Internet Activists and Authoritarian Regimes: Who's Winning?

Internet Activists and Authoritarian Regimes:
Who's Winning?

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Introduction:  Jamie Fly
                        Foreign Policy Initiative

Panelists:       Robert Guerra                    
                        Freedom House

                        Bob Boorstin
                        Google

                        Cynthia Wong
                        Center for Democracy & Technology

Moderator:     Ellen Bork
                         Foreign Policy Initiative

Summary

Offering some context for the discussion, Robert Guerra of Freedom House outlined the conflicting developments in the use of internet technology for democratic activism.  On the one hand, social networking websites and other technologies have recently been used by dissidents around the world, including in Iran, Moldova, Egypt, and against the FARC in Colombia.  On the other hand, however, the number of governments deploying internet censorship and related technologies has grown rapidly over the past few years and even includes some free world nations. 

Moreover, while traditional repression was usually aimed simply at preventing physical association, in “Repression 2.0,” technology is used to limit expression online, conduct surveillance, and proactively disrupt and repress dissidents.  For example, a regime may allow a democracy NGO to begin operations, only to steal activists’ hard drives later and gain access to the group’s contacts within the country.

Google’s Bob Boorstin discussed the challenges facing private corporations in dealing with oppressive regimes.  He argued that the goal should be to maximize freedom of expression but that no “cookie-cutter” solutions exist for dealing with different governments and cultures.  In Thailand, for instance, Google recently accepted a compromise with the government whereby a small number of videos critical of the regime would not be displayed, but access to the rest of YouTube would be restored.  Boorstin highlighted the Global Network Initiative code of conduct and specific Google measures, such as the Google Request tool (which lists requests for information that the company has received from governments) as steps the private sector is taking toward resolving the political difficulties raised by internet technologies.

Such problems, Boorstin argued, always stem from repressive regimes and not technology itself, which can be used both to enable dissidents and as a tool of government repression.  In the case of Iran, for example, technology enabled the rapid distribution of the video of Neda and increased the crowd building capacity of the opposition.  Yet, at the same time, the regime created deceptive websites designed to entrap dissidents into revealing their identity.  Democratic activists and supporters, therefore, should not abandon traditional methods of organization and communication nor rely solely on technology.

Cynthia Wong from the Center for Democracy and Technology noted that the “free” internet as we know it arose as a result of a number of policy choices designed to protect individual freedom.  However, this original policy framework is beginning to fray as China now offers an increasingly sophisticated counterexample.  China and other regimes have demonstrated that the internet can be introduced into the population without functioning as a liberalizing force.  In fact, the Chinese government frequently employs the internet to shape political debates.

With respect to policy options, Boorstin argued that internet censorship should become an issue raised in trade talks, since restrictions on information limit a company’s ability to do business.  He also encouraged widespread adoption of the Global Network Initiative.  Guerra, although acknowledging that the U.S. government should have some role, warned that too much action on the part of the government could be seen as a U.S. attempt to control the space and would be counterproductive.  However, all panelists strongly objected to any increased role for the U.N. International Telecommunication Union (ITU).  They argued that governments attempting to control the internet see the ITU as a tool for that purpose.  As such, the ITU is both compromised and unaccountable.

The key challenge for democratic activists is not simply exploiting the advantages of social networking but the marrying of internet and traditional methods of organization.   Furthermore, just as repressive regimes are collaborating on their use of technology, dissidents from around the world must communicate with each other in order to continually improve their tactics.  Since technology is always evolving, the solution of one challenge can easily lead into the next obstacle.

About the Foreign Policy Initiative

FPI is a non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. FPI seeks to promote an active U.S. foreign policy committed to robust support for democratic allies, human rights, a strong American military equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and strengthening America's global economic competitiveness. The organization was founded in 2009 and is led by Executive Director Jamie Fly. FPI’s Board of Directors consists of Eric Edelman, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, and Dan Senor. Visit our website at www.foreignpolicyi.org for more information.