Safeguarding the Open Internet
THE HAGUE – Proposals
regarding Internet governance are bound to generate serious friction.
The online world, after all, has provided enormous opportunities to
billions of denizens, largely because it has never been governed.
And yet, as the
Internet grows in importance, so do the risks inherent in the lack of
regulation. There is a growing danger that the open platform we all
cherish will increasingly be colonized by corporate greed, criminal
activity, and conflict between states – with ordinary citizens the
ultimate victims. It is essential that safeguards be put in place, and
that countries and companies alike are bound by principles that
encourage them to act in the common interest.
The utopian view that
governments and other institutions should stay out of the way ignores
the role that countries are already playing on the Internet, often
secretly. Nor does it account for the fact that giant companies are
exploiting this largely unregulated environment to set themselves up as
the new sovereigns.
When a country
censors online content on a massive scale or uses digital backdoors to
monitor its citizens, the entire Internet feels the impact. Similarly,
when companies with billions of users scattered around the world suffer
data breaches or choose to pursue profits at the expense of universal
human rights, it is not currently clear who can hold them to account.
Human rights cannot
be “balanced” with the interests of states or commercial companies.
Upholding core principles requires a system of checks and balances –
mechanisms that can ensure that human rights, including privacy, are
safeguarded, even as legitimate security concerns are taken into
account. Doing this will require the key players responsible for the
Internet’s openness to enter into a mix of voluntary and binding
agreements that establish something akin to the rule of law.
Until now,
discussions about Internet governance have aimed at establishing
voluntary norms. These are important first steps, but if the process
does not eventually lead to binding agreements, it is unlikely to
succeed in keeping the Internet functioning and safe. Revelations of
pervasive online surveillance have already eroded trust in the Internet
and its suitability for communicating, accessing information, and doing
business.
It is crucial that the Internet’s central protocols be declared a neutral zone, free from interference by any party, as per a recommendation
by the scientific council that is advising the Dutch government. This
measure, which will work only if it is binding, is in the interest of
all countries and companies, because the trust that users have in the
services built on top of these protocols depends on it. Among the
protected elements would be TCP/IP protocol suites, various standards,
the domain name system (DNS), and routing protocols.
The Global Commission on Internet Governance (of which I am a member) has put forward a proposal
for “a new social compact” among citizens, their elected
representatives, law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, businesses,
civil-society groups, and programmers and developers. Among the
provisions would be the recognition of privacy and personal data
protection as a fundamental human right, and a call for clear, precise,
and transparently created regulations that set limits on government
surveillance and companies’ use of consumer data.
Under this framework,
governance would strengthen the technology upon which the Internet
depends. Governments would not seek to create backdoors to access data
if doing so would make the Internet less secure. Companies that store or
transmit consumer data would assume greater responsibility for illegal
intrusion, damage, or destruction. And efforts by the Internet’s
technical custodians to incorporate human-rights-enhancing solutions in
standards and protocols, including end-to-end data encryption, would be
encouraged.
Such
a social compact and multi-stakeholder process would not replace
judicial oversight and international human-rights law. Existing
governance institutions should be brought to bear on Internet regulation
wherever possible. But, given the enormous challenges that this
entails, it is also necessary to encourage all actors to behave in the
best interest of the Internet ecosystem as a whole. The dangers of doing
otherwise are simply too great.
Marietje Schaake , MEP for the Dutch Democratic Party, is the founder of the Intergroup on the Digital Agenda for Europe and a commissioner of the World Commission on Internet Governance.
May 7, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment