The Rise of Information Sovereignty
This essay first appeared in the Internet Monitor project’s second annual report,Internet Monitor 2014: Reflections on the Digital World. The report, published by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, is a collection of roughly three dozen short contributions that highlight and discuss some of the most compelling events and trends in the digitally networked environment over the past year.
Many have suggested the Internet’s growth means (or should mean) the end of state sovereignty altogether. The logic behind such arguments is compelling. Technology has enabled citizens to create and join communities based not on geography, but on shared interests and ideologies, thus threatening the rationale for state-based nationalism altogether. Why would a citizen pledge loyalty to a state-based nation when a cornucopia of alternative communities that speak to specific interests beckon on the World Wide Web? According to this line of thinking, while states will certainly try to slow the transition, re-asserting their authority and legitimacy, globalization inevitably means the end of the nation-state as we know it.
At the same time, states control the telecommunications infrastructure that enables global connectivity. The physical nature of network connections allows any government to control information flow within its territory in a number of ways, including simply disconnecting its national communications infrastructure from all or parts of the global network. President Hosni Mubarak’s decision to take Egypt entirely offline in 2011, as well as Edward Snowden’s revelations regarding the existence of government-operated global surveillance apparatus, demonstrate just how vulnerable the web is to state control. Given the ease with which states can control access to the web, what is stopping governments from restricting access to the Internet? After all, even the father of international liberalism — Immanuel Kant — conceded states are motivated first and foremost by self-preservation.[1]
Information sovereignty refers to a state’s attempt to control information flows within its territory. But control doesn’t necessarily require a government to shut down access to the Internet. It is asserted in a variety of ways, including filtering, monitoring, and structuring industry-government relations in order to maximize state preferences in privately operated communications systems. A 2010 study by the OpenNet Initiative concluded that more than half a billion users — over a third of all users then on the Internet — experienced some form of filtering. This does not include various measures to enforce copyright, prohibitions on hate speech, prohibitions on extremist propaganda, prohibitions on child pornography and exploitation, prohibitions on sales of controlled substances, or prohibitions on online gambling, all of which are enforced by a range of democratically oriented governments.
Monitoring, in particular, is an increasingly powerful means of asserting control over Internet-based communication. As more and more communication moves into the realm of the digital, government capacity to monitor private communication of all types increases. The digitization of information that is central to the Internet’s functionality similarly eases government efforts to access, record, and share data from around the world. Drawing on Jeremy Bentham’s articulation of the panopticon, Michel Foucault argues that the mere possibility of ubiquitous yet unconfirmed monitoring of a population is among the most effective ways of controlling behavior.[iii] As users in Iran and China are well aware, Internet browsing and communication changes drastically when one thinks the government is watching.
Increasingly, both democratic and non-democratic governments are exploring ways to control access to the Internet without losing legitimacy and, ultimately, power. For some states, access is only restricted in times of emergency, as was the case in Egypt in 2011. For others, access is systematically restricted, as is the case in Iran. China adopts a multifaceted approach, which includes draconian regulation as well as encouraging local, indigenous content creation. The United States is concerned about the consequences of depending on a shared, unsecured Internet, and is thus exploring variety of public-private partnerships in an effort to find the right balance between free speech and security. Denmark, on the other hand, is pioneering the use of digital tools to gain information on potential criminals, as well as cracking down on copyright violations.
Short of permanently cutting off all access to the Internet, governments around the world are exploring the different options for exerting control over domestic information flows. In some cases, these mechanisms allow for greater control over digital communications than was previously asserted over the analogue and interpersonal. Information sovereignty’s emphasis on the political rights of governments to control information flows within their geographically delineated territories leverages two simple facts. First, the majority of the world’s governments remain eager to protect and strengthen their sovereignty. Second, the majority of citizens support the nation-state system, holding on to nationalist views. As a result, information sovereignty is gaining traction, especially outside the West.
[1] Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace, and Other Essays on Politics, History, and Morals, trans. by Ted Humphrey, (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1983).
[2] Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Vintage, 1995).
