Eric Lee: End of the Internet dream?

A decade ago, many of us were enthusiastic about the Internet in part because we believed that it opened up extraordinary opportunities for the left. The Internet could not be censored, we argued. Censorship would be treated as damage to the system, and information would route around it.

But a recent report from the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders makes for frightening reading. Indeed, after spending only a few minutes reading it, you may well become convinced that the dream of a free and instant means of communication which governments would be unable to censor has turned out to be an illusion.

The report tells us about some of the "usual suspects" -- the kinds of regimes you just know are blocking free use of the web by their citizens. A typical example would be Cuba, where in the words of Reporters Without Borders Secretary-General Robert M�nard, it is "no surprise that Fidel Castro gives orders about the Internet as he does about everything else in Cuba". (The chapter on Cuba asserts that "Cuba is one of the world's 10 most repressive countries as regards online free expression.")

The outstanding example of an authoritarian regime which is grappling with control over the web and email is, of course, China. As the report points out, "With a total of 61 Internet users in detention at the start of May 2004, China is the world's biggest prison for cyber-dissidents. It is also the country where the technology for e-mail interception and Internet censorship is most developed. What's more, the authorities recently decided to tighten the vice and roll back the few gains made by Internet users in recent years."

Ironically, and perhaps inevitably, US corporations are providing the technology to make it possible for the dictators in Beijing to control the net. According to Reporters Without Borders, "Cisco Systems supplies China with equipment that allows it to intercept and analyse data circulating on the Internet with great precision. Cisco's state-of-the-art routers enable the Chinese cyber-police to spot 'subversive' Internet users."

In an appendix to the report written by Harvard's Ben Edelman, examples are given of how the censorship is often concealed. Try to visit a website which the government wants to block and you usually get error messages about 'time-outs' and sites not being found -- and not an explanation of what is really happening.

Far more chilling, I thought, was Edelman's reference to the case of Uzbekistan -- a primary ally of the US in the war against terror. The former Soviet republic has decided not merely to block access to undesirable websites, but in some cases, to create fake versions of those websites. They call these counterfeit versions of the sites 'modified mirrors'. Edelman writes, "When Uzbek users request the controversial sites, they automatically receive the altered copies in place of the authentic originals. Experts might realize something is wrong, but this tampering is exceptionally difficult for ordinary users to notice or detect."

One might think that the focus is on relatively poor countries where only a small percentage of the population is Internet-literate. After all, blocking access to particular websites in Uzbekistan is something that affects only a very small number of people. In that country, only around two percent of the population is online.

But South Korea is one of the world's most wired countries. According to the report, fully 85% of the population uses email, and 40% have broadband connections. And yet even there, the government routinely blocks websites that "undermine law and order". In practice, this means things like the arrest a year ago of two activists, Kim Yong-Chan and Kim Jong Gon, because -- among other "crimes" -- they had downloaded from the Internet a copy of The Communist Manifesto. The report states that "they were accused of violating national security laws and are still being held without trial".

There are also chapters in the report about the kind of Western democracies like Canada, Australia, the US and Britain where one wouldn't expect to find a lot of censorship, but where censorship is in fact growing all the time.

This should concern trade unionists. While trade union websites have not been the primary victims (yet) of Internet censorship, the regimes which are today doing most of the blocking are regimes which are extremely unfriendly to unions. It is only a matter of time before websites which campaign for union rights internationally, such as Global Unions, LabourStart, the International Centre for Trade Union Rights, and the Campaign for Labor Rights, find themselves being blocked or -- in a worst-case scenario -- get 'corrected' by a regime like the Uzbek case described above.

So whatever happened to the dream of world in which the free flow of information couldn't be stopped? Was it really an illusion?

It was only a dream -- if one believed that technology provided the solution. The technology of the net is great, but it is in the end only technology. To ensure that there will be a free flow of information, a web without borders, requires constant vigilance and struggle.

***

The full text of the Reporters Without Borders report is available online here on their website.

Comments

This is very one-sided view of internet monitoring.
Sure the State is going to spy on its own citizens, but it should be fully accountable. How can any authority or anyone who uses the internet not want to know about who is responsponsible for child porn, snuff movies or other abusive material?

Posted by: Honor | August 8, 2004 04:31 PM

In defense of Cuba, the US government and other anti Castro alies have been not only using the internet but also Radio Marti to push anit Castro propaganda. The Cuban governmant has every right to protect its revolution, country and people from the filth the internet brings with it. Why don't we call for the lifting of the economic embargo against the Cuban people. I have visited Cuba and tourist can use the internet at hotels if they so wish. If the international labour movement really wants to help the situation we should be taking serious action, like putting pressure on our governments to hasten the lifting of the embargo.

Posted by: Richard Simmonds | August 8, 2004 05:32 PM

The guy who posted "Cuba has every right to protect its revolution from this filth"...

Oh like the Nazis protected their reich you mean???

Castro is a scumbag who has no respect for human rights and of course he wants to control everythinga as all authoritarian reigmes do.

Posted by: John | August 8, 2004 09:24 PM

I agree with Dave Bleakney. I think John is a bit of a sicko, and wonder what the hell he's doing reviewing this particular site. He'd feel far more comfortable at the Corporate Roundtable site, unless he has some sort of agenda.

Posted by: Don Polly | August 8, 2004 10:20 PM

To have Government and Industry try to control this internet technology is not going to be easy for them. Taught my kids here to share..now this global family of ours is catching on. No they are not pleased that we are tapped into the same knowledge they used to control us.
Now peoples formed into unions to go up against a specific industry..it is time to see those unions as each a single member..as a lone voice..now bring ALL unions together under one roof and we can go up against Industry as a whole. We are the many..they are the few..we are not blindly led by these few as we once were as a peoples..we choose to be guided by knowledge and understanding rather than ignorance and arrogance which has been the status quo for far far too long in my books. This internet and our connection to each other will bring this body of peoples together. Leadership is not pleased at all for they see their hold on us slipping as knowledge and understanding of the peoples grows..

Posted by: Eaglefeather | August 8, 2004 10:35 PM

I endorse Richard Simmonds comments on Cuba. Given the way that Cubans have suffered from American invasion, support of insurgents (they're not terrorists if they're directed by the Yanks!) some paranoia about the Internet has to be treated with sympathy. American inelligence(?) agencies after all have their fingers all in and over the Internet, and will make whatever use of it suits their purpose.

Posted by: Gary | August 9, 2004 12:35 AM

I was worried when I started to read the article. I thought, "here we go again, another article attacking Cuba and other anti-american countries. Thankfully, the article went on to report on activity in america and my own country Australia. I am not surprised. After all, the internet is a communication tool controlled by america and being used by them to manipulate the world. Whoever thought that the internet would not be censored and manipulated to promote capitalism and as a means of subjugating the free world to american control. Unionists have a need to be very, very concerned as do all citizens of the world.

Posted by: Henry | August 9, 2004 02:08 AM

I support lifting the embargo on Cuba, but coming in to bat for a dictator is where I draw the line.

While Castro isn't the tyrant some make him out to be, pretending Cuba is a workers' democracy is idiotic at best.

Posted by: Giovanni Torre | August 9, 2004 03:21 AM

Anybody who purports to support independent trade unions can't support the Castro government. Ask yourself the question 'would Castro allow a strike among his government workers?' The answer is indisputably 'no!' The best service Castro could have performed for the Cuban revolution would have been to honourably resign 30 years ago. The revolution is bigger than his ego. Authoritarian governments of any political stripe are willing customers of censorous corporate technology, and enemies of unions.

Posted by: Tim Dymond | August 9, 2004 08:49 AM

What a poor article which takes a very superficial gaze at "censorship." I expected a lot more from something posted on labourstart@unionlists.org.uk

Is this the quality of analysis we should expect from you when you are selecting which international labour campaign to support?

Where is you international working class solidarity? Where is your analysis of censorship in so-called liberal democracies? The internet was built by the US military... where is your analysis of Echelon, the alienation of the poor by high tech consumer products, the inadequacy of the internet as an organizing tool?

No thanks, i would rather opt out of labourstart.

Irwin Oostindie,
Canadian Youth Network for Asia Pacific Solidarity
Under the Volcano Festivals, Vancouver, Canada

Posted by: Irwin Oostindie | August 9, 2004 09:16 AM

It seems to me that it was incredibly naive for anyone to ever have believed that the internet could not be monitored, blocked and controlled by those with power. If for no other reason than the inevitable ability to charge us all by the minute, the corporate sector would ensure everything could be tracked, monitored and, if unpaid, shut down.

We've known for a very long time that the US government (and likely others) have the technology to scan all e-mails and detect words such as "bomb", "hijack" and so on. Why would we have ever thought that the government/corporate entity would not ensure it had control.

We can expect that the interventions will be a little more subtle than in some third world countries. So, while there is a pretext that we can't stop internet child pornography, there will be an effort to control political dissent and that effort will be successful. The right to freedom of expression (or, as Americans call it, "free speech") is likely one of the most trite of rights. It's the right to be listened to that is important. The internet could provide for that right and that's why it is so important that the government/corporate sector control it so soon after the birth of the internet.

The lesson? Let's not be so foolish that we put all of our communication and organizing eggs in the internet basket.

Regards,
Ron S., Halifax, NS

Posted by: Ron Stockton | August 10, 2004 12:54 AM