 |
| (Vladimir Kazanevsky) |
Out of
public view, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), a UN agency, is
working on a proposal to give governments more control over the internet. The
effort is supported by a number of countries including Russia, Brazil and
China, and if it’s successful it could mean the end of internet freedom.
After the
WikiLeaks-affair and the Arab Spring, an increasing number of countries would
like to ‘democratise’ the internet. China India, Brazil and South Africa all use
the ITU as a platform to advance their plans, says Dieuwertje Kuijpers from the
Telders Foundation, a research agency connected with the pro-market VVD party.
“It’s a
useful platform for them, enabling them to set rules about what is and is not
allowed on the internet.” That includes rules for both acceptable behaviour and
internet regulation.
Trivial
Russia and
China were the first UN members to propose setting up the International Code of Conduct for Information Security. The code lists the rights and
responsibilities of states when it comes to the web. The rules also make it
possible to fight internet criminals and extremists attempting to undermine the
‘economic and political stability of the state’ - in other words, bring order
to the chaos. The first thing was to get rid of ‘trivial’ aspects like the
right to anonymity and privacy on the web. The proposal was considered somewhat
laughable in US and Europe but the controversial code of conduct is now getting
a second chance.
India,
Brazil and South Africa are calling for the creation of a new UN organisation
to monitor and protect equal access to the internet. The UN Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) would consist of 50 member states, along with
four advisors from the business world and society. Many people don’t realise
that this committee would mean the end of the so-called multi-stakeholder
principle that everyone has a say in the internet. The 50 countries represented
would decide how around 6 billion people are allowed to use the internet.
Control
Dutch Green
Left MP Arjan El Fassed believes that restraint is necessary:
"The
growth and development of the internet is possible precisely because it belongs
to everyone and no one. Many different groups would like to control aspects of the
internet, from the entertainment industry to governments. The danger is that
regulation will be used to disguise attempts to take control. That’s bad for
everyone.”
The United
Nations is the last body that should be dealing with this issue, according to
Dieuwertje Kuijpers: "The UN is too bureaucratic and opaque. That makes it
almost creepy.” It’s also impossible to make this kind of agreement on the
basis of consensus.
The ITU has
proven its usefulness in the past. The agency facilitated the liberalisation of
the internet in the late eighties, guaranteeing access for everyone without
restrictive international frameworks. National governments are responsible for
the rules of usage. Independent organisations such as ICANN ensure the
technical standards and stability of the internet.
Radical
It’s
unclear exactly what the proponents of government control actually wish to
accomplish. Clearly, cyber security, privacy and data storage concerns are part
of their agenda, but so far the draft text has not been released to the public.
Given the radical nature of the proposal, the public has a right to know more
about the plan.
Arjan El
Fassed thinks the Netherlands should refuse to continue negotiating until the
ITU proposal is made public:
"The
majority of users will benefit from an open internet, not from more control.
The problem with these proposals is that civil society has almost no say. The
Netherlands should have the courage to stand up for those users, like other
European countries.”
"Member
States shouldn’t wait for ratification, they must have a say now,” says
Dieuwertje Kuijpers. "This process started back in 2005. There is no
earthly reason to be taken by surprise if the proposal is presented at the end
of this year at the telecom conference in Dubai.”
Picnic
The
ratification of the controversial anti-piracy law ACTA has already demonstrated
that politicians have little idea what these agreements entail. Specialists in
the field of civil rights and internet freedom had to explain what ACTA means
to computer illiterate MPs and civil servants. They cannot afford to be that
ignorant this time around, says Kuijpers:
"ACTA
was a picnic compared to what the ITU is planning.”
See also:
The Economist - In Praise of Chaos
Related Articles:
Neelie Kroes backs ACTA protests
Anti-piracy ACTA treaty referred to EU high court
Anti-piracy ACTA treaty referred to EU high court
 |
| Marchers in London gathered outside British Music House, home to several major rights holders |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.