– Consent of the Networked

Digital Bonapartism, Russia, and America in 2016

December 11, 2016 by Rebecca MacKinnon

American democracy is entering uncharted and treacherous territory. Fabricated news to discredit political opponents, use of social media to manipulate the public discourse, and political hacking have been around for a long time in many parts of the world.

In light of raging debates about fake news, hacking, and other types of online manipulation in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and what to do about it, I’ve decided to make freely available a few excerpts from a key section of the book titled “Control 2.0.”

From Chapter 3: Networked Authoritarianism (mainly about China) see Western Fantasies vs. Reality

From Chapter 4: Variants and Permutations, see Divide and Conquer and Digital Bonapartism. Here is how I explain the concept of “digital bonapartism:”

In the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, Karl Marx coined the term “bonapartism” to describe political leadership by a populist demagogue who seeks to legitimize himself with democratic rhetoric and trappings. The term was inspired by Napoleon Bonaparte’s rule after the French Revolution: usurpation of popular revolution by military officers, strong nationalist messages, populist rhetoric about reform and equality, and elections lacking strong alternatives. Today, after having thrown off communism, Russia is pioneering a new digital-age version of bonapartism: conservative-nationalist rule unchallenged by viable political opposition despite the formal existence of multiparty parliamentary and presidential elections, which are effectively populist plebiscites, and manipulation of public opinion through the control—both direct and indirect—of digital networks and platforms.

The final paragraph of that excerpt – and of the “Control 2.0” section, concludes:

It remains to be seen whether a more genuine form of democracy, in which dissenters’ rights are protected from extrajudicial threats and vigilante violence, will emerge from Russia’s digital bonapartism. In the meantime, a new model has emerged that can be replicated elsewhere: government leaders use the Internet to carry out a much more direct and populist discourse with citizens in ways that were not possible before the Internet, thus bridging an emotional and psychological gap between rulers and ruled, and building greater public sympathy for the leaders as people. The Internet serves as a “focus group” and early-warning system for the government, alerting policy makers when certain policies just are not working or need modification to prevent unrest. More negatively, pro government bloggers and journalists are encouraged to mount slur campaigns to discredit reformists and activists who pose serious challenges to the regime’s credibility. Anonymous threats against activists who cross the line also help. A full-ranging public discourse about the nation’s political future is thus constrained and stunted, and the status quo power arrangements are more easily maintained. This dynamic begs an uncomfortable question: To what extent are the world’s oldest, most established democracies vulnerable to digital bonapartism?

(Emphasis added to the final sentence.)

Filed Under: Chapter 03, Chapter 04

Remarks to the Freedom Online Conference opening session

October 17, 2016 by Rebecca MacKinnon

In June 2013 shortly after the first Snowden revelations on NSA surveillance came out, I gave a keynote address to the Freedom Online Conference in Tunis. Three years later I was asked to address this morning’s opening session of the Freedom Online Conference in Costa Rica. Below are the remarks I prepared, updated after delivery with links added.

****

It has been five years since the Freedom Online Coalition was founded. Since 2011 we’ve traveled some ways together on a road that has been anything but straight or flat.

I am going to be frank about the work we still need to do to make this coalition more effective in fostering a more free and open global internet that supports “freedoms of expression, association, and peaceful assembly.”

The inconvenient truth is that while global internet use has grown by over a billion people in the past five years, especially in the Global South, the world’s newest users have joined an internet that is measurably less free and open than it was five years ago.

What are we doing for them?

I think its fair to say that member countries have done much to advance the basic concept that human rights apply equally online and offline within the international human rights system.

Support by member countries for the work of the special rapporteurs, on freedom of expression, and now also privacy, has helped advance global understanding of what protection of online rights actually means in a practical sense.

Coalition members have worked together to support and strengthen existing multi-stakeholder internet governance institutions.

The Digital Defenders Partnership is a very tangible product of the coalition.

But let’s face it. Many Coalition member countries are not leading by example in demonstrating what best practice – or even best effort – should look like in tackling very difficult and often urgent domestic economic, political, and security concerns in ways that are consistent with fostering global online freedom.

Recall specifically that the Coalition’s Tallinn Declaration calls “upon governments worldwide to promote transparency and independent, effective domestic oversight related to electronic surveillance, use of content take-down notices, limitations or restrictions on online content or user access and other similar measures, while committing ourselves to do the same”.

Three multi-stakeholder working groups were created two years ago at the time of the Tallinn Declaration to advance those and other objectives related to empowerment of internet users around the world.

All three have produced recommendations for governments and other stakeholders. Yet there is no mechanism that commits member governments even to consider these recommendations – let alone implement them.

For example, Working Group 1 has developed recommendations for human rights based approaches to cybersecurity.

Will any member states lead by example in carrying out a meaningful inter-agency review on the extent to which their own cybersecurity related laws policies and practices are human rights compatible?

Are they willing and able to engage in serious national and international dialogue on how to get from where they are to where they need to be?

To its credit last year the coalition commissioned an independent review, which has produced a number of recommendations, including the creation of new mechanisms:

through which stakeholders can raise concerns about actions of member governments;

through which member governments’ performance in meeting their commitments can be periodically reviewed;

and by which the coalition considers and responds to the recommendations of the working groups.

The San Jose Statement released by member states today is a helpful clarification of the coalition’s purpose as primarily focusing on cross regional diplomacy that will help to shape global norms on human rights online.

But we cannot escape the reality that internet freedom starts at home. Member states must lead by example if diplomacy is to be credible.

I hope we can spend the next two days in practical discussions of whether and how non-government stakeholders engaged in the coalition can help member states bring policy and practice into better alignment.

To that end, in addition to the recommendations produced by the independent review I’d like to propose four further steps:

First, we need be a process through which member governments work with civil society and private sector stakeholders to identify urgent issues and develop statements and recommendations addressing specific time-sensitive threats to freedom online, such as the global epidemic of network shutdowns.

Second, we need a concrete set of Freedom Online Indicators that can be used to benchmark member states on the extent to which they are meeting their commitments – and the extent to which their laws and regulations maximize the private sector’s ability to respect internet users’ rights.

Third, governments should produce National Action Plans describing concrete efforts they are making to meet their commitments.

Fourth, we should consider establishing a multi-stakeholder transparency reporting and assessment process to help member governments and companies implement commitments to transparency and accountability around requests made by governments of companies to share user information, restrict content or shut down networks.

This process could be modeled after the Extractives Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) whereby governments report on payments received by oil and gas and mining companies and companies report in parallel on the payments they make to governments, in order to improve accountability over who benefits from the exploitation of natural resources.

In the case of such a Digital Transparency Initiative some sort of assurance process would verify the quality and accuracy of the reporting.

So while the coalition is to be commended for positive initiatives and commitments – we still have a long way to go.

Let’s spend the next two days coming up with concrete plans for how this coalition will have tangible impact on making the global internet more free and open.

For the sake of the world’s current and future internet users, we’ve got to try harder.

Filed Under: Speaking

Ranking Digital Rights and new TED talk

October 17, 2016 by Rebecca MacKinnon

This blog has not been updated since April 2105, mainly due to the fact that I’ve been so busy with my main job running Ranking Digital Rights (RDR). (I also got married!!)

I’ve decided to revive this blog as a platform on which to share work I continue to do that goes beyond RDR’s scope and which might not be appropriate to share on the project website.

In brief, the main things I’ve done since I last wrote on this blog was to launch the Ranking Digital Rights Corporate Accountability Index in November 2015. After some funding uncertainty in early 2016 we managed to secure the support to launch a new research cycle for the next Index scheduled for release in March 2017, and to continue the project for at least a couple more years. If you’d like to learn much more about the Index and its result check out the video and summary of the Index launch. You can also download the full report and related materials here. To get a sense of the impact we’ve been having on companies in collaboration with advocacy partners, read this. Watch the project website for more updates on our research and related activities.

The other major thing I’ve done since this blog went dormant was to give another TED talk at the TEDSummit in Banff, Canada this past June. It’s about why the protection of human rights, freedom of speech and freedom of the press is essential if we are going to succeed in fighting terrorism.Earlier in 2016 I wrote a piece for CNN.com and spoke at South By Southwest Interactive on the same theme. A CSMonitor piece about it is here and a video is here.