6
Good for Liberty, Bad for Security? Global Civil
Society and the Securitization of the Internet
Ronald Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski
Introduction
The spectacular rise and spread of NGOs and other civil society actors over the past two decades is attributable in part to the emergence and rapid spread of the Internet, which has
made networking among like-minded individuals and groups possible on a global scale. Powerful search technologies like Google, ‘‘me-media’’ tools such as blogs and MySpaces, and
communicative systems like Skype make it easy to form virtual communities, mobilize support, and effect political change. Widespread access to inexpensive digital cameras, editing
systems, and distributional channels allows anyone with desire and a few hundred dollars to
become a potential Spielberg or Riefenstahl. Causes of all shapes and sizes seek and find
moral and financial support on a global basis and, consequently, local politics now plays itself
out on a planetary scale.
But the technological explosion of global civil society has not emerged without unintended
and even negative consequences, particularly for nondemocratic and authoritarian states. The
Internet has raised new, nimble, and distributed challenges to these regimes, manifest in vigorous opposition movements, mass protests, and in some cases even revolutionary changes
to long-established political authority. Even among democratic states, the explosion of global
civil society has presented serious challenges, though of a slightly different nature. Just as
progressive and social justice groups have made use of the Internet to advance global norms,
so too have a wide variety of resistance networks, militant groups, extremists, criminal organizations, and terrorists. Whereas once the promotion of new information communications
technologies (ICTs) was widely considered benign public policy, today states of all stripes
have been pressed to find ways to limit and control them as a way to check their unintended
and perceived negative public policy and national security consequences.
In this chapter we examine the ways in which states have targeted the Internet and have
begun to assert their power in cyberspace as a means to control and limit global civil society.
While global civil society is used often and widely today, there is no consensus as to its meaning or significance, particularly among social scientists.
1 Typically, the concept is used to
describe those collective associations that citizens have formed to influence public policy,
Good for Liberty, Bad for Security? Global Civil
Society and the Securitization of the Internet
Ronald Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski
Introduction
The spectacular rise and spread of NGOs and other civil society actors over the past two decades is attributable in part to the emergence and rapid spread of the Internet, which has
made networking among like-minded individuals and groups possible on a global scale. Powerful search technologies like Google, ‘‘me-media’’ tools such as blogs and MySpaces, and
communicative systems like Skype make it easy to form virtual communities, mobilize support, and effect political change. Widespread access to inexpensive digital cameras, editing
systems, and distributional channels allows anyone with desire and a few hundred dollars to
become a potential Spielberg or Riefenstahl. Causes of all shapes and sizes seek and find
moral and financial support on a global basis and, consequently, local politics now plays itself
out on a planetary scale.
But the technological explosion of global civil society has not emerged without unintended
and even negative consequences, particularly for nondemocratic and authoritarian states. The
Internet has raised new, nimble, and distributed challenges to these regimes, manifest in vigorous opposition movements, mass protests, and in some cases even revolutionary changes
to long-established political authority. Even among democratic states, the explosion of global
civil society has presented serious challenges, though of a slightly different nature. Just as
progressive and social justice groups have made use of the Internet to advance global norms,
so too have a wide variety of resistance networks, militant groups, extremists, criminal organizations, and terrorists. Whereas once the promotion of new information communications
technologies (ICTs) was widely considered benign public policy, today states of all stripes
have been pressed to find ways to limit and control them as a way to check their unintended
and perceived negative public policy and national security consequences.
In this chapter we examine the ways in which states have targeted the Internet and have
begun to assert their power in cyberspace as a means to control and limit global civil society.
While global civil society is used often and widely today, there is no consensus as to its meaning or significance, particularly among social scientists.
1 Typically, the concept is used to
describe those collective associations that citizens have formed to influence public policy,