Old Rights, New Technologies

Is a person in Tehran or Beijing entitled to the same freedoms of expression, association, and assembly as a person in Washington or Des Moines? International human rights law tells us that the answer is yes — people enjoy these rights and freedoms by simple virtue of their humanity. Almost all countries — including those such as Iran and China that heavily censor the Internet — recognize the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the obligation to protect their citizens’ human rights.

In the pre-digital age, the extent to which people actually enjoyed these rights in practice was largely determined by each state. During the Cold War, Soviet writers smuggled out paper copies of their work past tight state controls to be published in books or pamphlets in the West. Forming interest groups or organizing is still severely constrained in countries such as Vietnam by strict regulations on the number of people who can gather in one place.

Today, increasing Internet penetration and the wide availability of mobile phones have changed the power dynamic between individuals and the state when it comes to free expression and the free flow of information. Even taking into account Internet controls in repressive countries, the barriers are comparatively low when it comes to posting an amateur video, blog, or Tweet. If they are restricted from meeting in person, people can gather in online forums or organize via email and text.

These new platforms for increased connectivity have proven to be disruptive innovations — both positive and negative — in almost all facets of life. We have all marveled at finding old friends or navigating an unfamiliar place while bemoaning the amount of time we spend on our mobile devices.

Foreign policy is no exception. From 2009 to 2013, I was part of the team at the State Department charged with developing a framework for how to meet the foreign policy challenges presented by new technologies, and to do so consistent with our principles and values.

After months of discussion and seemingly endless cycles of the dreaded “clearance process,” we arrived at a framework that can be summed up in four words: “old rights, new technologies.” In other words, the same principles that apply in the offline world apply online. Although the Internet and mobile phones dramatically increase the immediacy of communication and the level of connectivity across borders, they are not so different as to require a new set of rights and rules for governing digital behavior. You can express an unpopular opinion, but you can’t yell the digital equivalent of “fire!” in a crowded theatre.

Not all countries agree with this approach. China, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan are advancing the view that new technology demands a renegotiation of longstanding rules, and that states should play a stronger role in governing the Internet. Last year, these governments submitted a proposal for an “International Code of Conduct for Information Security” to the United Nations General Assembly, with the goal of establishing a global treaty “standardizing the behavior of countries concerning information and cyberspace.” This is not in the interests of the United States or of people who want to protect the marketplace of ideas.

I’m proud of the role the United States has played in staking out a leadership position on Internet freedom and the principled defense of human rights online. Since 2008, the State Department has awarded almost $100 million to support an open, global, interconnected Internet and its use by dissidents and advocates in closed societies. Working with the Dutch government, the United States launched the Freedom Online Coalition in 2011, which now includes 19 governments committed to advancing Internet freedom around the world. Members of this group include not just the usual crowd of Western governments, but also Kenya, Mongolia, Costa Rica, Tunisia, the Maldives, Latvia and Estonia, among others.

To be sure, there is much left to do, and the United States does not always get it right. The recent revelations about extensive National Security Agency surveillance are a stark example of the persistent and strong role of the state in monitoring information online and the challenges of protecting security while also protecting individual rights. I am personally disappointed in the scale, secrecy, and apparent lack of oversight in the NSA programs. I worry that these programs have the potential to undermine hard-won progress in the fight for open digital platforms, where information moves freely and people are free to express their opinions and ideas.

This issue of The Grinnell Magazine showcases the College’s long-awaited website, new tools for connecting alumni, and innovative ways that the College is making its library holdings available online. The impact of these initiatives is greater and more meaningful because of the global, interconnected nature of the Internet. Revelations about NSA surveillance and the absence of a meaningful public forum to debate appropriate safeguards on issues such as personal privacy are setbacks for the global Internet freedom agenda. But the demand for such a debate also presents an opportunity for the United States to demonstrate the resilience of our democracy and its capacity for self-correction through public deliberation, enhanced oversight, and a renewed commitment to our mostly deeply held principles.