[Chapter-delegates] Digital sovreignty and splinternet

[christian de larrinaga]

Thank you for some interesting links to better educate myself.

I suppose the phrase "Internet is borderless by design" is true by default until somebody comes along and creates a border.

In other words the Internet protocols support "open" inter-networking. 
But they don't stop the creation of borders by those holding control
over devices, networks and service infrastructures that people
increasingly use to manage those parts. 

People  responsible for their devices and networks can and do
create borders. Indeed we are strongly recommended to do just that. 

Perhaps the question may be best viewed as a question as to what extent, if at
all, should those who are not responsible for such infrastructural
elements be influencing or even dictating network borders. In particular when
they are not technology literate sufficient to understand the impacts of
such interventions. 


C
Richard Hill via Chapter-delegates <chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> writes:

> I refer to this post which was recently brought to our attention:
>
>  
>
> https://www.internetsociety.org/action-plan/2022/digital-sovereignty/ 
>
>  
>
> I'm puzzled by this bit: "The Internet is borderless by design."
>
>  
>
> All telecommunications are designed to facilitate cross-border
> communications flows. In fact, the ITU was created in 1865 precisely to
> facilitate the cross-border flow of telegrams, and subsequently facilitated
> the cross-border flow of other forms of telecommunication.
>
>  
>
> While base telecommunication protocols (e.g. TCP/IP) are indeed designed to
> be borderless, the physical facilities that implement the protocols, and
> that provide services based on the protocols, are subject to national law,
> for example criminal law, copyright law, etc. (Recall that offline law
> applies equally online.)
>
>  
>
> In addition, there may be telecommunications-specific regulation.
> Traditionally, those were heavy, and, in many jurisdictions, provided that
> only state-owned or authorized monopolies could provide certain services.
>
>  
>
> That ended in the 1980's, with the introduction of liberalization and
> privatization.  But certain specific laws still exist. For example, in the
> US, CDA 230 creates a liability regime for certain Internet services that is
> specific to the Internet.
>
>  
>
> Names and addresses were traditionally assigned on a national basis, and
> this was carried over in the domain name system in the form of the ccTLDs.
> However, in keeping with the tenets of privatization, most ccTLDs are not
> state-owned, and in keeping with the tenets of deregulation, many ccTLDs are
> not regulated.
>
>  
>
> IP addresses are handled differently: they are assigned on a regional basis.
>
>  
>
> And Internet routing is not based on national borders. 
>
>  
>
> Here is a more detailed discussion:
>
>  
>
>   http://www.apig.ch/Internet%203-characteristics.doc 
>
>  
>
> But the most important difference regarding the Internet is its funding
> model for many services: monetization of personal data through targeted
> advertising. This has had some unwanted side-effects, see for example:
>
>  
>
> http://boundary2.org/2015/04/08/the-internet-vs-democracy/ 
>
>  
>
>  
> http://www.boundary2.org/2018/02/richard-hill-knots-of-statelike-power-revie
> w-of-harcourt-exposed-desire-and-disobedience-in-the-digital-age/ 
>
>  
>
>  
> http://www.boundary2.org/2018/10/richard-hill-too-big-to-be-review-of-wu-the
> -curse-of-bigness-antitrust-in-the-new-gilded-age/ 
>
>  
>
>  
> http://www.boundary2.org/2021/04/richard-hill-the-curse-of-concentration-rev
> iew-of-cory-doctorow-how-to-destroy-surveillance-capitalism/ 
>
>  
>
> Since the Internet now underpins most aspects of our lives and economic
> activities, it seems to me inevitable that governments will evaluate whether
> they should be more involved in its governance (e.g. by enacting data
> privacy laws, and/or by enforcing anti-trust law). 
>
>  
>
> Obviously there is a risk (and not just in non-democratic states) that
> government intervention could have unwanted side-effects. So it seems to me
> that it is important to provide information to governments that will enable
> them to make sensible decisions.
>
>  
>
> Regarding the specific issue of splintering, I fear that it's not just the
> Internet that might splinter, but the world as a whole. I fear that we are
> moving to a new version of the Cold War which some of us are old enough to
> have lived through. 
>
>  
>
> Best,
>
> Richard
>
>  
>
>  
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society Chapter Portal (AMS):
> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/


-- 
christian de larrinaga 
https://firsthand.net