Abstract
Will surveillance revelations impact the reputation of the United States as a global democratic leader?
“Come back with a warrant” is a pre-Revolutionary War principle that helped shaped the identity of the United States. The Fourth Amendment is at the heart of Americans’ sense of self, but as the disclosures about government surveillance continue, they are being forced to grapple with potential limits to this seemingly fundamental right. And the US as a whole is starting to see its reputation as a global leader and democratic force challenged.
For many Americans, openness in government and transparency are also fundamental pillars of a democratic society. This is the world view espoused by the US, and other Western nations, in the growth and development of the internet. Edward Snowden’s revelations clearly will not only hurt the US’s reputation but also its credibility in promoting an internet characterised by democratic freedoms.
The US has promoted an internet driven by entrepreneurs, consumers, and businesses, and underpinned by a community of technical organisations running day-to-day operations, with only minor roles for governments or international organisations. However, this is a view that is increasingly challenged by a group of nations that see a much greater role for the state in economic and political matters related to the internet. Some of these nations do not share the same outward commitment to internet freedom and are well known for their surveillance-based, human-rights-infringing regimes. Snowden’s revelations appear to unmask many Western nations as wielding similar surveillance programmes. The internet freedom world view expressed by the US, and supported by other Western governments, is in danger of ringing hollow.
In the fractured world of global internet policy, the consequences of these surveillance activities will become quickly apparent. As cybersecurity concerns increasingly come to the fore in policy discussions, the Snowden disclosures are likely to reinforce the view among many nations that more stringent state controls over the internet, under the guise of national security, are necessary – arguing that they are “just doing what the US is doing”. The US and other governments have been keen to keep internet issues out of the ambit of international organisations and government-to-government decision-making structures. But the pervasive and extra-territorial nature of surveillance programmes will only reinforce those calling for centralised, government-driven policy initiatives in institutions that operate on a one-country-one-vote system. Finally, those nations in the midst of building regulatory and institutional frameworks to support an internet economy may now be convinced that the imperative of security should take precedence over openness, transparency, and other principles that underpin the internet’s success. At the moment these challenges are going unaddressed. The US is engrossed in a national debate over the degree to which its NSA programmes have infringed the rights of Americans. In Europe there are criticisms of the US’s activities, but there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy in the air. The political establishment in the United Kingdom has circled the wagons around its pervasive surveillance activities. At some point, though, these nations are going to have to recognise that security cannot come at the price of privacy and that surveillance does not trump all. They will need to demonstrate a real commitment to human rights for all citizens, in their respective territories and beyond. Otherwise, emphatic speeches about the importance of internet freedom will amount to just talk.
LEFT: In the Gettysburg address, President Lincoln spoke of the struggles ahead for the US in its establishment of new freedoms
Credit: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
