24
Ronald Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski
researchers) has over time become the infrastructure for all of society itself. Not surprisingly, the rules of the game, once considered sacred by an inner sanctum of technologists, are now up for grabs for all of global society.
It has become widely acceptable to refer to cyberspace as a “ commons. ” But it is,
in fact, a rather curious commons because it is one that is parceled up, owned and
operated by a multitude of private-sector actors. Not surprisingly, part of cyberspace
contestation involves the spotlighting of the conditions by which these companies
mediate our experiences with it, an issue that has become more complex as the range
of devices connecting to each other through common protocols expands. Consider,
for example, debates over intermediary liability: whether private actors that control
Internet services should be held responsible for the content that passes through their
networks.
7 In the past, such debates centered mostly on one type of actor: ISPs or
telecommunications carriers. Today, questions of intermediary liability are relevant to
a wide range of companies and services, from cloud computing platforms, to online
hosting companies, mobile phone devices, and online forums and video-sharing sites.
As these market-based actors create, constitute, and control the spaces of the Internet,
their activities come under increasing scrutiny, regulatory and other pressures, and
legal oversight from a growing number of political jurisdictions. In cases like China,
for example, intermediary liability is a sine qua non of operating within that political
jurisdiction. Internet service providers and other companies are legally and otherwise
compelled to police content associated with their service offerings. Such intrusive
pressures are not surprising among authoritarian regimes. But even outside authoritarian contexts, the pressures bearing down on intermediary liability are growing, for
copyright-protection and other reasons.
8 In many democratic industrialized countries,
legislation has been proposed that puts greater burdens of liability on intermediaries
for the content they manage for a variety of reasons, from concerns over copyright
violations to antiterror and hate speech. In Italy, for example, Google executives found
themselves facing criminal charges for failing to remove a video from YouTube that
was deemed offensive by Italian prosecutors.
9 In India, laws have been passed that
hold ISPs accountable for maintaining “ public order, decency, and morality. ”
10
There has also been a major shift in the way we conduct our communications
experience, with a rapid change from fi xed to wireless-enabled mobile devices. The
number of mobile cellular subscriptions in the Asian region grew from 22.5 per 100
inhabitants in 2005 to 67.8 per 100 inhabitants in 2010.
11 The shift to mobile not
only has made connecting to cyberspace more convenient, but also has increased the
number and type of Internet-connected devices and thus points of potential control,
resistance, and contestation. Mobile technologies have been behind some of the most
spectacular examples of social mobilization, as demonstrated by SMS-enabled mass
protests in Iran, Egypt, and elsewhere. With greater mobility and constant one-to-one
connectivity it may seem intuitive to think that we are untethered and thus
Ronald Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski
researchers) has over time become the infrastructure for all of society itself. Not surprisingly, the rules of the game, once considered sacred by an inner sanctum of technologists, are now up for grabs for all of global society.
It has become widely acceptable to refer to cyberspace as a “ commons. ” But it is,
in fact, a rather curious commons because it is one that is parceled up, owned and
operated by a multitude of private-sector actors. Not surprisingly, part of cyberspace
contestation involves the spotlighting of the conditions by which these companies
mediate our experiences with it, an issue that has become more complex as the range
of devices connecting to each other through common protocols expands. Consider,
for example, debates over intermediary liability: whether private actors that control
Internet services should be held responsible for the content that passes through their
networks.
7 In the past, such debates centered mostly on one type of actor: ISPs or
telecommunications carriers. Today, questions of intermediary liability are relevant to
a wide range of companies and services, from cloud computing platforms, to online
hosting companies, mobile phone devices, and online forums and video-sharing sites.
As these market-based actors create, constitute, and control the spaces of the Internet,
their activities come under increasing scrutiny, regulatory and other pressures, and
legal oversight from a growing number of political jurisdictions. In cases like China,
for example, intermediary liability is a sine qua non of operating within that political
jurisdiction. Internet service providers and other companies are legally and otherwise
compelled to police content associated with their service offerings. Such intrusive
pressures are not surprising among authoritarian regimes. But even outside authoritarian contexts, the pressures bearing down on intermediary liability are growing, for
copyright-protection and other reasons.
8 In many democratic industrialized countries,
legislation has been proposed that puts greater burdens of liability on intermediaries
for the content they manage for a variety of reasons, from concerns over copyright
violations to antiterror and hate speech. In Italy, for example, Google executives found
themselves facing criminal charges for failing to remove a video from YouTube that
was deemed offensive by Italian prosecutors.
9 In India, laws have been passed that
hold ISPs accountable for maintaining “ public order, decency, and morality. ”
10
There has also been a major shift in the way we conduct our communications
experience, with a rapid change from fi xed to wireless-enabled mobile devices. The
number of mobile cellular subscriptions in the Asian region grew from 22.5 per 100
inhabitants in 2005 to 67.8 per 100 inhabitants in 2010.
11 The shift to mobile not
only has made connecting to cyberspace more convenient, but also has increased the
number and type of Internet-connected devices and thus points of potential control,
resistance, and contestation. Mobile technologies have been behind some of the most
spectacular examples of social mobilization, as demonstrated by SMS-enabled mass
protests in Iran, Egypt, and elsewhere. With greater mobility and constant one-to-one
connectivity it may seem intuitive to think that we are untethered and thus