Get Real(ist): Don’t confuse NSA regulation with Internet regulation

by on October 27, 2013 · 3 comments

In her UN General Assembly speech denouncing NSA surveillance, Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff said:

Information and communications technologies cannot be the new battlefield between States. Time is ripe to create the conditions to prevent cyberspace from being used as a weapon of war, through espionage, sabotage, and attacks against systems and infrastructure of other countries. … For this reason, Brazil will present proposals for the establishment of a civilian multilateral framework for the governance and use of the Internet and to ensure the protection of data that travels through the web.

We share her outrage at mass surveillance. We share her opposition to the militarization of the Internet. We share her concern for privacy.

But when President Rousseff proposes to solve these problems by means of a “multilateral framework for the governance and use of the Internet,” she reveals a fundamental flaw in her thinking. It is a flaw shared by many in civil society.

You cannot control militaries, espionage and arms races by “governing the Internet.” Cyberspace is one of many aspects of military competition. Unless one eliminates or dramatically diminishes political and military competition among sovereign states, states will continue to spy, break into things, and engage in conflict when it suits their interests. Cyber conflict is no exception.

Rousseff is mixing apples and oranges. If you want to control militaries and espionage, then regulate arms, militaries and espionage – not “the Internet.”

This confusion is potentially dangerous. If the NSA outrages feed into a call for global Internet governance, and this governance focuses on critical Internet resources and the production and use of Internet-enabled services by civil society and the private sector, as it inevitably will, we are certain to get lots of governance of the Internet, and very little governance of espionage, militaries, and cyber arms.

In other words, Dilma’s “civilian multilateral framework for the governance and use of the Internet” is only going to regulate us – the civilian users and private sector producers of Internet products and services. It will not control the NSA, the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army, the Russian FSB or the British GCHQ.

Realism in international relations theory is based on the view that the international system is anarchic. This does not mean that it is chaotic, but simply that the system is composed of independent states and there is no central authority capable of coercing all of them into following rules. The other key tenet of realism is that the primary goal of states in the international system is their own survival.

It follows that the only way one state can compel another state to do anything is through some form of coercion, such as war, a credible threat of war, or economic sanctions. And the only time states agree to cooperate to set and enforce rules, is when it is in their self-interest to do so. Thus, when sovereign states come together to agree to regulate things internationally, their priorities will always be to:

  • Preserve or enlarge their own power relative to other states; and
  • Ensure that the regulations are designed to bring under control those aspects of civil society and business that might undermine or threaten their power.

Any other benefits, such as privacy for users or freedom of expression, will be secondary concerns. That’s just the way it is in international relations. Asking states to prevent cyberspace from being used as a weapon of war is like asking foxes to guard henhouses.

That’s one reason why it is so essential that these conferences be fully open to non-state actors, and that they not be organized around national representation.

Let’s think twice about linking the NSA reaction too strongly to Internet governance. There is some linkage, of course. The NSA revelations should remind us to be realist in our approach to Internet governance. This means recognizing that all states will approach Internet regulation with their own survival and power uppermost in their agenda; it also means that any single state cannot be trusted as a neutral steward of the global Internet but will inevitably use its position to benefit itself. These implications of the Snowden revelations need to be recognized. But let us not confuse NSA regulation with Internet regulation.

  • Emma D.

    This is quite a complex issue. Based upon points made in the article and observations of international interaction in other settings, for example human rights discussions, I don’t feel especially confident about the chances of this situation being handled in ways that are supported by both the nations involved and the civilian users of the internet. I think it seems highly unrealistic to think that we could expect powerful nations not to use the internet as a weapon of war, and perhaps even more unrealistic to expect these nations to agree to internet regulations that would limit their ability to use the internet as a tool for their own advancement. I think this is especially true because, as has been pointed out, there is no central authority in this setting. Nations would have to come to an agreement that they each felt benefitted them personally, which I think will come down to some incredibly creative framing of the situation. Either way, I do think that civilian users stand to lose out substantially in the situation due to nations failing to compromise.

  • http://www.friv2friv4.com/ Friv 2 Friv 4

    Nations would have to come to an agreement that they each felt benefitted them personally…. I like.

  • Zane Chesivoir

    NSA regulation shouldn’t be
    confused with Internet regulation because if the NSA outrages leads to a call
    for global Internet governance, this leads to strong governance of the Internet
    and a lack of governance to espionage, militaries, and cyber arms. There is
    some linkage to Internet governance and the NSA because the NSA revelations
    remind us that we should be realistic in our approach to Internet governance.
    All states will approach Internet regulation according to their own agenda.
    Snowden’s revelations need to recognized.

    To quote Dilma Roussef “information
    and communications technologies cannot be the new battlefield between States.
    Time is ripe to create the conditions to prevent cyberspace from being used as
    a weapon of war, through espionage, sabotage, and attacks against systems and
    infrastructure of other countries. … For this reason, Brazil will present
    proposals for the establishment of a civilian multilateral framework for the
    governance and use of the Internet and to ensure the protection of data that
    travels through the web.” Her quote causes me to ask the question “to prevent
    cyberspace from being used for war, should we abide by the laws of war in the
    digital age?” I believe that if war online has to be fought, we need to abide
    by the rules of jus in bello. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of
    Philosophy, jus in bello refers to “justice in war,” and we need to distinguish
    between internal/external jus in bello. Internal jus in bello refers to how
    warring nations “must follow in connection
    with its own people as it fights war against an external enemy.” External jus
    in bello refers to “the rules a state should observe regarding the enemy and
    its armed forces.”

Previous post:

Next post: