Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
1|Page
Summary
There is a global fight going on about who should control the internet. The United States has been a
strong supporter of a totally free and open internet that has no government involvement or control.
Other countries, led by China and Russia, think that the government should be able to control the
internet.
The U.S. is losing the fight globally now because no one trusts us. They think our government just
uses access to the internet to spy on people and secretly control it. Think about foreign governments
reactions to the revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies were spying on other heads of state. So,
other countries are making moves to nationalize their internets. The plan improves US credibility
and allows us to stop other countries from nationalizing the internet.
What does control of the internet mean? The Chinese government has a block on certain websites.
The Russian government wants to own the cables and networks that provide access to the internet.
The Brazilian government wants to own the hard drives and servers where things are stored.
Essentially, they want to treat the internet like it is electricity or water regulated heavily by the
government. The U.S. prefers that it be totally unregulated and free.
The disadvantage argues that nationalizing the Internet is a good thing. This disadvantage claims
that the democratization advantages we would receive as a human race from a free and open internet
are actually outweighed by long-term cyber-terrorism concerns. Government control prevents cyberattacks from happening and allows each country to control their own systems. So, a person in China
couldnt attack the U.S. system without the U.S. knowing who was responsible because of strict
government controls and vice versa no one in the US could hack into a Russian system.
How does nationalized internet solve cyber-terrorism? If the Russian government controls the access
point for all internet access in the country then it is able to monitor and control that internet access. It
would be harder, if not impossible, for a single hacker or group of hackers to attack a website, power
plant, financial institution, or other group from outside of Russia since it would be detectible. The
current system is an open free-for-all that makes it more difficult to control who is looking into what
anywhere in the world.
Finally, everyone receiving access to the Internet is probably a good thing for the world overall. The
central clash point for this disadvantage is over the trade-off between open access for all and security.
2|Page
Glossary
Balkanize to separate into groups or categories. In this instance, it refers to breaking the internet
up into country-by-country sections. It is a common phrase used to describe the breaking up of
something. It is a historical reference to the Balkans region of the world. Several countries were
broken up from the larger Soviet Union. It is usually used by people to refer to breaking the internet
up into groups. Each country would control their own internet services and access.
Cyber A prefix used to describe anything that happens online. A Cyber crime would be a crime that
is done online. Cyber Gambling would be gambling done online. If you read it, it is talking about the
internet.
Cyber-terror committing an act of terror online. Any attack on a government website, an attempt to
gain access to a power plant, or to just generally be violent and destructive is considered cyber-terror.
The phrase is very broad as the Department of Defense says they experience 60,000 or more cyberterror attempts a day.
Cyberwar use of an attack on someones internet access or services during a time of war. Estonia
is usually the example. During an invasion, Russia hacked into the Estonians internets and shut
them down. This act is often called cyberwar. There are also instances of people saying cyberwar
to reference fighting and hacking that is going on between countries.
DOD Department of Defense the cabinet of the United States that is in charge of the military
branches and answers to the President. Referenced in a few cards.
ICANN the group that is in charge of maintaining all domain names on the internet. Established by
the U.S., ICANN is a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with participants from all over the world
dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable
https://www.icann.org/
ITU - International Telecommunication Union the United Nations specialized agency for information
and communication technologies. It is the group that would be given control over the internet
internationally http://www.itu.int/en/Pages/default.aspx
Multi-stakeholder the ICANN and US supported model for the internet. Every group can control
and contribute to the internet without government interference. The idea is that Internet governance
should mimic the structure of the Internet itself- borderless and open to all.
Nationalize when the government takes over something it is nationalized. Health care literature will
often reference nationalizing health care. This disadvantage will use it to discuss the internet. When
the government regulates, controls, and is in charge of something it is said to be nationalized.
Partitioned separated into parts. When a room is partitioned it is divided into parts. If the internet
were nationalized it would be partitioned between countries.
3|Page
4|Page
5|Page
6|Page
7|Page
[___] The plan draws a sharp distinction between domestic and national security surveillance.
This is key to the US Internet Freedom agendas credibility.
Fontaine, President of the Center for a New American Security, 2014
(foreign policy advisor to Senator John McCain for more than five years; Worked at the State
Department, the National Security Council and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; was
associate director for near Eastern affairs at the National Security Council; B.A. in International
Relations from Tulan University (Richard, Bringing Liberty Online; Reenergizing the Internet Freedom
Agenda in a Post-Snowden Era, Center for a New American Security, September 18, 2014,
http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNAS_BringingLibertyOnline_Fontaine.pdf)
The 2013 revelations of mass surveillance by the U.S. government transformed the global debate
about Internet freedom. Where once Washington routinely chided foreign governments and their
corporate collaborators for engaging in online censorship, monitoring and other forms of Internet
repression, the tables have turned. Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA)
contractor, leaked thousands of documents revealing Americas most secret electronic surveillance
programs, unleashing a tidal wave of criticism and charges of hypocrisy, many directed at some of the
very U.S. officials who have championed online freedom. Americas Internet freedom agenda the
effort to preserve and extend the free flow of information online hangs in the balance.1 Already a
contested space, the Internet after the Snowden revelations has become even more politically
charged, with deep international divisions about its governance and heated battles over its use as a
tool of political change. With 2.8 billion Internet users today, and several billion more expected over
the next decade, the contest over online freedom grows more important by the day.2 As an evergreater proportion of human activity is mediated through Internet-based technologies, the extent of
online rights and restrictions takes on an increasingly vital role in political, economic and social life.3
Despite the many complications arising from the Snowden disclosures, America still needs a
comprehensive Internet freedom strategy, one that tilts the balance in favor of those who would use
the Internet to advance tolerance and free expression, and away from those who would employ it for
repression or violence.4 It will need to pursue this strategy while drawing a sharp distinction between
surveillance for national security purposes (in which all governments engage) and monitoring as a
means of political repression (which democracies oppose). This is not an easy task, but it is an
important one. More than a year after the first Snowden revelations emerged, now is the time to
reenergize the Internet freedom agenda.
8|Page
9|Page
[___] Internet freedom wrecks democracy and information overload prevents stable
transitions.
Morozov, 2012
(Contributing editor at The New Republic and author of two books ; has written for The New York
Times, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, London Review of Books, Times
Literary Supplement (Evgeny, The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom, p. 271)
It may be that what we gain in the ability to network and communicate, we lose in the inevitable
empowerment of angry online mobs, who are well-trained to throw data grenades at their victims.
This may be an acceptable consequence of promoting Internet freedom, but wed better plan ahead
and think of ways in which we can protect the victims. Its irresponsible to put peoples lives on the
line while hoping we can deal at some later point with the consequences of opening up all the
networks and databases. That the excess of data can pose a danger to freedom and democracy as
significant as (if not more significant than) the lack of data has mostly been lost on those cheerleading
for Internet freedom. This is hardly surprising, for this may not be such an acute problem in liberal
democracies, where the dominant pluralist ideology, growing multiculturalism, and a strong rule of law
mitigate the consequences of the data deluge. But most authoritarian or even transitional states do
not have that luxury. Hoping that simply opening up all the networks and uploading all the documents
would make a transition to democracy easier or more likely is just an illusion. If the sad experience of
the 1990s has taught us anything, its that successful transitions require a strong state and a relatively
orderly public life. The Internet, so far, has posed a major threat to both.
11 | P a g e
12 | P a g e
13 | P a g e