America in the Growing Initiative for Global Internet ...



Keri ShiJohn Brademas Center of New York Unviersity August 2020America in the Growing Initiative for Global Internet Freedom and Digital SecurityIn the global digital age, media accessibility and digital privacy are continually intertwined. Newly developing technologies connect individual netizens to the online world, but simultaneously connect Orwellian regimes back to those netizens. Social media, for example, is a democratizing and accessible means of public speech. However, these platforms have also become playgrounds for political actors looking to manipulate the online landscape and control the flow of ideas. The coronavirus pandemic has lately reignited a larger discussion about the merits and risks of censorship, digital privacy, and state-facilitated surveillance during a major health crisis. But the conversation about the United States’ role in media freedom on a domestic and international scale has been ongoing since the NSA leak in 2013, complicating the narrative that once set U.S. leadership apart from more authoritarian governments around the world.1Internet freedom refers to whether there are barriers to the flow of information in the media, and the degree to which a regime restricts online activities. Freedom House’s “Freedom on the Net” report2 assessed the internet freedom conditions of 65 countries from 2018 to 2019,and subsequently found that 35 countries declined in internet accessibility, freedom ofexpression, and digital privacy. Sudan, China, Brazil, Bangladesh, and Kazakhstan are a few notable examples which carried out disinformation campaigns, internet blackouts against dissenters, and social media censorship programs. Comparatively, only 16 countries had shown1 improvements in these areas. In addition, governments have also been exploiting the massive quantities of available user data to develop new A.I. technologies for tracking civilian activity. Conditions in the US have declined in regards to digital security, with the expansion of warrantless digital searches by law enforcement and immigration authorities. On a global scale, some governments have been working to interfere in international affairs, such as Russia’s efforts to sway the 2016 U.S. presidential election. These cross-border influence operations are becoming increasingly common. In response to these global phenomena, Freedom House and other internet freedom civil society organizations have concluded that “the United States must take the lead in rallying defenders of the open internet to fairly regulate a technology that has become a necessity for our commerce, politics, and personal lives.”3Some American politicians have already been making overtures in this direction, focusing primarily on national cybersecurity and U.S. private sector ties to foreign surveillance companies. Chinese surveillance devices had been regularly bought for use in U.S. army bases and embassies until Rep. Mac Thornberry introduced the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act in 2018, which banned the U.S. government from purchasing Chinese-made technological equipment. The Act cited the potential risks of utilizing technology produced by companies that are closely linked to the C.C.P.4 The Act was signed into law in June 20185 andwas said to “ensure that China cannot create a video surveillance network within [American]3 agencies.”6 In May 2019, New Jersey Congressman Tom Malinowski stated the need for“new rules to control the spread of these emerging surveillance technologies” around the world. Malinowski led a letter with bipartisan support to the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, advocating for stronger regulation of the domestic tech industry’s relationships with regimes that have concerning human rights records. The letter pointed to examples of companies and individuals who sold hacking technologies to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—sales which indirectly aided espionage against political dissidents in the United States, as well as the surveillance of Jamal Khashoggi before his assassination.7More recently, attention has turned back to China and its advancing surveillance capabilities. In the past year, at least 37 Chinese firms have been blacklisted by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security due to human rights concerns regarding the tracking of Muslims in Xinjiang, as well as the previously mentioned cybersecurity risks.8 It isimportant to note that the advancements in China’s surveillance apparatus were enabled by American companies—for example, visual and facial recognition technology by SenseTime, Megvii, and HikVision (companies also tied to the C.C.P.) have benefited from processing chips sold by Californian company Nvidia.9 Now, President Trump has directed attention to TikTokand WeChat in particular, threatening to ban the popular Chinese-owned social media platformsunless they are sold to American companies by mid-September. The executive statement alleged that the applications’ questionable scraping of user data may allow China to “track the locations6 Federal employees and contractors, build dossiers of personal information for blackmail, and conduct corporate espionage.”10 One of presidential candidate Joe Biden’s campaign promises isthat he will also prohibit American companies from “abetting repression and supporting the Chinese Communist Party’s surveillance state.”11The United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM), formerly known as the International Broadcasting Board, has been dedicated to the spread of U.S. media interests abroad since its creation.12 The USAGM is authorized by two acts. The first is the Smith-MundtAct, which delineates the agency’s historical function as a propaganda vehicle through its various entities (Voice of America, Radio Free Asia and Europe, Office of Cuba Broadcasting, and the Middle East Broadcasting Network). The International Broadcasting Act then establishes “the policy of the United States to promote the right of freedom of opinion and expression, including the freedom ‘to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers,’ in accordance with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”13 The latter legislative pillar is gaining relevance as the primary focus of the USAGM’snewest entity, the Open Technology Fund (OTF). The OTF launched as a separate branch inNovember 2019, after previously having operated under Radio Free Asia since 2012.14 The OTFis an independent nonprofit grant-maker funding the development of counter-repressive technologies that circumvent state media barriers and surveillance efforts. The OTF’s accomplishments so far have protected dissenters from digital monitoring in Iran and Russia,10 11 13 blockages such as the Great Firewall and Turkey’s internet blackouts, and provided uncensored information in Cuba. Since 2012, the OTF provided a total of $450M in funding to internet freedom projects.15The OTF is supported by public and private donors, and has also received appropriations from the U.S. Omnibus Appropriations Act which allots funds to the USAGM’s BroadcastingBoard of Governors every year.16 House Foreign Affairs Committee members McCaul andEngel, along with Congressmen Curtis and Malinowski, are behind a push to further the OTF’s mission with the introduction of the Open Technology Fund Authorization Act.17 This act wouldmake the OTF an individual grantee receiving its own funding. It also mandates fairer project selection processes, open source code, and independent reviews.18 While global internet freedomfaces evolving obstacles and privacy violations with each stage of technological advancement, there is at least a faction of civil society and legislators in the U.S. who are committed to the cause of media openness for all.15 16 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download