[bestbits] Re: How to end human rights violating communcations surveillance (was Re: Position by IT for Change...)

[Norbert Bollow]

Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> I agree with Norbert that the cost of doing surveillance has to be 
> increased through appropriate technological means, to bring it closer
> to costs that existing before ICTs made it a kid's game as Snowden
> would say, to see anyone's communication with a few strokes of the
> key pad....
> 
> This is a course that should be systematically pursued...
> 
> However, I am in agreement with Ian that treaties are useful and
> needed, and that countries to give in to get something else in
> return, and all of it could result in greater global public good.

I agree with all of the above; I just don't think that the specific
objective of getting the US to agree to stop their current (human
rights violating) transborder surveillance activities is achievable via
a treaty process.

> To respond to Norbert's specific doubt, about what has US to benefit 
> from conceding on its global surveillance activities, I think they
> have a great lot to achieve. Like in no other business before, US has
> a preponderant dominance in global Internet business. It has a lot to
> gain if international agreements help develop some level of global
> norms, frameworks and rules of at least /some level/ /of/
> cross-national harmony if not homogeneity on how the global Internet
> basically works, and what can be expected by and granted to all
> global  players. No other country has more to gain through such
> 'global agreements' as the US's economic interests have.

Currently those objectives are satisfied to a very great extent already
in the absence of an Internet-specific treaty.

It is not plausible to me that the US could possibly in the current
kind of situation be willing to make significant concessions in
a treaty process in order to achieve objectives which are satisfied
already without a treaty. 

Of course this situation might change. It might happen that the current
efforts by many actors (led and coordinated to a significant extent by
ISOC), to prevent a gradual fragmentation of the Internet along national
boundaries, might fail. I certainly wouldn't want to encourage such a
process of “balkanisation”, and I hope that it won't happen, but if it
starts happening to a significant extent, it will profoundly change the
global geopolitics of Internet governance, possibly even to the extent
that the US might be willing to make significant concessions in order
to prevent such a cancer from spreading further.

Greetings,
Norbert

-- 
Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC:
1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person
2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept