The US is spearheading a campaign to ensure that all the rights an individual has in the real world should hold too in the virtual world, writes KARLIN LILLINGTON
WHEN IT COMES to the internet, Thomas O Melia takes the same stance as his boss: the internet, he says, is too important for its management to be left to the control of individual governments.
A view many on the net would support, of course. But when your boss is US secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, and you strongly make such statements at diplomatic events such as the recent Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe conference in Dublin, the message has a particular heft and is heard internationally.
Melia, whose mouthful of an official title is deputy assistant secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, US Department of State, is leading an ongoing US effort to get the 56 member states of the OSCE to agree to a statement recognising that all the rights an individual has in the real world should hold too in the virtual world.
This connects directly to the notion that governments should not have the right to micro-manage the net by shutting off citizen access or trying to limit what citizens may say using various internet-reliant communication technologies.
Statement documents issued by the OSCE have to be agreed by full consensus, making it tortuous to phrase them in such a way that they get full buy-in. Already, one attempt has failed to pass the US-sponsored OSCE document on online rights.
In an interview on his Dublin visit, Melia notes that while theoretically, general human and freedom of speech rights already do pertain online, many states still will not officially acknowledge this, leaving a grey area in which some restrict or close down online expression by humans rights activists and the media.
The US has formally reintroduced their proposal, and is looking for co-sponsors. The US position is such a stance doesn’t change people’s rights, but reaffirms them in an online context.
“This is where the consensus hurdle exists,” notes Melia. “We didn’t achieve in Vilnius. And some EU countries didn’t join in, that you think would have.”
He said he feels that it’s time for a reconsideration of the proposal, especially as the Irish government, which currently holds the chair of the OSCE, chose internet freedom as the theme for its conference.
The conference – an Irish idea to change the usual closed-door, statement-filled meeting structure of OSCE events – was full of feisty exchanges between panelists, and panelists and audience, in some cases with online activists publicly challenging their own governments.
Such debates, and the ability to air differences and concerns between governments at meetings, is central to the importance of the OSCE, he says.
“What happens in each member state is of interest to all of us. The OSCE represents a hybrid – of noninterference in sovereign states, and taking an interest in the treatment of people in sovereign states. In other words, it’s okay for us to talk about those issues. This document would further modernise and update in the 21st century, that these fundamental freedoms are everybody’s business – and for that matter, the business of civil liberties activists in our own country.”
Some of the limitations of the existing agreement and its failure to specifically mention internet freedoms were demonstrated during the conference, when one panelist, OSCE representative on freedom of the media, Dunja Mijatovic, came under criticism from some members.
They clearly felt that in addressing online freedom of speech, she was going beyond what she has a right to speak on at the conference, Melia said.
Some would argue that many of the countries supporting online freedom also defend a right to restrict or control it under certain circumstances – that freedom of speech isn’t a blanket freedom.
Melia acknowledges this, but says such slippery issues are part of societal debate generally.
“All the same kinds of interesting policy dilemmas and legislative choices and clashes, where enduring principles are sure to collide – all that also exists online. For example, saying you’re pro-freedom of speech doesn’t mean you agree with hate speech.”
He also says the US isn’t arguing that individual countries should have to give up their own general legislative frameworks. “Whatever it is in your country should apply online as well as off-line. There shouldn’t be new policies. If you can’t go shutting down the printing press, then you shouldn’t be able to shut down online communications.”
During the conference, some criticised the US for its support for the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), which has met with coordinated opposition internationally – including yesterday at the European Parliament – because many activists see as anti-internet freedom.
Melia defends his country’s stance. “It’s consistent with our view of online versus off-line realities. It’s a crime to steal things. To go online and steal things – it’s still the same crime. Similarly, your right to read a paper exists in the same way – you have the same right of access to information whether it’s online or via the printing press.”
But, as one panel discussed, do judges internationally have adequate knowledge of technologies and their capability for surveillance, to be relied upon to adjudicate in cases likely to arise out of the provisions of ACTA?
“Some technical issues arise, but we don’t think the principles change. Also, right now it’s a proposal, not an edict. I think there’s a certain degree of confusion about what ACTA is, and proposes to do.”
Many seem to argue against it on the basis of elements from earlier drafts, he argues. “I think we need to look at the current draft, and go from there.”
One issue raised at the conference, particularly in reference to the Arab Spring and ongoing democracy struggles, was whether the US and other countries should or would place restrictions on the ability of their companies to sell technologies that enable forms of citizen and activist surveillance, to countries that are recognised as oppressive.
Would the US move in this direction, given that the majority of such companies are US-based?
“These are live debates, ongoing right now,” Melia says. “A democratic and arguably, honourable compromise will be arrived at, I think. Secretary Clinton feels a compromise should be arrived at. But, we also don’t want to restrict businesses – we’re pro-free-trade.
“When we identify a specific situation, we will work on a legislative process to engage our allies – for example on Iran and oil imports. There is a lawful process for this.
“Finding the right balance between free trade and engagement with non-democratic regimes is an ongoing process. But we want to keep technologies that enable oppression, out of dictators’ hands.”
