Internet Governance
Policy balancing acts Balance is probably the most appropriate visualisation of Internet governance and policy debates. On many Internet governance issues, balance has to be established between various interests and approaches. Establishing this balance is very often the basis for compromise. Areas of policy balancing include:
Freedom of expression vs protection of public order: the well-known debate between Article 19 (freedom of expression) and Article 27 (protection of public order) of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights has been extended to the Internet. It is very often discussed in the context of content control and censorship on the Internet.
P
Cybersecurity vs privacy: like security in real life, cybersecurity may endanger some human rights, such as the right to privacy. The balance between cybersecurity and privacy is in constant flux, depending on the overall global political situation. After 09/11 with the securitisation of the global agenda, the balance shifted towards cybersecurity.
P
Intellectual property – protection of authors’ rights vs fair use of materials: another ‘real’ law dilemma which has taken a new perspective in the online world.
P
Many criticise these ‘balancing pairs’, considering them false dilemmas. For example, there are strong arguments that more cybersecurity does not necessarily mean less privacy. There are approaches towards enhancing both cybersecurity and privacy. While these views are strongly held, the reality of Internet governance policy is that it is shaped by the aforementioned ‘binary’ policy options.
Policy balancing acts in history Back in 1875, the International Telegraph Union (the predecessor of today’s ITU) held a conference in St Petersburg, which influenced the future development of the telegraph. One of the most controversial issues was the control of the content of telegraph communication. While the conference participants from the USA and the UK promoted the principle of privacy of telegraph correspondence, Russia and Germany insisted on limiting this privacy in order to protect state security, public order, and public morality. A compromise was reached through an age-old diplomatic technique – diplomatic ambiguity. While Article 2 of the St Petersburg Convention guaranteed the privacy of telegraph communication, Article 7 limited this privacy and introduced the possibility of state censorship. The USA refused to sign the Convention because of the censorship article.
18