The cost of free broadband may be greater than we realise
Ian Hill, global director of cyber security at construction firm BAM, argues that Labour's plans for free broadband poses grave risks to privacy and internet freedoms
Computing recently reported on the Labour Party's manifesto promise to deliver free full-fibre broadband "to all" by 2030 under British Broadband, a nationalised, state-controlled communications company.
Putting aside arguments about the costs, economic effects and stifling of innovation, any state control of our access to information poses much darker freedom and privacy concerns which seems to have gone largely unnoticed by the mainstream press.
There has been for years, an ongoing debate on the subject of internet regulation. In 2017 the UK's Communications Select Committee set up an inquiry into whether and how to further regulate the Internet, and in July this year the government published it's Orwellian sounding "Online Harms" White Paper, which amongst other things considers the spreading of ‘misinformation' online as a threat.
Citing specifically as an example "the spread of inaccurate anti-vaccination messaging online poses a risk to public health". Does this suggest that the government would consider blocking citizens communicating their concerns about vaccinations ‘in the interests of public safety'?
A state-controlled broadband could more easily facilitate such censorship, in our best interests of course, and initially with good intentions, such as blocking of access to child pornography, terrorism etc.
But as Samuel Johnson noted, "hell is paved with good intentions". There already exists AI technology that can analyse in real-time not only specific words or phrases, but also the context in which they are used, such that it would be relatively easy to detect and block for example sexist, or misogynistic content.
It has long been a presumption of ideological extremes that we are all either ignorant or bad people who need to be protected from ourselves and it is the duty of the state to perform that role. There is also a strong correlation between greater state control and a drift towards authoritarianism.
In this year's Dimbleby lecture, Sir Tim Berners-Lee highlighted his concerns about increased government censorship, as something that "keeps him up all night". He envisaged the blocking of opposition parties' content online or access to content that is philosophically counter to the regime, or even shutting down access to the Internet during a crisis.
Indeed, in mid-November, Iran implemented a near total shutdown of Internet access for its 80 million citizens as a response to uprisings, sparked by the announcement of a 50 per cent petrol price increase.
Iran's various ISP's and mobile providers are not state owned, so it took some 24 hours to co-ordinate the shutdown, however this was helped by recent ‘encouragement' of businesses to using the National Information Network, a new state-owned nationwide intranet complete with its own search engines and apps.
Globally there are plenty of examples where pervasive censorship of the internet is being facilitated through greater state control. In Saudi Arabia, the Sunni regime controls all international internet traffic, through routing via a proxy farm which blocks amongst other things access to sites promoting Shia ideology.
The best example is that of China, which has built the most extensive and sophisticated online censorship system in the world. It's state-owned ISP's currently enforce some 60 Government imposed online restrictions with providers of web platforms and messaging services being required to implement elaborate self-censorship mechanisms, whereby thousands of individuals along with AI platforms are employed in the 24/7 task of ensuring content is aligned with state policy.
Dubbed "The Great Firewall of China" the policy blocks internet content, monitors individual's internet access and puts great effort into neutralizing coverage and commentary that is critical of the regime.
In the UK, we don't exactly have a perfect track record, with Reporters without Borders, still rating us as "an enemy of the Internet" because of our gradual shift towards increased online surveillance and the ‘selective' use of blocking and filtering.
The issue of online surveillance was recently highlighted through the various attempts to implement Data Retention legislation. In 2014 when the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled the EU Data Retention Directive as invalid, the UK Government fast-tracked its own version, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA).
The cost of free broadband may be greater than we realise
Ian Hill, global director of cyber security at construction firm BAM, argues that Labour's plans for free broadband poses grave risks to privacy and internet freedoms
Although repealed in 2016 when the ECJ ruled it unlawful, it was replaced by the Investigatory Powers Act (2016), often referred to as ‘the snoopers charter', which itself was ruled unlawful under EU law by the UK High Court in 2018, only to be replaced by a lite version, the Data Retention and Acquisition Regulations 2018.
Ironically, if we leave the EU, depending on the terms, we may no longer be subject to the EU privacy laws that have so far thwarted government attempts at online surveillance. At the same time, if we remain in the EU, the government would face significant challenges to any nationalisation proposal under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 1's "right to property" clause.
Certainly, there needs to be a level of regulation, however, as Sir Tim puts it "the process should be transparent and clear, limited, proportionate and subject to the law" and "the web should be a place where we can hold politicians to account".
Unfortunately, as yet, there is little detail available on exactly how a Labour government would enact its proposal, let alone how a nationalised broadband would be "owned and maintained".
On that thought, industrial action has thus far seen very limited and indirect impact on internet services, however with a long tradition of Union influence on nationalised industries, can we envisage a time when the Communication Workers Union (CWU) might turn off the internet as part of an industrial action, or unilaterally cause the blocking of information that they are ideologically opposed to.
We may gain free internet, but what do we lose in return, what value do we place on our digital privacy and freedoms. As the recently popular meme states "If you think broadband is expensive now, just wait until it's free!".