Concerns about Imposing Restrictions on the Internet
Even if one agrees with the strong form of the state sovereignty argument and sets aside
objections based on international laws and norms, one might still contend that these filtering
regimes are unwise from a public policy vantage point. Internet censorship and surveillance,
the technologist might argue, violate the so-called end-to-end principle of network design and
therefore risk stunting the future growth of the network and the innovation that might derive
from it. This argument is typically grounded in adherence to the end-to-end principle. The
end-to-end principle stands for the proposition that the ‘‘intelligence’’ in the network should
not be placed in the middle of the network, but rather at the end-points. Technologists often
chalk up the extraordinarily rapid growth of Internet throughout the world to this simple idea.
By imposing control in the middle of the network—say, at the ‘‘Great Firewall’’ that surrounds
China, proxy servers in Iran, or ISPs in dozens of states around the world—rather than at the
user level, the censors are stymieing the further growth of the network.
The importance of ‘‘generative’’ information platforms also counsels against unwarranted
state intrusion into the online environment.
32 Rather than hewing to the original design of the
network, the decision-maker should favor those technical decisions that enable acts of innovation on top of the existing layers in the ecosystem—including not just the middle of the network, but also at the edges. The kinds of individual creativity made possible by the personal
computer (PC), including self-expression in the form of the creation of user-generated content,
might be thwarted by the presence of a censorship and surveillance regime. The on-again,
off-again blockage of the user-generated encyclopedia, Wikipedia, makes this case clearly.
The sporadic use of filtering regimes to block the use of Voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP),
often to protect the monopoly in voice communications of a local incumbent, also stands for
this proposition.
These filtering regimes, along with surveillance practices that often go hand in hand with
them, pose a danger in terms of having an adverse impact on the emergence of democracies
around the world. The Internet has an increasing amount to do with the shape that democracies are taking in many developing states. As Ronald Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski argue in
chapter 6 of this book, activists make use of the Internet in ways that are having a substantial
impact on their societies.
The Internet is a potential force for democracy by increasing means of citizen participation
in the regimes in which they live. The Internet is increasingly a way to let sunlight fall upon the
actions of those in power—and providing an effective disinfectant in the process. The Internet
can give a megaphone to activists and to dissidents who can make their case to the public,
either on the record or anonymously or pseudonymously. The Internet can help make new networks, within and across cultures, can be an important productivity tool for otherwise underfunded activists, and can foster the development of new communities built around ideas.
The Internet can open the information environment to voices other than the organs of the state
that have traditionally had a monopoly on the broadcast of important stories and facts, which
50
Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey
Even if one agrees with the strong form of the state sovereignty argument and sets aside
objections based on international laws and norms, one might still contend that these filtering
regimes are unwise from a public policy vantage point. Internet censorship and surveillance,
the technologist might argue, violate the so-called end-to-end principle of network design and
therefore risk stunting the future growth of the network and the innovation that might derive
from it. This argument is typically grounded in adherence to the end-to-end principle. The
end-to-end principle stands for the proposition that the ‘‘intelligence’’ in the network should
not be placed in the middle of the network, but rather at the end-points. Technologists often
chalk up the extraordinarily rapid growth of Internet throughout the world to this simple idea.
By imposing control in the middle of the network—say, at the ‘‘Great Firewall’’ that surrounds
China, proxy servers in Iran, or ISPs in dozens of states around the world—rather than at the
user level, the censors are stymieing the further growth of the network.
The importance of ‘‘generative’’ information platforms also counsels against unwarranted
state intrusion into the online environment.
32 Rather than hewing to the original design of the
network, the decision-maker should favor those technical decisions that enable acts of innovation on top of the existing layers in the ecosystem—including not just the middle of the network, but also at the edges. The kinds of individual creativity made possible by the personal
computer (PC), including self-expression in the form of the creation of user-generated content,
might be thwarted by the presence of a censorship and surveillance regime. The on-again,
off-again blockage of the user-generated encyclopedia, Wikipedia, makes this case clearly.
The sporadic use of filtering regimes to block the use of Voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP),
often to protect the monopoly in voice communications of a local incumbent, also stands for
this proposition.
These filtering regimes, along with surveillance practices that often go hand in hand with
them, pose a danger in terms of having an adverse impact on the emergence of democracies
around the world. The Internet has an increasing amount to do with the shape that democracies are taking in many developing states. As Ronald Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski argue in
chapter 6 of this book, activists make use of the Internet in ways that are having a substantial
impact on their societies.
The Internet is a potential force for democracy by increasing means of citizen participation
in the regimes in which they live. The Internet is increasingly a way to let sunlight fall upon the
actions of those in power—and providing an effective disinfectant in the process. The Internet
can give a megaphone to activists and to dissidents who can make their case to the public,
either on the record or anonymously or pseudonymously. The Internet can help make new networks, within and across cultures, can be an important productivity tool for otherwise underfunded activists, and can foster the development of new communities built around ideas.
The Internet can open the information environment to voices other than the organs of the state
that have traditionally had a monopoly on the broadcast of important stories and facts, which
50
Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey