Weighing the issue of internet freedom

The freedom of the internet is largely taken for granted in Western democracies.
When such issues are discussed, it is usually in the context of condemning censorship in countries such as China, Burma and Iran.

China has the most advanced online censorship programme in the world, with recent reports by dissidents suggesting that 40,000 police monitor the web in Beijing alone.
The situation is equally bad in Burma but on a smaller scale, and in Iran, individuals who subscribe to ISPs must promise not to access sites that are non-Islamic.

Outrage in Western societies at such lack of internet freedom led to Microsoft, Google and Yahoo last year signing the Global Network Initiative (GNI), promising to limit the amount of data they share with censoring governments.

But the GNI remains simply a signed commitment, with limited action. According to the US Center for Democracy and Technology, one of the organisations central to the initiative, the signatories are still looking to hire someone to take charge of the agenda.

In the West, there is a growing debate about how much internet freedom should be considered a fundamental human right. But the issue remains clouded because the concept is not clearly defined, while attacks on web users’ access and control are scattered. Critics tend to focus on individual pieces of legislation rather than campaigning for the idea of internet freedom in itself.

The UK government’s plan to monitor emails, phone calls and web traffic led to anxiety that control over personal data is dwindling.

The government argues that surveillance tactics are needed to catch terrorist groups using social networks and communicating electronically. But public and industry condemnation led to setbacks, including the ditching of a proposed £2bn database to track all online communications.

Meanwhile, behavioural advertising firms are a growing concern to many, particularly the controversial Phorm technology. Phorm allows ISPs to monitor web traffic to show users relevant ads. Following negative press and public anxiety, the ISPs that looked at rolling out Phorm ­ BT, TalkTalk and Virgin ­ have distanced themselves from it.

Two other issues debated inconclusively in the European Parliament also have consequences for Europe’s internet freedom.

Illegal downloading is a problem all governments are trying to tackle, under pressure to maintain revenue for the entertainment industry. So far all the methods proposed by the UK and the EU will reduce internet freedom.

The French tried to introduce a “three-strikes” policy but the country’s highest authority, the Constitutional Council, ruled against President Nicolas Sarkozy’s plans, arguing that internet freedom is essential to modern democracy.

Swedish authorities jailed the founders of file-sharing site The Pirate Bay, while a Dutch court banned the site. The prosecution has seen such public interest that The Pirate Party now holds a seat in the European Parliament.

And the UK’s Digital Britain report forsees Ofcom and ISPs targeting illegal file sharers, who could then be prosecuted by copyright holders of material downloaded.

The EU is also debating whether or not broadband operators should be able to restrict access to web services at their discretion. Operators argue that users should pay more to access bandwidth-heavy sites, such as video players. Critics counter that ISPs will be able to prioritise their own content and charge users extra to access rivals’ wares.

While internet freedom is still a reality in Europe and the US, many of the proposals present a threat to that status. Poor legislation could lead to significantly reduced internet freedom without users noticing before it is too late.