Securing the cyber-commons conference (Munk Centre March 2011)

This was a well-attended conference organized by Ron Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski, our partners within the PAN supported Open net Initiative Asia project. A veritable “who’s who” participated, including Margaret Atwood, Mel Cappe (ex-Clerk of the privy Council), senior military, intelligence and foreign affairs officials from various countries and top academics and practitioners in this field (Evgeny Morozov, John Palfrey, Ethan Zuckerman..), Some key points from the conference: After the Egyptian revolution a contract was found in the ministry of information in Egypt on information security with a German firm. This highlights the need to better understand the relationship between western firms and authoritarian regimes. Moreover, most at the conference speakers felt that “Mubaraking” (i.e cutting off) the Internet, didn't last because it had become socially impossible and economically self-defeating. Deibert highlighted key trends that are changing the relationship between society and technology: (1) demographic change: two thirds of internet users are under 25 ( digital natives). This youth bulge is reshaping the Internet and, in turn, society (hacktivists, anonymous, etc..) (2) States as a result of the use of technology for liberation purposes, are building large firewalls. States are also becoming aggressive at using the Internet (repression 2.0: crowdsourcing protester identification). (3) Militarization of cyberspace. (4) Globalized cyber crime. However, the greatest agent of change is the growing problem of the cyber-enabled disenfranchised: “they will hack their way out of poverty”. With the growth of groups like Anonymous, hacking is becoming the norm (Cyber jihadists , anonymous , botnets are for sale in china, etc..). States are left scrambling for a solution: Is it an Internet kill switch?
A key take away comment for me was mentioned by Mel Cappe: in the tension between those who see the need for a safe and secure Internet and those pushing for a more open internet, the former have a clear value proposition that is understood by politicians and lay citizens: the internet can be a dangerous place where terrorists and pedophiles roam, it therefore needs State intervention for law and order purposes. Do advocates of a more open internet have a similar, simple, value proposition? It isn’t clear.

To be or not to be a Tunisian Social Media revolution

The usual digital activism pundits, Zuckerman, Morozov, York, Sullivan , et al., are all commenting on their various views on the extent to which the Tunisian coup (and possibly revolution..i'll only judge it a revolution once the majority of the existing power structure is toppled, not just its head) was enabled, facilitated, catalysed, caused or driven by social media and the Internet. It's an important debate as the previous "Twitter revolution" in Iran was unsuccessful. This left many (even non-tech) experts skeptical of the power of the tools since the Iranian State had possibly more efficiently used the tools to track down activists and blur what was going on. Much of the Iranian example seemed to corroborate Morozov's principal thesis in the Net Delusion: technology benefits authoritarian States more than it does activists who are fighting them. Tunisia is different. The coup was, seemingly, successful and the Internet certainly was part of what was going on.

I don't feel there is anyway I could judge who is right in this debate, not having the kind of first hand accounts and data that would normally allow one to draw such conclusions. However, Zuckerman's view seems the most plausible, so taking an Ocham's razor approach I'll side with him. The only problem with it, is that it's kind of unsatisfying in how simple it is. Yes people are the drivers of revolutions, not tools, and yes, communication is only part of a larger eco-system of interactions, ideas, power-struggles, economic and social contexts etc..etc.. But the exciting question is Morozov's: had the protests taken place before the advent of the pervasive use of digital tools would it have been successful? (note I use "digital tools", because I think we miss the boat on laying everything at the feet of social media. A digital camera with a usb stick could be just as powerful as twitter). Although I have no evidence to base it on, I don't think so. My hunch is based in part on the interesting musings about the role of the print press during the French Revolution highlighted by Zeynep Tufekci :

"So, I think most of the people using the term “social media revolution” are using it in the sense of a material cause. As I asked on Twitter during the debate, would we call the French Revolution a printing press revolution? Surely, the invention of the press is a strong antecedent of that revolution. But also surely, that revolution was made by people, through political action. So, the printing press just defines the milieu in which the revolution took place; it is an inseparable part of the French revolution even though it is not the efficient (political uprising) or the final (establishing a republic) cause of the French revolution. But you cannot really imagine a French Revolution, of the kind that happened, without the printing press."

Back to reading the news...