Reader Response Draft 4

In the article "Who is the true enemy of the internet? Russia, China or the US?” Morozov (2015) asserts that, contrary to popular belief, the US has infringed on the autonomy of the Internet. The widespread reliance on the Internet has given technological companies access to vast amounts of information. Reacting to this phenomenon, states have imposed various degrees of censorship. This infringement of human rights has been criticised, even by the US. Yet actions by the US, which claims rights to all data processed by American companies, undermine its integrity. In my view,as countries compete in staking their dominance in the cyber-world, the Internet will not be neutral.

(106 words)

Morozov (2015) is right in claiming that in is in the interest of all states to regulate the Internet. The neutrality of the Internet has never been and will never be possible. A neutral internet is one that is both unregulated and free from any form of surveillance. Such characteristics clash with the interest of governments, companies and even society. To ensure national and internal security, governments are often motivated to restrict and in other cases monitor their citizen’s usage of the Internet. Similarly for companies who invest a great amount of capital in building infrastructure, it is in their interest that the Internet be regulated so as to recoup costs and increase profits. Given such a relationship, it impossible that the Internet remain as a free agent.

 Internal stability is imperative to any governments. For countries with many ethnic groups this poses an even greater challenge. Ethnic conflict remains till today a major ‘headache’ for states. The author asserts that the raison d’être for Russian and Chinese’s censorship is primarily for preventing social unrest (Morozov, 2015). If kept unchecked, individuals with malicious intent will abuse the Internet. Anonymity over the net has created leeway for radical individuals to incite social and political discord. The net has changed the symbiotic relationship between law enforcers and citizens. Regulating the Internet allows governments to regain control over their citizen's actions and gives them the option to intervene before any tensions escalate. The “Great Firewall of China” is one of the more prominent examples, which showcases how the Chinese government, through the use of censorship, has maintained stability within a country that has 56 official ethnic groups.

Another major concern of nation-states is that of sovereign integrity. In today’s globalised world, most countries are complexly intertwined into the global system via international organisations and international trade. This has redefined how states view their security boundaries. Countries measure their level of defence relative to neighbouring states in the region. Morozov (2015) claims that actions by the US to extend control over data processed by the technological companies would exacerbate censorship practices by the Russians and Chinese. Spying has been an age-old practice between states, but the Internet has revolutionised the way and scale of this practice (The Guardian view on the freedom of the internet: It's under attack around the world, 2014). Countries, while trying to obtain strategic advantage over each other, practice hacking and spying over the net. No state will abolish spying activities, for the sake of “human rights”. To countries, national security takes precedence over the need to respect human rights. Edward Snowden’s shocking revelation of NSA’s global surveillance aptly illustrates the point. The US had monitored calls of 35 world leaders, to obtain strategic intelligence from both its allies and enemies (Ball, 2013).

 Through Snowden’s revelation, decades of cosy relations between technological companies and the US government has been revealed.. It  may seem contradicting that companies would cooperate with governments in regulating the Internet, since a neutral Internet would attract more users, and hence generate greater profits.  Chambers (2015) at the Davos World Economic Forum valued the Internet industry at US$19 trillion. He also accurately postulated at the same conference a year ago, in a speech titled “The Internet Of Everything”, the ubiquitous role of the Internet in daily life. Morozov reckoned his view by attributing the over reliance to the convenience brought by the Internet, as an inducement for government surveillance and censorship (Morozov, 2015). Currently the cost of Internet usage has been relatively affordable for the general public. This is incompatible with high set up cost that is incurred by Internet service providers (ISP), who spend billions on laying the infrastructure for the Internet connection (White House, 2011). For the accounts to balance, technological companies have turned to other companies as a source of income. Major multi-national companies globally are always interested with consumption habits. Many will gladly pay a premium for such information; Forbes (2012) has estimated the data mining industry to be worth $50 billion USD by 2017. ISPs have also turned to the regulation of Internet broadband speeds as a form of income generation (White House, n.d.). By charging a premium for both faster surfing speeds and consumer data, ISPs and technological companies are able to charges (other) companies for the usage of the internet rather than the users. In fact, ISPs and technological companies can earn more from charging companies for their data. This strategy diversified the source of income for the ISPs and technological companies by retaining their existing subscribers and adding companies onto their list of existing customers. Creating and maintaining the Internet has come at a costly price, and it is in these companies greatest interest to regulate it. As long as companies continue to be profit oriented, the future of Internet neutrality is bleak.