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.
