These questions provide the general framework for discussion in Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle For Internet Freedom, a new book by Rebecca McKinnon, co-founder of Global Voices (and co-author of the twice-monthly Netizen Report on GV Advocacy).

A comprehensive and timely effort, it is a call to action for every blogger or user of Twitter or Facebook, and particularly for cyber-activists at large, to collectively address the urgent issue of how technology should be governed to support the rights and liberties of citizens around the world. With a rigorous analysis and a positive tone, the final message is to get involved in a struggle that all of us have the power and ability to influence (even in small ways), if we only try to understand the complex forces at work, and how we might help shape them.

Divided in five major sections (Disruptions; Control 2.0; Democracy’s challenges; Sovereigns of cyberspace; What is to be done?), the book covers a variety of events over the past decade and is quite up to date, with parts devoted to the Arab Spring and the Egyptian government’s surveillance capabilities, privacy and control in Western democracies, and the rise of “Facebookistan and Googledom”. The book's companion website offers fresh updates and more resources.

The Global Voices network is mentioned here and there, with direct quotes and references. For instance, the book preface speaks briefly about the community's inception, growth, and crucial role in recent events:

As protests erupted in Tunisia in late 2010 and demonstrations spread around the Middle East and North Africa in early 2011, Global Voices contributors worked around the clock to spread information about what was happening in multiple languages, on our own site as well as Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms.

The first part of the book focuses on interconnections in technology, society and business that fueled the Internet's development so far, giving rise to a “digital commons” that includes innovative practices, digital activism, and people's empowerment. This is an exciting environment that nonetheless faces opposition, defined as “Control 2.0”: “…how opaque, unaccountable relationships with Internet and telecommunications companies enables authoritarian governments to control and manipulate citizens.”

China is a primary case study here, with a detailed description of its refined censorship system and recent developments to maintain authoritarian control, while at the same time enabling, “…high levels of lively and even contentious online debate and deliberation, within certain limits.”

After describing similar (or worse) situations in countries such as Iran, Pakistan and Syria, the focus shifts to Western democracies — who unfortunately appear inclined to emulate authoritarian regimes, even if in subtle and insidious ways. That is, technology companies are establishing equally opaque and unaccountable relationships with government agencies, and fail to, “…take responsibility for their power over citizens’ political lives, and their lack of accountability in the exercise of that power.”

Image © Shutterstock.com

The various examples discussed here include WikiLeaks, privacy complaints on Facebook, ‘Big Brother’ Apple, and Net Neutrality. Along with the on-going battle about intellectual property vs. free speech and sharing (see the global initiative against SOPA-PIPA, and the recent ‘selective censorship‘ announced by Twitter). Also addressed are lesser-known issues, such as a 2011 proposal to create a “single European cyberspace” that would block “illicit content” at Europe’s borders.

Finally, the last section of the book attempts to answer the question of “What is to be done?”, proposing the development of a Netizen-centric Internet. This part explores efforts by some governments, a few companies, and a growing number of concerned citizens to address the threats to freedom in cyberspace through new initiatives and movements. Some suggestions include: boosting corporate transparency; building processes for corporate engagement with users, customers, and other stakeholders; and building a more citizen-driven information environment.

At the end of the day, this Struggle For Internet Freedom is taking place here and now — in Arab countries, in East Asia and even in Western nations. It is a common struggle, and it is up to each and all of us, as netizens and citizens of the world, to monitor the state of affairs and make sure the Internet remains a force for freedom of expression and political liberation — rather than a tool for alienation, censorship and repression.

Written by Bernardo Parrella · comments (10)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

The court dismissed the allegation of criminal defamation but upheld a charge of illegally handling personal data, deciding that under EU stringent data protection law, replicated in the Italian legislation, Google needed prior authority before distributing that personal data. In other words, any ISP or Net intermediary working within Italy is now co-responsible for the legality of content containing “personal data” (video, text, audio or other data) before anyone has complained about the content. Google has been considered a media company (that is, a content provider, a publisher), and therefore responsible for any content it publishes. Rather, the common opinion and practice on the Internet  (as pointed out also by Google itself) is that Google is simply a form of Internet service provider, and as such not directly responsible for material it hosts — a distinction crucial to the Italian decision. Also, the ruling seems to contradict a same EU directive on electronic commerce that gives service providers safe harbor from liability for the content they host.

Prosecutors said Google waited to remove the video until after complaints to the police by Vivi Down, whose name was mentioned by the boys in the video. The video was recorded in May 2006 and uploaded on September 8 by the same students involved, since then identified thanks to that video and sentenced in December 2007 to 10 months of community work and probation. The video remained online for about two months, when — as shown by actual email-records (in Italian) — at 5:20 pm on November 6, 2006, an Italian user alerted for the first time the Google staff about that questionable material. The video was ultimately removed about 24 hours later, after a quick e-mail consultation with the company headquarters in Mountain View, California, and two hours after they received a formal complaint from the Italian police, also alerted by the Vivi Down association.

The vast majority of Italian online sources and bloggers were furious, talking about a «heavy attack against Net freedom and ISP neutrality», while most media commentators openly supported the Google position that this sentence is imposing a “preventive censorship role” to Internet providers. Marco Pancini, Google Italia Policy Counsel, said: «We are deeply disturbed by such decision. Our executives had nothing to do with that video. And the judges are questioning the same basic principles upon which the Internet was built.» Others pointed out that now Italy is closer to the Chinese stump on freedom of expression.

The court has 90 days to make public the sentence motivations and an appeal has already been announced by Google lawyers: many legal experts believe that the sentence will eventually be reversed or overturned.

Written by Bernardo Parrella · comments (5)
Share: facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper