tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/itu-4405/articlesITU – The Conversation2017-02-14T02:15:26Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/723422017-02-14T02:15:26Z2017-02-14T02:15:26ZShould cybersecurity be a human right?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/156427/original/image-20170210-23321-bmhce2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Digital information should be private and secure.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/hands-people-hold-phone-laptop-tablet-106421822">Digital communications via shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Having access to the internet is increasingly <a href="https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/GIUS2012-GlobalData-Table-20121120_0.pdf">considered</a> to be an emerging human right. International organizations and national governments have begun to formally recognize its importance to freedom of speech, expression and information exchange. The next step to help ensure some measure of <a href="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/publications/law-cyber-peace">cyber peace</a> online may be for cybersecurity to be recognized as a human right, too.</p>
<p>The United Nations has taken note of the crucial role of internet connectivity in “<a href="https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/opb/gen/S-GEN-WFS.01-1-2011-PDF-E.pdf">the struggle for human rights</a>.” United Nations officials have decried the <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21165&LangID=E">actions of governments cutting off internet access</a> as denying their citizens’ rights to free expression. </p>
<p>But access is not enough. Those of us who have regular internet access often suffer from <a href="https://theconversation.com/overcoming-cyber-fatigue-requires-users-to-step-up-for-security-70621">cyber-fatigue</a>: We’re all simultaneously expecting our data to be hacked at any moment and feeling powerless to prevent it. Late last year, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an online rights advocacy group, called for technology companies to “<a href="https://supporters.eff.org/donate/eff-wired">unite in defense of users</a>,” securing their systems against intrusion by hackers as well as government surveillance.</p>
<p>It’s time to rethink how we understand the cybersecurity of digital communications. One of the U.N.’s leading champions of free expression, <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomOpinion/Pages/DavidKaye.aspx">international law expert David Kaye</a>, in 2015 called for “<a href="https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/research_papers/2016RP07_bdk.pdf">the encryption of private communications to be made a standard</a>.” These and other developments in the international and business communities are signaling what could be early phases of declaring cybersecurity to be a human right that governments, companies and individuals should work to protect.</p>
<h2>Is internet access a right?</h2>
<p>The idea of internet access as a human right is not without controversy. No less an authority than Vinton Cerf, a “<a href="http://internethalloffame.org/inductees/vint-cerf">father of the internet</a>,” has argued that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html">technology itself is not a right</a>, but a means through which rights can be exercised. </p>
<p>All the same, <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/02/02/unrestricted-internet-access-human-rights-technology-constitution/">more and more nations</a> have declared their citizens’ right to internet access. Spain, France, Finland, Costa Rica, Estonia and Greece have codified this right in a variety of ways, including in their constitutions, laws and judicial rulings.</p>
<p>A former head of the U.N.’s global telecommunications governing body <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8548190.stm">has argued</a> that governments must “regard the internet as basic infrastructure – just like roads, waste and water.” <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8548190.stm">Global public opinion</a> seems to overwhelmingly agree.</p>
<p>Cerf’s argument may, in fact, strengthen the case for cybersecurity as a human right – ensuring that technology enables people to exercise their rights to privacy and free communication.</p>
<h2>Existing human rights law</h2>
<p>Current international human rights law includes many principles that apply to cybersecurity. For example, Article 19 of the <a href="http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/">Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a> includes protections of freedom of speech, communication and access to information. Similarly, Article 3 states “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” But <a href="http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1852&context=fss_papers">enforcing these rights is difficult</a> under international law. As a result, many countries <a href="http://map.opennet.net/">ignore the rules</a>.</p>
<p>There is cause for hope, though. As far back as 2011, the U.N.’s High Commission for Human Rights said that human rights are <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf">equally valid online as offline</a>. Protecting people’s privacy is no less important when handling paper documents, for instance, than when dealing with digital correspondence. The U.N.’s Human Rights Council <a href="http://www.osce.org/fom/250656">reinforced that stance</a> in 2012, 2014 and 2016. </p>
<p>In 2013, the U.N. General Assembly itself – the organization’s overall governing body, comprising representatives from all member nations – voted to confirm people’s “<a href="http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/167">right to privacy in the digital age</a>.” Passed in the wake of revelations about <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/the-nsa-files">U.S. electronic spying around the globe</a>, the document further endorsed the importance of protecting privacy and freedom of expression online. And in November 2015, the G-20, a group of nations with some of the world’s largest economies, similarly endorsed privacy, “<a href="https://www.g20.org/Content/DE/_Anlagen/G7_G20/2015-g20-abschlusserklaerung-eng.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3">including in the context of digital communications</a>.”</p>
<h2>Putting protections in place</h2>
<p>Simply put, the obligation to protect these rights involves developing new cybersecurity policies, such as encrypting all communications and discarding old and unneeded data, rather than keeping it around indefinitely. More <a href="https://business-humanrights.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/applications-of-framework-jun-2011.pdf">firms are using</a> the <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf">U.N.’s Guiding Principles</a> to help inform their business decision-making to promote human rights due diligence. They are also using U.S. government recommendations, in the form of the <a href="https://www.nist.gov/cyberframework">National Institute for Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework</a>, to help determine how best to protect their data and that of their customers.</p>
<p>In time, the tide will likely strengthen. Internet access will become more widely recognized as a human right – and following in its wake may well be cybersecurity. As people use online services more in their daily lives, their expectations of digital privacy and freedom of expression will lead them to demand better protections. </p>
<p>Governments will respond by building on the foundations of existing international law, formally extending into cyberspace the human rights to privacy, freedom of expression and improved economic well-being. Now is the time for businesses, governments and individuals to prepare for this development by incorporating cybersecurity as a fundamental ethical consideration in telecommunications, data storage, corporate social responsibility and enterprise risk management.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72342/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scott Shackelford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Recent developments at the United Nations and the G-20 suggest that the well-known human rights to privacy and freedom of expression may soon be formally extended to online communications.Scott Shackelford, Associate Professor of Business Law and Ethics, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/591252016-06-01T15:00:46Z2016-06-01T15:00:46ZInternet freedom: why access is becoming a human right<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124766/original/image-20160601-3253-azci7l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Most South Africans are dependent on unaffordable mobile data to access the Internet</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://networksocietylab.org">Indra de Lanerolle</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When most people think or speak about internet freedom, they are often concerned with the right, for example, to say what you want online without censorship and without being subject to the chilling effects of surveillance. </p>
<p>These kind of freedoms are sometimes called “negative freedoms” or “freedoms from…”. They address the right not to be interfered with or obstructed in living your life. But there are also “positive freedoms” — <a href="https://www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/wiso_vwl/johannes/Ankuendigungen/Berlin_twoconceptsofliberty.pdf">“freedoms to…”</a></p>
<p>Some constitutions – notably the US Constitution – only protect negative rights. But South Africa’s includes both negative and positive rights. Positive rights include, for example, the <a href="https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/12785996">socio-economic rights</a> to food and shelter. </p>
<p>In its <a href="https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2015">Internet Freedom Index</a> Freedom House ranks South Africa as “free” alongside the UK, Argentina and Kenya. The ranking is largely because Freedom House weighs negative freedoms above positive ones. But how “free” is the internet in South Africa? For most, it is positive internet freedoms that may be more urgent.</p>
<h2>Freedom is access</h2>
<p>The South African Constitution in the Bill of Rights does not explicitly protect internet freedom but <a href="http://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/chapter-2-bill-rights#16">section 16(1)</a> states that everyone has the right to “freedom to receive or impart information or ideas”. This is a right for everyone and it is not just a freedom from interference – a “freedom from” – but also a “freedom to”: a right to be able to reach others and be reached by others. In this it follows Article 19 of the <a href="http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/">Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a>. </p>
<p>In his book <a href="https://books.google.co.za/books?id=NQs75PEa618C&redir_esc=y"><em>Development as Freedom</em></a>, Amartya Sen describes freedom as “our capability to lead the kind of lives we have reason to value”. In many ways, the internet is extending such capabilities. </p>
<p>More people now go online daily than read a newspaper. They are able to read a much greater variety of voices than are seen in print or on television. And <a href="https://twitter.com/CityPowerJhb/with_replies">public services</a> are offering improved responsiveness on social media.</p>
<p>But we are also seeing a new development – instances where internet access is now a requirement. Examples include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><a href="http://www.cipc.co.za/index.php/Access/how-2/">registering a company</a>,</p></li>
<li><p>The Gauteng Education Department now requires parents with children entering primary or high school to apply <a href="https://www.gdeadmissions.gov.za">online</a>. Previously they could apply at the local school, and</p></li>
<li><p>The South African Broadcasting Corporation has announced that it will no longer advertise its jobs in newspapers, directing job seekers to its own website.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Indications from government are that we are likely to see <a href="http://www.gov.za/speeches/minister-jeff-radebe-gauteng-e-government-and-ict-summit-2015-2-nov-2015-0000">more such initiatives</a>. The result will be that South Africans’ ability to lead the kind of lives they value will become increasingly dependent on the physical, procedural, economic and social networks that we call “the internet”.</p>
<h2>The question of cost</h2>
<p>According to the <a href="http://www.mediaupdate.co.za/marketing/82875/new-amps-data-shows-relative-stability">All Media Products Survey (AMPS)</a> of June 2015 fewer than half of South African adults had used the internet in the previous four weeks. More than half did not. </p>
<p>When <a href="http://networksocietylab.org/the-new-wave-report-doc/">we asked</a> a representative sample of non-users in South Africa in 2012 why they hadn’t gone online, the main reason was that they had no device to connect with (87%). The second reason was that they didn’t know how to use it (76%) and the third was that it was too expensive (60%).</p>
<p>According to the survey, <a href="http://www.mediaupdate.co.za/marketing/82875/new-amps-data-shows-relative-stability">nine out of ten South Africans</a> now use a mobile phone but only half of those now have access to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone">smartphones</a>. The most popular phone brand in South Africa is still Nokia. Most of the models in use have limited or no ability to connect to the net. And because only the better off have access to fixed lines at home or at work, the majority of South Africans, when they do get online, are dependent on mobile networks.</p>
<p>Mobile data is costly.</p>
<p>The International Telecommunications Union and the UN’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation have set a goal for <a href="http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/Broadband_Targets.pdf">affordable broadband internet access</a>. It is that entry level broadband should not cost more than 5% of average monthly income. Because of a flawed methodology they state in a <a href="http://www.broadbandcommission.org/publications/Pages/SOB-2015.aspx">2015 annual report</a> that South Africa falls well within that target. But digging into the figures shows how unaffordable the internet is for most South Africans.</p>
<p>Statistics SA sets an upper bound poverty line of <a href="http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/Report-03-10-06/Report-03-10-06March2014.pdf">R779 per month per person</a> (in 2011 prices). Most – about 53% – of the South African population live on income below this, according to the last census. So this poverty line is more or less the average income in the country. The poverty line adjusted for inflation to 2016 would be R1 031.</p>
<p>Taking the international 5% of income goal gives a maximum budget of about R52 per month. On three major networks (which account for more than 95% of all mobile customers) 500MB – the amount of data they set as a minimum – of data costs between R85 and R105. So for the average South African 500MB per month is unaffordable. In fact mobile data prices would have to fall by about half to be affordable.</p>
<p>And is 500MB per month enough? It is enough for a lot of instant messaging, or say about half an hour a day of browsing the web or using Facebook. But it is not enough to participate in otherwise free online courses such as <a href="https://www.khanacademy.org">Kahn Academy</a> that often rely heavily on video.</p>
<p>This is affecting usage. The most popular online activity is instant messaging using applications like whatsapp. But only one in five people download music online.</p>
<p>Could mobile data be much cheaper in South Africa? Evidence suggests that the answer is yes. <a href="http://www.researchictafrica.net/presentations/Presentations/2015_Gillwald_ICT_Access_and_Affordability_AfriSIG.pdf">Research ICT Africa’s price index</a> shows that South Africa’s data prices are over 20% more expensive than Nigeria, Uganda and Mozambique and three times as expensive as Kenya. </p>
<p>It is also worth noting that the poor in South Africa pay much more for data than the better-off. If you have a fixed line in your home you can buy pre-paid data bundles for R7 per GB or even less, a small fraction of what mobile network users pay.</p>
<h2>Free internet?</h2>
<p>We could go further and ask if the internet could and should not only be cheaper but free? In some places and for some people it already is. That includes university students thanks to <a href="http://www.tenet.ac.za">a network for tertiary institutions</a> funded by the government. It also includes many residents in the metropole of Tshwane – including townships – where <a href="http://www.tshwane.gov.za/Pages/WIFI.aspx">there are over 600 wifi hotspots</a> offering 500MB of data per day at fast speeds for free.</p>
<p>Just as South African municipalities give poor households a minimum amount of 600 litres of water and 50kwh of electricity for free, they could extend this model to the internet.</p>
<p>As lawyers sometimes say, the right to freedom of expression is an ‘enabling right’ —- a right that enables people to access or defend other rights. In the same way the internet itself is now an enabling technology that is increasingly required to participate in social, political and economic life.</p>
<p>For many or most South Africans whether or not the <a href="https://pmg.org.za/call-for-comment/420/">Films and Publications Board</a> interferes with their right to view video material online does not affect ‘their capability to lead the lives they value’ because they cannot afford to access video or audio content online. At present, defending ‘negative’ internet rights is protecting the rights of the few. We need to move to demanding the ‘positive right’ of affordable access if we want internet freedom for all.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59125/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Indra de Lanerolle receives funding from Making All Voices Count for his research on mobile Internet use . He runs the Network Society Lab in the Journalism and Media programme at the University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. The Lab conducts research on the social, economic and political effects of the Internet. Indra is a board member of the Freedom of Expression Institute. The views in this article are his own. </span></em></p>It is time to demand the ‘positive right’ of affordable access if we want internet freedom for all.Indra de Lanerolle, Visiting Researcher, Network Society Lab, Journalism and Media Programme, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/466482015-08-28T05:38:04Z2015-08-28T05:38:04ZBig loopholes lurk in African cybercrime law – where it even exists<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93081/original/image-20150826-15393-15cxu1s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Not enough legislation. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Oleksiy Mark/www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you’ve never received an invitation to pay a modest fee in order to receive millions of dollars from an African prince, check your junk folder. The <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/article/192664/the_story_behind_the_nigerian_phishing_scam.html">Nigerian phishing scams</a> – known as 419s – have become infamous. However, Nigeria’s government is trying to eradicate the networks that perpetrate these scams – and they are just a drop in the ocean compared to the full scale of the modern cyberthreat across Africa.</p>
<p>Since May 2011 the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.itu.int/en/Pages/default.aspx&sa=D&usg=AFQjCNGJgCxHcFIaQudm_ZZi4GGuDZCGRw">International Telecommunication Union</a> (ITU) – the UN agency that specialises in information and communication technology – has worked with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to help countries mitigate against the risks posed by cybercrime.</p>
<h2>Large-scale gaps</h2>
<p>According to the ITU, out of the 52 countries that it looked at in Africa, 44 do not criminalise computer-facilitated offences. Only two have legislation deemed sufficient to combat online sexual abuse, and 40 do not have any legislation at all addressing online child sexual abuse. Nearly all – 49 countries – do not criminalise the simple possession and distribution of indecent images of children, and 51 of the countries do not mandate Internet Service Providers to report on the activity that they facilitate. ITU cautioned that children in Africa have yet to be identified as among the most vulnerable in the online community, an omission it is working hard to address.</p>
<p>The scale of the legal gaps illustrates just how far there is to go before there is adequate and appropriate legislation in place to protect individuals across the continent, particularly children. </p>
<p>At a meeting in August, countries from across East Africa along with Nigeria and Côte d'Ivoire joined UNODC, Interpol and the Commonwealth Secretariat at the UN regional headquarters in Nairobi to establish a Regional Justice Network for fighting cybercrime. The new network will create focal points for law enforcement agencies, prosecution services and central authorities in order to support informal and formal collaboration in criminal matters involving cybercrime and electronic evidence. </p>
<p>High costs and the lack of fixed line infrastructure for broadband access ensure that mobiles are the most popular way for people to get online in Africa. As prices fall and coverage rises, the <a href="https://www.unodc.org/documents/organized-crime/UNODC_CCPCJ_EG.4_2013/CYBERCRIME_STUDY_210213.pdf">UN has predicted</a> that by 2017, 70% of the world’s population will have mobile broadband subscriptions and Africa’s smartphone market will have doubled. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93083/original/image-20150826-15427-15kl04s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/93083/original/image-20150826-15427-15kl04s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93083/original/image-20150826-15427-15kl04s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93083/original/image-20150826-15427-15kl04s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=407&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93083/original/image-20150826-15427-15kl04s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93083/original/image-20150826-15427-15kl04s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/93083/original/image-20150826-15427-15kl04s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=512&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An internet cafe in Cameroon.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">SarahTz/flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As the internet expands, criminals have been equally fast (if not faster) to exploit the hyperconnected nature of the online world.</p>
<p>There is no single shared definition of cybercrime, but it is generally considered to include any offence where the computer is the object of the crime (hacking, phishing, spamming) or is used as the tool (child pornography, hate crimes). Its borderless nature brings with it complexities of jurisdiction, evidence and international extradition. These can only be addressed with transnational legal assistance, mutual recognition of foreign judgements, and informal police-to-police cooperation. </p>
<p>In countries that are struggling to meet the most basic needs of many of their citizens, the sophistication of such requirements is often low down the list of priorities.</p>
<h2>Diversity of legislation</h2>
<p>A <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.trendmicro.com/cloud-content/us/pdfs/security-intelligence/white-papers/wp-africa.pdf&sa=D&usg=AFQjCNEkBScw0q6jtEwa_F2hDTKQuhZpwA">2013 report</a> warned of Africa becoming a “safe harbour for cybercrime” is frequently quoted in articles about online security. It cited increased internet availability at lower costs, a rapidly growing internet user base and the dearth of cybercrime laws on the continent as contributing to this threat. </p>
<p>At that time, only <a href="http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/consol_act/ecata2002427/">South Africa</a> had a cybercrime law in place, with Kenyan legislation on the horizon (<a href="http://africanmediainitiative.org/content/2014/01/26/KICA-Act-2013.pdf">this has now been passed</a>). </p>
<p>The diversity of laws in those countries that have now begun to address cybersecurity is also a hindrance to international cooperation. For example, the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://t.co/eiTACwo4g2&sa=D&usg=AFQjCNEspuq2K9w3EtbRlqMSrtGMiaA2Vg">Tanzania cybercrimes bill</a>, passed by parliament in April 2015 and awaiting ratification from president Jakaya Kikwete, attempts to address a wide range of issues but has <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://globalvoicesonline.org/2015/04/17/tanzanias-cyber-crime-bill-gives-more-power-to-police-less-to-people/&sa=D&usg=AFQjCNHe79g_KdPWQQuD--u8Oi600FyR9w">attracted criticism</a> for seemingly favouring the powers of police over the protection of citizens. </p>
<p>The bill prohibits the online publication of “misleading, deceptive or false” information, which could be interpreted as a direct threat to free speech, and requires very little justification for police to search or seize computer equipment. </p>
<p>On social media, <a href="https://globalvoicesonline.org/2015/04/17/tanzanias-cyber-crime-bill-gives-more-power-to-police-less-to-people/">critics</a> have questioned the timing and content of the bill, suggesting it was intended to control the media and bloggers ahead of the October 2015 elections. While Tanzania may view political bloggers as malicious actors who should be prosecuted accordingly, other nations may support their right to free speech.</p>
<p>Governments in Africa are working with Interpol and regulatory bodies to develop global strategies to tackle cybercrime and bring together evidence, academic research and innovative practice from around the world. They are also recognising the value of education and training, not just for those who work to fight crime but as a means to prevent it by empowering people to stay safe online. If criminals can exploit the power of networking, then networking on a global scale is vital in the fight against them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46648/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anna Childs does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Most African countries lack legislation to protect people from online crime and abuse.Anna Childs, Academic Director for International Development, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/359702015-01-08T17:54:14Z2015-01-08T17:54:14ZAn extra second on the clock: why moving from astronomic to atomic time is a tricky business<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68492/original/image-20150108-23807-pvuf7j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Not something you see every day.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://leapsecond.com/notes/leap-watch.htm">Leapsecond.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Most people would feel they can count on one day comprising the same number of hours, minutes and seconds as the next. But this isn’t always the case – June 30 will be a second longer in 2015 with the addition of a leap second, added to reconcile the differences between two definitions of time: one astronomical, the other provided by atomic clocks.</p>
<p>Before the 1950s, time was defined by the position of the sun in the sky, as measured by instruments that monitor the Earth’s rotation. But this rotation is not constant. It is slowing due to the gravitational pull of the moon, with days lengthening by 1.7 milliseconds per century.</p>
<p>The varying length of the day has been known for centuries but only became a practical concern (outside astronomy) with the invention of atomic clocks in the 1950s. These provide a far more stable and easy-to-use definition of time, based on <a href="http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/second.html">a particular microwave frequency absorbed by caesium atoms</a>. Atomic clock signals were soon used to control standard-frequency radio transmitters, which telecommunication engineers could use to calibrate and synchronise equipment. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68490/original/image-20150108-23798-sn1bq8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68490/original/image-20150108-23798-sn1bq8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68490/original/image-20150108-23798-sn1bq8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68490/original/image-20150108-23798-sn1bq8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68490/original/image-20150108-23798-sn1bq8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68490/original/image-20150108-23798-sn1bq8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68490/original/image-20150108-23798-sn1bq8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68490/original/image-20150108-23798-sn1bq8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The length of the day is not as static as you might think.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html">US Naval Observatory</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Matching the astronomic to the atomic</h2>
<p>When these transmitters were upgraded to also emit a one-pulse-per-second signal and a time-and-date code, the International Telecommunication Union in Geneva was asked to come up with a standard definition of time. The result was “Coordinated Universal Time”, abbreviated to UTC (to keep French speakers happy), which defined an atomic clock-generated time signal that would also stay within a second of an astronomical definition of time, known as UT1. </p>
<p>The question was how to keep these timescales synchronised. Initial efforts that adjusted transmission frequency, thereby changing the length of the second, or by adding millisecond delays at pre-arranged times caused problems and disrupted time-keeping electronics upon which other standards relied – for example the 50Hz frame rate for European television broadcasts.</p>
<p>So in the late 1960s <a href="http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-TF.460/en">the definition of UTC</a> was changed to keep the length of the second constant. Instead the atomic and astronomical definitions of time encompassed within UTC had to be synchronised by inserting or skipping a whole second – and so the leap second was introduced, for the first time in June 1972. There have been 24 more since, announced by the <a href="http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/">Earth Orientation Center in Paris</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68489/original/image-20150108-23807-44i1qa.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/68489/original/image-20150108-23807-44i1qa.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68489/original/image-20150108-23807-44i1qa.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68489/original/image-20150108-23807-44i1qa.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68489/original/image-20150108-23807-44i1qa.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68489/original/image-20150108-23807-44i1qa.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/68489/original/image-20150108-23807-44i1qa.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Leap seconds since 1972 – 25 and counting.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://what-if.xkcd.com/26/">xkcd</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Computers don’t like change</h2>
<p>While this worked well, by the late 1990s there were concerns. A large effort was underway to tackle the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30576670">millenium bug</a> in computer systems, which led engineers to start worry about other time-related disruptions. High-precision time broadcasts from the GPS navigation system enabled new safety-critical applications, such as aircraft navigation and control, where time variables immediately affect the trajectory of vehicles. And it had become common practice to synchronise computer clocks over the Internet using the <a href="http://www.ntp.org/ntpfaq/NTP-s-def.htm">Network Time Protocol</a> (NTP), which posed the question of how computers should implement leap seconds.</p>
<p>The leap second’s inventors envisaged that a digital clock displaying UTC, which would normally step from 23:59:59 to 00:00:00, would instead insert an additional 61st second, displayed as 23:59:60. This turned out to be impractical, however, as computer software rarely breaks time into separate variables for hours, minutes and seconds. Instead, it’s more convenient to represent time as a single number, a <a href="http://www.unixtimestamp.com/">running count of seconds</a>. Looked at this way, adding one to any time value representing 23:59:59 will always end up with 00:00:00. There are no numbers left on the scale that could represent the time 23:59:60.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the way NTP implemented leap seconds in Unix and Linux operating systems (which run most internet servers) made things worse: by leaping back in time to the beginning of the final second and repeating it. Any software reading off a clock twice within a second might find the deeply confusing situation of the second time-stamp predating the first. A combination of this and a particular bug in Linux caused computers to behave erratically and <a href="http://www.wired.com/2012/07/leap-second-glitch-explained/">led to failures in some datacentres</a> the last time a leap second was introduced in 2012, notably in one large airline booking system. Instead, alternative implementations now just <a href="https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/%7Emgk25/time/utc-sls/">slow down</a> the computer’s clock briefly in the run up to a leap second to account for the difference.</p>
<h2>Standards, so many to choose from</h2>
<p>A leap second-free form of atomic time also exists, known as <a href="http://www.bipm.org/en/bipm/tai/tai.html">International Atomic Time</a> or TAI (again, via the French). UTC currently lags exactly 35 seconds behind TAI, and this will increase to 36 seconds by July 1. Systems where leap seconds can cause serious disruption, such as GPS or spacecraft, have used variants of TAI for a long time. But use of TAI is not widespread, as legal definitions of time are based on UTC.</p>
<p>For over 15 years a <a href="http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/%7Emgk25/time/leap/">debate</a> has raged over whether to abolish leap seconds altogether, such that from some date onwards the difference between UTC and TAI becomes fixed. This would solve concerns based on how to implement leap seconds in computers, but would also break many existing specialist systems, including satellite-tracking ground stations, astronomical instruments, and any systems built with the assumption that UTC and UT1 never differ by more than a second. </p>
<p>There is also a more philosophical question arising from decoupling our definition of time from the position of the sun in the sky. Astronomical instruments like sundials and sextants would become useless without regular recalibration. And the meridian on which local mean solar time matches UTC, which currently passes through Greenwich in London, would start to accelerate eastwards: reaching Paris within a few hundred years and eventually passing around the globe, many times. Perhaps this is what might, in part, have motivated the UK government to oppose this change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35970/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Markus Kuhn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Most people would feel they can count on one day comprising the same number of hours, minutes and seconds as the next. But this isn’t always the case – June 30 will be a second longer in 2015 with the…Markus Kuhn, Senior Lecturer in Computer Science, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/112962012-12-14T03:13:36Z2012-12-14T03:13:36ZFuture-of-the-internet talks crash: let’s update the system<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18675/original/8cv59rt9-1355451869.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">With the US and UK refusing to sign a revised treaty, it's unclear what will come out of the WCIT meeting in Dubai.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">ITU Pictures</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>After 11 days of discussion and debate about <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-controls-the-internet-the-debate-is-live-and-clicking-11187">the future of the internet</a>, the <a href="http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx">World Conference on International Telecommunications</a> (WCIT) in Dubai appears to have collapsed.</p>
<p>On the meeting’s penultimate day, <a href="http://www.commsday.com/uncategorized/wcit-collapses-us-uk-allies-refuse-to-sign-treaty-after-africa-wins-floor-vote">talks broke down</a>, with delegates from the US and UK (and other countries) refusing to sign a revised version of the <a href="http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/itr/">International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR)</a> treaty – the main focus of the conference.</p>
<p>Terry Kramer, US Ambassador and head of the US delegation to the WCIT <a href="http://mashable.com/2012/12/11/wcit-ending/">said overnight (AEST)</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Our fundamental view is that the internet needs to be free and open. [The internet] does best when it’s not regulated, when it’s left alone to innovate, when people are free to communicate, to do commerce etcetera. So [our] main message is don’t tamper with the internet.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is unlikely you’ll find a lot of people who would disagree with this statement of principle. In fact the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-strauss/internet-freedom-government_b_2228569.html">whole focus of public attention</a> on the WCIT has been in the context of the protection of “internet freedom”.</p>
<p>Kramer then went on to say:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We’re not able to sign a bad agreement that does nobody any favours and makes nobody happy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So with the WCIT spluttering to a close, what do we have to take away from the process? Has the “free and open” nature of the internet really been compromised? </p>
<h2>What is freedom anyway?</h2>
<p>As an article on technology law blog <a href="http://www.technollama.co.uk/is-the-internet-free-and-open">TechnoLlama points out</a>, there has been very little attention focused on what “internet freedom” actually means and why WCIT and the <a href="http://www.itu.int/en/Pages/default.aspx">International Telecommunications Union</a> (ITU) are <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20594779">perceived as a threat</a> to this freedom.</p>
<p>This is particularly the case when there is already a range of bodies who could (and do) exert serious levels of control over aspects of the internet including: access, domain names, content filtering and monitoring of traffic.</p>
<p>These very bodies – the <a href="http://www.ietf.org/">Internet Engineering Task Force</a> (IETF), <a href="http://www.w3.org/">World Wide Web Consortium</a> (W3C), and the <a href="http://www.icann.org/">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers</a> (ICANN) – are <a href="http://www.commsday.com/uncategorized/wcit-collapses-us-uk-allies-refuse-to-sign-treaty-after-africa-wins-floor-vote">noted by Kramer</a> as exemplars of the best environments in which to discuss matters of internet governance.</p>
<p>Given local control of the internet <a href="https://theconversation.com/challenge-4-authoritarian-rule-and-the-internet-7544">can and does already happen</a>, <a href="http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-C-0027!R1!MSW-E.pdf">proposals at WCIT</a> that domestic regulators be given greater control over internet regulation – proposals attributed to countries including Russia, the UAE and China – are virtually meaningless.</p>
<p>They already have the capacity to exercise controls – such as the regulation of internet content in Australia by <a href="http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/HOMEPAGE/PC=HOME">ACMA</a> – so <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/hackers-united-nations-_n_2250364.html">protests, campaigns and DDoS attacks</a> do not minimise the likelihood of this happening.</p>
<h2>Stay focused</h2>
<p>During the WCIT debate became heavily bogged down on a number of technical issues.</p>
<p>This included a discussion about the meaning of the term “operating agencies” – a term intended to define the entities to whom the revised ITR will apply. This was called the “<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/12/wcit_asterisk/">asterisk debate</a>” because the term in question was linked to the <a href="http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/draft-future-itrs-public.pdf">bottom of page two</a> of the ITR by way of an asterisk:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>*[an agency] authorised or recognised by a Member State to establish, operate and engage in international telecommunications services to the public"</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Members had to leave the asterisk debate to one side so they could move on to more substantive matters, such as proposed Clause 3.8 of the ITR which stated:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Member States shall, if they so elect, be able to manage the naming, numbering, addressing and identification resources used within their territories for international telecommunications.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The issue here is whether this provision should be interpreted to apply to the internet. If so it would disturb the control over internet names and numbers currently exercised by ICANN and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).</p>
<p>Such arguments may have caused us to lose sight of the actual purpose and potential outcomes of WCIT – i.e to update the ITR to apply to current communication technology, particularly in the area of convergences between telephony and internet.</p>
<p>The following interview with Dr. Hamadoun Touré, Secretary General of the ITU, is worth watching, as it offers some perspective on the intentions of the ITU and addresses some of the criticisms regarding stakeholders and transparency:</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pC92bMowwGk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>So what does it all mean?</h2>
<p>So <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/13/wcit_dead/">as we wait</a> to see whether the final scheduled day of the conference will actually go ahead, my major observation is that the WCIT is a strangely archaic mechanism for discussing issues relating to the internet.</p>
<p>Why are we still flying government delegates from around the world to a meeting in Dubai? Why are the majority of those meetings - which involve people making statements such as “free and open is good” - happening behind closed doors and considering documents that are kept secret unless leaked?</p>
<p>The very nature of these kinds of meetings encourages suspicion and cynicism about potential outcomes, regardless of whether that suspicion is warranted (that said, there was <a href="http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/webcast.aspx">a webcast</a> of the plenary proceedings and some of the other sessions).</p>
<p>If we really want to talk about internet freedom, and I believe we should, we need to get the right issues on the table.</p>
<p>We also need to acknowledge that the internet isn’t free now, in many ways, and if we want it to be, we need to look at what our own domestic governments are already doing.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11296/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Melissa de Zwart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>After 11 days of discussion and debate about the future of the internet, the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai appears to have collapsed. On the meeting’s penultimate…Melissa de Zwart, Associate Professor, Law School, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/111872012-12-06T03:27:09Z2012-12-06T03:27:09ZWho controls the internet? The debate is live and clicking<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18387/original/5gccfbkq-1354758135.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Nations from around the world are currently meeting in Dubai to discuss the future of the internet.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ali Haider/EPA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>And so the battle for the future of the internet rages on. The focus this time is not on <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/02/julian_assange_the_web_can_create_revolutions_or_jail_revolutionaries/">WikiLeaks</a>, cybercrime treaties, or privacy controls, but the <a href="http://www.itu.int/en/Pages/default.aspx">International Telecommunications Union (ITU)</a>.</p>
<p>The ITU is currently meeting in Dubai under the banner of the <a href="http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx">World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT-12)</a>. The agenda is to consider changes to the <a href="http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/itrs.aspx">International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR)</a> – a treaty signed by 178 countries in 1988 to establish principles for the operation of international telecommunications.</p>
<p>Much has been made of the ITU meeting in recent weeks, with more than a few media outlets suggesting WCIT-12 represents a concerted attempt, by the ITU, to <a href="http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/you-cant-make-decisions-about-the-open-internet-behind-closed-doors/">seize control of the internet</a>, thereby jeopardising <a href="http://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/whats-at-stake/">freedom of speech and information</a>.</p>
<p>But is that actually what’s going on? Is the ITU really trying to impose greater controls over the internet?</p>
<p>To answer these questions, we first need to understand what the ITU is and what it does.</p>
<h2>Prehistoric regulator</h2>
<p>In internet terms, the ITU and the ITR are not only old, but prehistoric. The ITU was formed in 1865 and is responsible for the international co-ordination of telegraph, radio and telephone systems.</p>
<p>The ITR was negotiated in Melbourne in 1988 to bring the regulation of telecommunications into the then-modern era. Of course, this was pre-internet – user-friendly web browsers made the world wide web searchable and accessible in 1993 and the net was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet">opened to general commercial traffic in 1995</a>.</p>
<p>Almost as old as the internet itself are the contests for control over key elements of internet governance.</p>
<p>Europe and the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) have long resented the de facto control the US exercises over the internet. This influence comes through the US’s dominance over key internet bodies such as the:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><a href="http://www.icann.org/">Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)</a> – the body that allocates domain names (such as “www.google.com”) and controls the approval of new domains</p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://www.iana.org/">Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)</a> – the body that allocates <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-end-of-the-internet-ipv4-versus-ipv6-145">IP addresses</a> and manages the data maintained in root servers at the heart of the <a href="http://www.howstuffworks.com/dns.htm">Domain Name System (DNS)</a>, enabling us to find one another on the internet.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>ICANN is a non-profit incorporated under the laws of California. This was a compromise reached in 1998 when the US-centric nature of domain name allocation became the focus of a <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Networks_Complexity_and_Internet_Regulat.html?id=WFd1PgAACAAJ">dispute between Europe and the US</a>.</p>
<p>The ITU, as a member of the <a href="http://www.undg.org/">UN Development Group</a>, is regarded by many countries as a more neutral candidate for a regulator of aspects of the internet.</p>
<h2>The battle continues</h2>
<p>With the proposed revision of the ITR at WCIT-12 battle lines appear to have been drawn again. Interestingly, the US has this time mobilised private actors such as Google to <a href="http://www.google.com/intl/en/takeaction/whats-at-stake/">come out swinging</a> against any purported grabs for power by the ITU.</p>
<p>Vint Cerf, one of the engineers who undertook vital early work on the internet – and who is now vice president and an internet evangelist at Google – has made a number of <a href="http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/05/31/vint-cerf-testimony-wcit-hearing.">startling allegations</a> regarding the agenda of the WCIT.</p>
<p>These include claims that any moves by the ITU to increase its powers and become involved in internet governance will destroy the internet as we know it.</p>
<p>The internet evolved as an open-ended collaborative platform, despite the fact much of the initial work was undertaken using US Department of Defense funding.</p>
<p>Internet communication was consciously designed to operate in a de-centralised mode, as distinct from the traditional hub-and-spoke model of telephony. This decentralised model of the internet meant if any part of the network was down, the traffic could be re-routed via an alternative pathway.</p>
<p>A decentralised model, of course, means there is an absence of a centralised control or choke point, making the internet difficult – although <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-26/the-great-internet-firewall-of-china">not impossible</a> – to control from a central point.</p>
<p>The beauty of this design means that the network is essentially dumb – the intelligence and applications are built on at the end point.</p>
<p>This has created the innovative and openness of the internet and distinguishes it from proprietary and closed networks where the intelligence is hosted and <a href="http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:9385626">controlled in the centre of the network</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18386/original/k7nwkbsd-1354756508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/18386/original/k7nwkbsd-1354756508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18386/original/k7nwkbsd-1354756508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18386/original/k7nwkbsd-1354756508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18386/original/k7nwkbsd-1354756508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18386/original/k7nwkbsd-1354756508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/18386/original/k7nwkbsd-1354756508.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Post-Software/Flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Charging for the internet?</h2>
<p>So, assuming users implement the relevant protocols (such as <a href="http://www.w3schools.com/tcpip/default.asp">TCP/IP</a>) and have the relevant connections, they can be part of the internet. You don’t have to apply to join and you don’t have to pay; you just have to adopt the right standards.</p>
<p>But this lack of payment-to-use is a radically different business model from traditional telephony regulated by the ITU. Under that model, telecommunications are highly regulated, right down to the <a href="http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Q/en">charging mechanisms</a> for international exchange.</p>
<p>Developing countries (a legitimate concern of the ITU) have expressed some desire for a right to <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57449375-83/u.n-could-tax-u.s.-based-web-sites-leaked-docs-show/">charge to carry commercial internet content</a>.</p>
<p>Developing countries argue they can ill afford to build the necessary internet infrastructure, which will then be used by wealthy (largely US-based) content providers, such as Facebook and YouTube, to disseminate their content.</p>
<p>In this way, it is likely that WCIT-12 will look at potential charging models. And this would explain Google and the US’s concern that the ITU wants to charge you (the user) for the internet. More accurately the ITU would be charging the likes of Google who would then need to consider how those costs may be passed on. </p>
<h2>Power-grab?</h2>
<p>So what does all this mean for WCIT-12? Is it a power-grab by Vladimir Putin as <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/nov/25/vladimir-putin-plot-internet-freedom">some have claimed</a>?</p>
<p>Certainly the ITU <em>does</em> want to extend the scope of the ITR to expressly include the internet. Up until now the internet has been classified (and regulated) as an information service rather than a telecommunications service. This has allowed greater flexibility for governments regarding regulation and pricing.</p>
<p>And certainly, a <a href="http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-C-0027!R1!MSW-E.pdf">leaked version</a> of Russia’s submission to WCIT-12 shows the nation would like to exercise greater control over the internet:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>31B 3A.2 Member States shall have equal rights to manage the internet, including in regard to the allotment, assignment and reclamation of internet numbering, naming, addressing and identification resources and to support for the operation and development of basic internet infrastructure.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So what does this really mean?</p>
<p>Well, domestic governments already have significant power to regulate the internet within their own territories, but the above submission would make this ability more explicit and perhaps more “acceptable”.</p>
<p>This may be seen as an attempt by Russia and others to stake a claim to an equal right to manage the internet. But as a practical matter, internet control remains strongly in the hands of private US-based interests, such as Google and Facebook. (Just consider the amount of information these services collect about our personal lives and search histories).</p>
<h2>Limiting freedom</h2>
<p>As some commentators have <a href="http://www.technollama.co.uk/is-the-un-trying-to-take-over-the-internet-part-ii">already pointed out</a>, there is nothing new or surprising in countries expressing a desire for a more equal say in internet governance. But it is disturbing to those who thought the issue dead and buried with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN#Democratic_input">restructuring of ICANN in 2005</a>.</p>
<p>In the opening days of the WCIT-12 (which runs until next Friday) we’ve already seen that a proposal by the US and Canada to limit the scope of the ITR to telecommunications has <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/uss-early-bid-to-protect-web-fails-20121205-2auii.html">been rejected</a>.</p>
<p>But this doesn’t mean the Russian proposals and others like it to expand the powers of the ITU will automatically make it through.</p>
<p>As ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/uss-early-bid-to-protect-web-fails-20121205-2auii.html">reminds us</a>, all decisions will be reached by consensus before being voted upon (and implemented) by member countries.</p>
<p>And finally, it’s important to remember that threats to freedom of speech online are as likely to come from the private sector as they are from governments. This is something that’s not reflected in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech</a> and an issue many commentators would do well to realise.</p>
<p>It might well be that internet freedoms are under attack, but not from the ITU.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/11187/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Melissa de Zwart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>And so the battle for the future of the internet rages on. The focus this time is not on WikiLeaks, cybercrime treaties, or privacy controls, but the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). The ITU…Melissa de Zwart, Associate Professor, Law School, University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.