WWW - Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

Winston Churchill once said that "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Churchill did experience many battles in the name of democracy, with the interwar years being particularly difficult ones for the few emergent democracies in Western Europe.
 
The 1930s witnessed the growing popularity of authoritarian leaders and the greater use of military power to either gain or entrench political power. Many believed at the time that democracy's future was bleak and that the coming years would usher in fascist regimes. Quite naturally, the start of World War II worsened the situation immeasurably.
 
Yet, the anti-fascist coalition emerged victorious and the end of hostilities led to the emergence of the Cold War, whereby the world was simplistically divided into capitalists and communists. Ideological bipolarity reigned supreme for the next 40 years or so, where most countries either found themselves in, or chose to be part of, one of the two camps. Interestingly, both superpowers insisted that their adopted regimes were truly democratic. Both also insisted on keeping a close eye on each other; thus, spying became de rigueur.
 
In the late 1950’s many in the West genuinely feared that the Soviet regime had matured and stabilized itself and was catching up very quickly. The prognosis was that sooner or later the West would fall behind the Soviet Union. This was precisely what leaders such as Nikita Khrushchev boisterously propagated. The 1970s, however, was to paint a very different picture. Gone were the heady economic boom days of the Soviet Union, where they speedily increased their military might as well as boosted their civilian economy. The Leonid Brezhnev years marked the beginning of a period of stagnation with the last decade of the Soviet Union's existence notable for the skyrocketing of military budgets and a collapsing economy.
 
The West had made steady progress in technological innovation throughout the post-war period and dramatically increased the pace in the 1980s. Two locomotives for such a gathering of speed concerned the invention of the personal computer and the Internet. Whereas Western consumers could buy these new devices, Soviet consumers were unaware of either's existence.
 
Unperturbed cyberspace?
In the 1990s and afterwards, cyberspace was described and cherished as the sole arena whereby freedom reigned supreme with a total absence of censorship. As an ideal there are dangers associated with such a sentiment. If cyberspace is completely unguarded then it can be an arena in which criminal activities can flourish. One need only remind oneself that the 9-11 terrorists made use of the Internet when planning their detestable attacks. Therefore, some surveillance over the Internet can be a good thing -- in fact necessary.
 
Once this is accepted, a corollary theme becomes paramount: Just as power without responsibility is a disaster in the making, so is freedom without responsibility. However, whilst there may be consensus over a limitation concerning freedoms, the question arises over who does the controlling and concerning what?
 
If legitimate governments are gaining this right, then authoritarian regimes can monitor and restrict any and all opposition voices. Cyberspace, then, in effect, can become another venue where regimes can cleanse themselves, portraying themselves as the best of all possible alternatives. Cyberspace can become just another propaganda vehicle to whitewash the citizenry.
 
Democratic oversight is suggested as the best solution to this problem, because, as is rightfully asserted, without democracy such restrictions could lead to autocracy. Having said this however, democratic oversight on its own is also a very blunt instrument. How can the minority be protected when the majority decides that their opinions are not worthy of consideration or unacceptable? Democracy of a majoritarian leaning would not positively affect matters of surveillance and control. There has to be a societal consensus concerning such matters.
 
Some have asserted that legal guarantees such as the United States Fourth Amendment or the Eighth Article of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are useful devices to halt the power of governments. Many remain unconvinced. According to Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the Internet, this is precisely the unfortunate prospect awaiting cyberspace.
 
State of the web: 2013
Last week, a report was published by the World Wide Web Foundation which surveyed 81 countries according to measures they have taken with regard to the Internet. The survey found almost one-third of countries had blocked some form of political information. It was due to this that Berners-Lee highlighted the fact that fundamental freedoms such as the right to privacy and thought were in danger.
 
The United States ranked first concerning the use of the web for political, social, economic and environmental empowerment. Incidentally, in terms of freedom of information, the United States has come full circle since the 1970s, especially concerning rights of privacy and governmental accountability. Whereas the White House staff was told by President Richard Nixon to "never forget the press is the enemy," last week witnessed President Barack Obama give the highest civilian honor possible, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, to Ben Bradlee, then-executive editor of The Washington Post, which single-handedly ended the Nixon presidency.
 
Whilst all that is well and good, the report highlighted a dual divide; not only is there a digital divide in the world, but equally an increasing participation division. Access to knowledge is not equal, nor is online free speech. Many millions are exempt from the opportunity to gain different sources of news and opinion to make an informed choice when participating in democratic life, especially prior to elections. Similar to other goods and services in society, the Internet has become a commodity that is affordable only by the wealthy, who are able to acquire knowledge and to ensure their voices are heard in public discussions.
 
When it comes to the global poor, or even the poorest segments of industrial societies, they are left far behind in terms of accessing important information online. The case of women in developing societies is a particularly worrying one, as according to the survey women in more than 60 percent of the countries cannot use the web to gain medical information concerning themselves, with more than half the population of developing countries not having access to the Internet at all.
 
Technology and accountability
The post-Cold War period has demonstrated that secrets do not remain secret for very long. Wikileaks and the Edward Snowden affair have highlighted many foreign policy actions and correspondences that hitherto have very rarely -- if at all -- been publicly disseminated. The increasing use of information technology by greater numbers of people around the world as well as the emergence of so-called whistleblowers such as Chelsea Manning reveal that there is much more behind the computer screen than meets the eye.
 
Monitoring communication, however, is not a 21st-century invention. Intelligence, popularly known as spying, is certainly not a new phenomenon. Both have histories that span not just centuries, but millennia. All actors, whether they are private individuals, businessmen or governments, crave greater information -- or indeed, total information. Individuals are restricted by the law, as the costs of breaking that law are very high. States similarly are also bound by international law, yet the sanctions are negligible compared to domestic law. There is very little that can be done to a state that has been identified as being engaged in intelligence gathering or spying other than to name and shame.
 
It is precisely the advance in technology that is making life easier that also makes it rather more threatening. Developing countries which are engrossed by the opportunities provided by high-technology are also attracted by the prospect of controlling their population. Smart TVs as well as computer cameras or accessories are viewed by some as potential mechanisms by which to obtain information about their users unbeknownst to them.
 
At the beginning of the 20th century, many believed that technology in the form of the radio was the answer to the world's ills. The transistor radio would be able to educate all countries. Citizens of all ages did not need to assemble in schools or colleges but could listen, learn and educate themselves. The advent of television also promised similar calls whereby through educational programs, millions could visually elevate themselves. The Internet is the next invention that offers the same goal. Certainly radio, television and the Internet have all had a major educational impact on the world, and to a certain extent have shaped the future.
 
Just as is the current case with the Internet, radio and television were also considered by many governments to be very dangerous devices whose programs needed to be strictly controlled. One must not forget that only 25 years ago television and radio broadcasts were constantly jammed by the Soviet Union. The impact of the Internet, however, is truly incomparable to radio and television. The amount of information that is available today could not have been fathomable a quarter century ago. Therefore, it is entirely correct to identify the post-Cold War period as having experienced an information communication technological revolution.
 
George Orwell portrayed a dystopian future in 1984 where “Big Brother is watching you." Some such as Berners-Lee believe that to be the case today with the fundamental right to privacy being under threat, putting the future of democracy at risk. Thus, in democracies, as declared in the title, we can appoint officials to guard our rights, but we need to be constantly wary of those guards and need to think about who will guard them from abusing the power we have granted them.