to avoid a repeat of the problems of ICANN, we need to think carefully about the relationship between RIRs, governments, and Internet freedom. In particular, we need to shield RIRs from interference by national governments, and strengthen and institutionalize their status as neutral technical coordinators with limited influence over other areas of Internet governance

Democracy and Digital Authoritarianism: An Assessment of the EU’s External Engagement in the Promotion and Protection of Internet Freedom. College of Europe EU Diplomacy Paper 01/2020

The past decade has seen a gradual global increase in digital authoritarianism. Internet shutdowns, online censorship, mass surveillance and violations of privacy rights have all become more frequent in parts of the world where citizens are not guaranteed sufficient digital rights. The task of defending, promoting and protecting internet freedom is becoming increasingly relevant for the European Union (EU) − for internal digital and cybersecurity policies as well as for the EU’s external promotion of democracy and human rights. Whilst much has been written about the various internal policies which establish and protect internet freedom within the European Union and its member states, the EU’s external engagement in this field remains critically under-researched. To what extent does the EU engage externally in the promotion and protection of internet freedom? This paper answers this question by covering a wide variety of policy fields including human rights and democracy promotion, digital policy, enlargement and neighbourhood policy, development cooperation and trade policy. Whereas the EU faces a limited opportunity to shape global norms with regard to internet freedom or to change the course of digitally authoritarian states, it has demonstrated several strengths which deserve not to be overlooked. These include, for example, the externalisation of internal data protection and policies and the provision of direct support and protection for civil society. Despite facing significant obstacles, the promotion and protection of internet freedom has become an important area of the EU’s external action which is only set to become more relevant in the coming years

Internet Freedom with Teeth

You make the very salient statement that we shouldn\u27t lose sight of the fact that this is a case about teeth. Well, Markman was a case about dry cleaning. But nobody thinks of Markman as standing for anything about dry cleaning. So went what was Chief Judge Prost\u27s perhaps most striking question to the attorney for the International Trade Commission at oral argument in ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. International Trade Commission, which is the focus of Professor Sapna Kumar\u27s recent article Regulating Digital Trade. Yet this is what remains so fascinating about ClearCorrect: an administrative agency decision about idiosyncratic facts and perhaps the driest issue of statutory construction that one could imagine could have captivated both the legal community and the public press to have spawned, beyond Professor Kumar\u27s article, pages upon pages of legal briefing, high-visibility news reports, and even a comparison by the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to one of the most important decisions of patent law

Assessing the Current State of Net Neutrality and Exploring Solutions in Creating and Maintaining Open, Available, and Innovative Internet and Broadband Services

This article examines the current state of net neutrality regulation in the United States. Debates surrounding net neutrality are varied and layered. They include legal questions regarding how the internet should be classified under existing statutes, and the level of authority for federal agencies when regulating internet service providers. The Article will provide an extensive background of net neutrality in the United States, discussing the pertinent case law and legislation that shaped the modern Internet regulatory landscape. It will conclude by discussing the current state of the law, focusing on the perspectives of proponents and opponents of the law as it currently stands under the Restoring Internet Freedom Order. Finally, it will analyze examples of measures that opponents of the Restoring Internet Freedom Order are taking to repeal it

Freedom on the Net 2014 - Tightening the Net: Governments Expand Online Controls (Summary)

Internet freedom around the world has declined for the fourth consecutive year, with a growing number of countries introducing online censorship and monitoring practices that are simultaneously more aggressive and more sophisticated in their targeting of individual users. This booklet is a summary of findings for the 2014 edition of "Freedom on the Net.

Is internet freedom good for society?

The Internet was founded as a technology of freedom ‘for the benefit of scientists, engineers, and their students, with no direct military application in mind’ (Castells, 2001). An analysis of the literature from 2000 to today shows substantial growth in the number of published papers relating to Internet Freedom and Digital Rights, reflecting an emerging field of research. Such papers illustrate that many western societies work on the assumption that a free internet is a ‘good thing’ - but is it? This research analyses how to examine the relationship between the level of the internet ‘freedom’ and a set of ‘good life’ indices – indicators of the welfare of society. We propose a methodology for analysing both correlation and possible causation between freedom of the internet (FOTN) and indicators of the welfare of society, as well as initial hypotheses on the correlations

Internet Freedom, Human Rights and Power

Internet freedom is rapidly becoming understood as a normative framework for how the Internet should function and be used globally. Recently declared a human right by the United Nations, it also forms a central pillar of the USA's 21st Century Statecraft foreign policy doctrine. This article argues that although there is a clear human rights agenda present in this policy, there is also a power element which is much less discussed or acknowledged in the vast literature on Internet freedom. Through an exploration of both a short history and some important lessons learned about Internet freedom, this article demonstrates how the US Department of State has adapted to the information age in such a way as to harness individual agency (reconceptualised in policy terms as ‘civilian power’) for the promotion of state power. Although this is by no means as stable or reliable as some more conventional mechanisms, it is an expression of power that meets with few challenges to its legitimacy