The NSA and the end of the “world wide” web

The NSA and the end of the “world wide” web

According to British journalist John Naughton, the consequences of the NSA surveillance scheme, as revealed by Edward Snowden, go far beyond questions of terrorism, espionage, or individual privacy.  They impact the nature and governance of the internet and spell the end of the “world-wide” part of the “world-wide web.”

From John Naughton in the (London) Guardian:

We have been fed a constant stream of journalistic pap – speculation about Snowden’s travel plans, asylum requests, state of mind, physical appearance, etc. The “human interest” angle has trumped the real story, which is what the NSA revelations tell us about how our networked world actually works and the direction in which it is heading.

As an antidote, here are some of the things we should be thinking about as a result of what we have learned so far.

The first is that the days of the internet as a truly global network are numbered. It was always a possibility that the system would eventually be Balkanised, ie divided into a number of geographical or jurisdiction-determined subnets as societies such as China, Russia, Iran and other Islamic states decided that they needed to control how their citizens communicated. Now, Balkanisation is a certainty.

Second, the issue of internet governance is about to become very contentious. Given what we now know about how the US and its satraps have been abusing their privileged position in the global infrastructure, the idea that the western powers can be allowed to continue to control it has become untenable.

Third, as Evgeny Morozov has pointed out, the Obama administration’s “internet freedom agenda” has been exposed as patronising cant. “Today,” he writes, “the rhetoric of the ‘internet freedom agenda’ looks as trustworthy as George Bush’s ‘freedom agenda’ after Abu Ghraib.”

That’s all at nation-state level. But the Snowden revelations also have implications for you and me.

They tell us, for example, that no US-based internet company can be trusted to protect our privacy or data. The fact is that Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft are all integral components of the US cyber-surveillance system. Nothing, but nothing, that is stored in their “cloud” services can be guaranteed to be safe from surveillance or from illicit downloading by employees of the consultancies employed by the NSA. That means that if you’re thinking of outsourcing your troublesome IT operations to, say, Google or Microsoft, then think again.

And if you think that that sounds like the paranoid fantasising of a newspaper columnist, then consider what Neelie Kroes, vice-president of the European Commission, had to say on the matter recently. “If businesses or governments think they might be spied on,” she said, “they will have less reason to trust the cloud, and it will be cloud providers who ultimately miss out. Why would you pay someone else to hold your commercial or other secrets, if you suspect or know they are being shared against your wishes? Front or back door – it doesn’t matter – any smart person doesn’t want the information shared at all. Customers will act rationally and providers will miss out on a great opportunity.”

via Edward Snowden’s not the story. The fate of the internet is | Technology | The Observer.

See also  James Fallow’s discussion of this article in the Atlantic.

HT:  Webmonk

"Are those the only 2 options or are there other ones between doing nothing or ..."

DISCUSS: Should We Attack Iran?
"Should we attack Iran? I don't know. I pray that those who have the actual ..."

DISCUSS: Should We Attack Iran?
"Well silent Cal went to a good college."

The Three Modes of Religion (and ..."
"I'll agree it's a no, but I don't think we would lose. It's just that ..."

DISCUSS: Should We Attack Iran?

Browse Our Archives