Within the past few weeks, protests over a young woman’s death while in police custody has triggered considerable protests in Iran, resulting in a state-sponsored partial shutdown of internet services for the population at large. While still oppressive in nature, it is moderate compared to the 2019 total blackout of connectivity arising from protests over drastic fuel price raises. These demonstrations, according to various reports, were met with an Iranian police response that resulted in hundreds, if not more, deaths and injuries. Iran has developed a National Information Network made up of many types of international gateways, to accommodate such a shutdown, in which only a select few get to communicate with the outside world. Russia and China (you know, the Great Firewall of China) also have their own versions of the NIN, to close communications.
A Fragmented Internet – or Splinternet
While the above scenario is not necessarily shocking given the human rights record of the countries involved, it is concerning that others have increased content blocking in the past few months, creating what experts have named a “splinternet”. While not fully authoritarian countries such as India, Brazil, Turkey and Nigeria have also moved towards more censorship and filtering of various content. The United States government has been opposed to the “splinternet” movement as detailed in this White House policy memo White House Policy Memo on Internet Access dated earlier this year. The reasoning behind this memo is not complex: our valued freedom, globalized markets (to include U.S. based tech companies) and inclusivity to the entire population.
Contrary to the prevailing thought in much of the world that freedom of the internet benefits all of humanity, is the notion that matters of national security and personal data privacy can form a foundational argument for a hybrid splinternet. The reasoning is the complete opposite of countries such as Iran: control the sources of cyber-attacks, counter adversarial partnerships, and impede disinformation to protect the citizens of the free world.
A Proposal For a Cyber Nato
Earlier this year, the Council on Foreign Relations, a non-partisan think tank based out of New York and DC, produced the following report Confronting Reality in Cyberspace which made a compelling case for restricted access based on security. The task force who authored the 116-page piece (actually 60 or so substantive pages) read like a who’s who of academics, tech industry leaders, DoD contractors and policy experts. It firmly declares the era of the global internet is over, due to the United States inability to markedly improve cybersecurity, control foreign adversaries creating their own splinternet alliances (without using force amounting to armed conflict), and failing to comprehend that data is a source of power. While the task force supports the emphasis the White House report placed on security, it clearly points towards less isolation in data privacy law and information sharing policies, digital trade agreements with other allied countries and use those same countries to achieve common technological superiority.
In some respects, this report seems to suggest a cyber-version of NATO (in addition to a few other parts of the world) mixed with a model code incorporated into law by collaborating countries. The report did stop short of discussing what impact, if any, the proposed structure would have on individual internet freedom in the United States. It is hard to guess without the details as to what that might be.
it’s a Balancing Act
As a national issue, fragmentation of the internet or splinternet is a balancing act between individual freedoms, national security, promoting human rights across the globe all while justifying any paradigm shifts by this country. As countries continue to isolate themselves with their own digital sovereignty, the discussion of what needs to be done to react to that movement without resorting to the status quo needs to be had forthwith.
