Madrid: Terrorism, the Internet and Democracy

UPDATED

From the International Summit on Democracy, Security and Terrorism in Madrid, my working group on terrorism and the Internet has come up with what amounts to a set of principles and suggestions. I'll post them below.

First, a special word of thanks to Martín Varsavsky, who spearheaded this conference and had a special interest in this working group, and to the group's moderators, Joi Ito and Marko Ahtissari. Martín is a remarkable man, a fabulously successful entrepreneur with a powerful sense of social responsibility and justice. Our group was a bit out of place, as Ethan Zuckerman notes (see Ethan's near-transcript if you're interested in the nitty-gritty; David Weinberger also took excellent notes), but I hope we got something useful done.

The working group also included John Perry Barlow, John Gage, Chris Goggans, Pekka Himanen, David Isenberg, Rebecca MacKinnon, Andrew McLaughlin, Desiree Miloshevic, Jeff Moss, Ejovi Nuwere, Kazuhisa Ogawa, Marc Rotenberg, David Smith, Wendy Seltzer, Gohsuke Takama, Noriko Takiguchi and Paul Vixie. Several folks came in during the open part of the session and contributed their thoughts, too.

In a painful irony, and a poor decision, the conference organizers (over Martín's objections) kept the accredited media away from the sessions, penning them off in their own part of the building. I hope the blogging helped them a bit.

Keep in mind that this is a draft, the result of several days of work, not the Final Word. You can join this conversation more directly -- you can help edit the document to make it better -- by visiting the Global Voices wiki at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

The Infrastructure of Democracy
Strengthening the Open Internet for a Safer World
March 11, 2005

I. The Internet is a foundation of democratic society in the 21st century, because the core values of the Internet and democracy are so closely aligned.

1. The Internet is fundamentally about openness, participation, and freedom of expression for all -- increasing the diversity and reach of information and ideas.
2. The Internet allows people to communicate and collaborate across borders and belief systems.
3. The Internet unites families and cultures in diaspora; it connects people, helping them to form civil societies.
4. The Internet can foster economic development by connecting people to information and markets.
5. The Internet introduces new ideas and views to those who may be isolated and prone to political violence.
6. The Internet is neither above nor below the law. The same legal principles that apply in the physical world also apply to human activities conducted over the Internet.

II. Decentralized systems -- the power of many -- can combat decentralized foes.

1. Terrorist networks are highly decentralized and distributed. A centralized effort by itself cannot effectively fight terrorism.
2. Terrorism is everyone's issue. The internet connects everyone. A connected citizenry is the best defense against terrorist propaganda.
3. As we saw in the aftermath of the March 11 bombing, response was spontaneous and rapid because the citizens were able to use the Internet to organize themselves.
4. As we are seeing in the distributed world of weblogs and other kinds of citizen media, truth emerges best in open conversation among people with divergent views.

III. The best response to abuses of openness is more openness.

1. Open, transparent environments are more secure and more stable than closed, opaque ones.
2. While Internet services can be interrupted, the Internet as a global system is ultimately resilient to attacks, even sophisticated and widely distributed ones.
3. The connectedness of the Internet – people talking with people – counters the divisiveness terrorists are trying to create.
4. The openness of the Internet may be exploited by terrorists, but as with democratic governments, openness minimizes the likelihood of terrorist acts and enables effective responses to terrorism.

IV. Well-meaning regulation of the Internet in established democracies could threaten the development of emerging democracies.

1. Terrorism cannot destroy the internet, but over-zealous legislation in response to terrorism could. Governments should consider mandating changes to core Internet functionality only with extraordinary caution.
2. Some government initiatives that look reasonable in fact violate the basic principles that have made the Internet a success.
3. For example, several interests have called for an end to anonymity. This would be highly unlikely to stop determined terrorists, but it would have a chilling effect on political activity and thereby reduce freedom and transparency. Limiting anonymity would have a cascading series of unintended results that would hurt freedom of expression, especially in countries seeking transition to democratic rule.

V. In conclusion we urge those gathered here in Madrid to:

1. Embrace the open Internet as a foundation of 21st Century democracy, and a critical tool in the fight against terrorism.
2. Recognizing the Internet's value as a critical communications infrastructure, invest to strengthen it against attacks and recover quickly from damage.
3. Work to spread access more evenly, aggressively addressing the Digital Divide, and to provide Internet access for all.
4. To protect free speech and association, endorse the availability of anonymous communications for all.
5. Resist attempts at international governance of the Internet: It can introduce processes that have unintended effects and violate the bottom-up democratic nature of the Net.

Comments

[LR]

Excellent work, Dan, I thank you and applaud you for being part of the creation of a strong and reasonable foundation for policy pertaining to the net.

One top-level item that will draw questions is the mention of how preserving anonymity is related to promoting transparency. I can imagine some people taking the position that eliminating anonymity would increase transparency, so I'd recommend some elaboration on the relationship of these elements.

Thanks again.

[Cory Doctorow]

I'm with you all the way on this, except this, "Governments should consider mandating changes to core Internet functionality only with extraordinary caution." Governments shouldn't mandate changes to core Internet functionality, period, in my view.

[Jim Griffin]

I'm not sure I understand why "The same legal principles that apply in the physical world also apply to human activities conducted over the Internet."

In the main, I suppose I understand what this means, but it conjures all manner of exception, especially as related to the movement of intellectual property.

And I definitely lose track of what this means when I consider the truly global nature of the net and the geographic territoriality of physical world law. Are we really agreeing that any country ought be able to assert legal authority over Internet activities that cross its borders (real world standard)?

We've seen this before, and it seems it simply doesn't work beyond creating a lowest common denominator of legal standard, permitting only that which is legal everywhere and making prohibitive that which is illegal anywhere.

[Pablo Martínez-Almeida]

As we saw in the aftermath of the March 11 bombing, response was spontaneous and rapid because the citizens were able to use the Internet to organize themselves.

I would rather say:
As we saw in the aftermath of the March 11 bombing, response was rapid because the citizens were able to use the Internet to organize themselves.

Here in Spain there is great controversy about the spontaneity of demonstrations.

[Judy Breck]

These principles encapsulate better than anything I have yet seen how global individual liberty will emerge. Great stuff! The mechanism, for example, of more openness countering abuse of openness is withering to tyranny. Quickening the internet access for all movement is a key way to speed these good things and I hope the committee will give that strong emphasis.

[/pd]

The Madrid Group needs to bring about an RFC for ALL Governments with regard to the internet, infrastructire managment and Joint Intelligence Shareing. Governements should net-net themselves first and the citizen will dictact that. I agree, wit Dr.Cory- TCP/IP stacks should never be violated in the name of Terrorism. Echelon, carnivore and the TigerBox systems did exactly that sometime ago. Technologies were being abused by Technocrats and Bueracrats !

[Montse]

Actually, there were not spontaneous. You have a paper about it at: http://www.unav.es/fcom/cicom/pdf/g2.movilizadores/Sara%20Lopez.pdf
written by one of the people that organized the movilization in the streets against the government. In Spanish.
The organization came through the antiglobalization groups as Indymedia and Nodo50. Of course it had a response from the people because there was a great feeling of manipulation. More, maybe, from the media that backed the Popular Party Government than from the Government itself.

[Octavio Isaac Rojas Orduña]

I agree with the word "spontaneous" because people decided to attend to the demonstration, resend SMS, blog about it...

From my point of view, it is not credible that some groups forced hundreds or even thousands to do what they did. They did what they did because they wanted it to do it.

[Juan Varela]

The restrictions to the journalist to access to the Summit are a terrible mistake. There is not much attention in the international press about the contents and the results of the work groups. In the Spanish press, the problem is the same.
It is a good idea to invit bloggers, but if you promote an open society, open politics and a citizen response to terrorism, you need to disseminate more information for the people.
And, by now, only mass media can spread the contents of the summit to the general public.
Journalist in Spain are very angry about this. The result is a lot of traditional messages from politicians and poor information about experts, citizen´s debate and new ideas about terrorism.
You can see a critic of this politic in my blog.

About spontaneity in the March 13rd 2004 demonstrations, it was the first and big political smart mobs of the modern spanish history. Several media, specially radio Cadena Ser, informed about demonstrations, but it was news, they are obligated for their journalistic mission.
Others, with more politic vision, masked the movement.
But SMS (specially) and webs were the promoters. More here, a year later.

[Alex]

Great post, thanks

[Jo]

Doesn't anonymity promote the presence of "trolls" like the one you kept kicking off your SJ Mercury News blog?

[maty]

Hi everybody.

Octatio Rojas said:

From my point of view, it is not credible that some groups forced hundreds or even thousands to do what they did. They did what they did because they wanted it to do it.
What do you thing about this?

http://nauscopio.coolfreepages.com/Foros_Lib_Expr/quien_ha_sido/Indymedi.png
http://nauscopio.coolfreepages.com/Foros_Lib_Expr/quien_ha_sido/rebelion.png

11M, 12M, 13M en el extinto FORO LIBERTAD DE EXPRESION

MANIPULACION DESPRECIABLE: EL PAIS, LA SER, CANAL PLUS.
¿Quién ha sido?
¿Qué pasará ahora? España tras el terror

[maty]

Saturday, I will write a large article about these days, especially about 13-M (and the protest article front LSSI-ce http://nauscopio.coolfreepages.com/lssice_dia12/otras_portadas_alternativas.htm)

[Pablo Martínez-Almeida]

From my point of view, because of the uncertainty and controversy, you are making a political point when stating the spontaneity of demonstrations.

[maty]

Sorry,

http://translate.google.com/translate...index_articulos.htm#11M
http://translate.google.com/translate...lssice_dia12/otras_portadas_alternativas.htm

[Pablo Martínez-Almeida]

Maty, first couple of links in your first comment don't work (at least for me).

[diego sobol]

It's quite naive to assume that ANY technology (and Internet IS technology) carries with it a set of values. Values are interiors, they belong to your awareness not to the T-3 connection you just had installed. Internet "connects families and cultures"??? Yeah, but it also connects white supremacy group, emerging like mushrooms now, mostly thanks to the new tech-infrastructure, namely - internet. Internet CAN do a lot good, when intentions are positive and constructive for a wide circle of people, but intentions depend on one's moral stage of development and that is not a matter of technological improvement as such. Nazis had great technology too. Atom bomb is superb technology too. Finally, the best response to abuses of openness is not always more openness. You don't give full rights to your little child, but you help him or her grow into responsibilities so he or she can take care of self and significant others, so that the circle of significant others can grow and expand. Then, but only then, is unrestricted openness beneficial. Until, keep your priorities clear: a balance of rights and duties, a balance of freedom and safety. Egalitarian pluralism simply doesn't work as a pragmatic strategy, unless EVERYONE involved is a universally caring person. And that you don't get from an ISP.

[John]

The internet can be viewed in different ways. Technically, it is just the large network of servers, switches, routers and bacbones across the globe. However, it is also a place where people communicate and trade information. The government should never be able to take away the openesss that exists here as they have in so many other places. Gratis (the people behind free ipods) now offer free LCD monitors and flat screen TVs: http://freeflatscreens.iceglow.com/ Just signup and try a trial! http://freeflatscreens.iceglow.com/ If you need proof:
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,64614,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3683524.stm
GMAIL invites to EVERYONE that signups and trys a trial!

[sbw]

Waters' First Law: A good idea can come from anywhere.

Corollary: A bad idea can come from anywhere.

The former is why the permanent process of peaceful change, such as in democracy, is valuable. The latter is why community is essential.

[Dan Gillmor]

Excellent comments, all --

One quick response before I catch a plane to London:

Diego, I will suggest that we rephrase the top point to say that the architecture of the Internet and values of democracy are closely aligned.

[Kirk House]

Great post. I'm glad you mentioned the digital divide. There is an article at the Economist which shows a fundamental lack of understanding about the Internet. "And the answer to that question turns out to be remarkably clear: by promoting the spread not of PCs and the internet, but of mobile phones." I guess this guy doesn't realize that VOIP uses the Internet and that cheap SIP phones are probably the best fit for the digital divide. Wireless Internet and mobile phones, two birds, one stone.

A quote from the Wikipedia SIP entry:
"As envisioned by its originators, SIP's peer-to-peer nature does not enable network provided services. For example, the network can not easily support legal interception of calls (referred to in the United States by the law governing wiretaps, CALEA)."
I've heard a lot of government officials are starting to read blogs, I hope they see your post.

[Octavio Isaac Rojas Orduña]

I haven't had the chance to take a look at nauscopio... but I believe it is an ideology thing.

PSOE didn't have that power then, so PP won't have it in the future.

This is a free society, and free people do whatever they want.

I will write about it in my blog

[Owen]

I've been reluctant to comment because I have only negatives to contribute...not that the words and concepts are bad, just that they betray a charming and rather naive confidence in the power of internet technology to overcome the power of intertia, fear, government structures, militarism, wealth and the myriad other factors that work in favor of continuing totalitarianism.

Communication between many people across the continents is great for getting ideas and facts disseminated, but significant change requires some concentration of people in economic, geographic or political proximity who themselves are aligned, have legitimacy and power, and can array their collective powers to enable change.

Multitudes of concerned and indignant people, including elected leaders, business leaders, humanitarians and educators, have learned through communications technology about many world evils throughout the last century, but such shared knowledge has been largely unsuccessful in leading to improvements in the human condition unless a traditional power structure supported intervention...and generally that has come about because of national self-interest or political, racial, religious,or ethnic concerns or alliances, not any sort of abstruse moral concerns.

It's a sad counterpoint to the equally unjustified faith of the MacNamaras and Rumsfelds that technology can take the place of human power in winning hearts and minds, occupying territory and making lasting change happen.

[Jay Rosen]

To quote Cory, "I'm with you all the way on this." I think it is clear and totally right on each foundational stone it touches.

I worry about the freedom to link. Is it inherent enough in what we value to warrant its own item in part V?

Dan: you and colleagues did a great job putting that together.

[Kirk]

Octavio said "they betray a charming and rather naive confidence in the power of internet technology to overcome the power of intertia, fear, government structures, militarism, wealth and the myriad other factors that work in favor of continuing totalitarianism."

Inertia - is one reason some big businesses fail in the age of the Internet when faced with nimble competition. Not to mention inertia and mergers.

Fear - is the product of a government run media and networks of informants so the Internet enabled free flow of knowledge and secure communication will help.

Militarism - works on crowds of people not on chat-rooms full of people. That's what (I think) Dan's alluding to with his point about fighting terrorism with a distributed force. Militarism doesn't work against an Internet enabled populace for the same reasons atom bombs don't work if applied to the insurgent problem in Iraq.

[Owen]

Kirk, your points are well taken, but the context for my comments was Dan's characterization of his workgroup as dealing with terrorism and the internet...and terrorists generally don't respond to economic logic, public opinion or facts. Generations of revolutionary thinkers who advocate the use of terror acknowledge that it is the very illogical, unfair, unpredictable and emotional nature of terrorism that makes it powerful. The internet can inform, cajole, influence, aggravate and expose, but it can't protect against terroristic actions.

Again, I don't disagree with what's said...only with the confidence that it matters a damn to terrorists who will use the flexibility and openness of the internet to their advantage. I don't advocate regulation of the internet...I just don't put my faith in the Internet as a weapon against terrorism.

[Jon Garfunkel]

I'm with Owen on this. Call me a technorealist if you will... III.4, IV.4, V.5 are debateable. I would like a message which can reach into the heart of every single human being.

The bulkier the message, the more difficult to spread. This has "international confab" written all over it. But, if like Larry Summers, this is just a blurb to get people talking, so be it.

The Internet has values-- but not all that are ascribed in the manifesto. The values are embedded in the protocol. If you use my protocol, we can talk. If you don't like my protocol, you still have to use it to talk to me, but you can provide a higher level protocol, and then ask me to engage you in this new protocol. To engage in terrorism is to destroy the protocol, the very notion that there are rules at all. Not exactly the Golden Rule, since that perhaps would suggest negotiating to the lowest common protocol; so call it the Silicon Rule.

I will not claim that the Silicon Rule is a "critical tool in the fight against terrorism" any more than the Golden Rule is. Just a rule.

[Kirk House]

I see your point too Owen; just because conventional tactics do not work it doesn't necessarily follow that the antithesis will. But there is evidence that this will work. Grassroots journalism / blogging is sometimes refered to as Open Source Journalism (PressThink) because Open Source embodies a lot of these themes of Internet enabled progress. I work on an open source project every day with people from all over the world. This collaboration and awareness, not to mention the software we're creating, is only possible because of the internet and its open nature. FedExing CDs and long distance POTS phone calls just wouldn't be cost effective (though it'd be good for the GDP ;).

Open Source evangelizing is a natural byproduct of seeing what I've seen, this phenomenon of a real, non-marketspeak paradigm shift. The goliath that is the software industry has been completely changed in a matter of years. It's not a huge leap for us as OSS developers to look at the goliath that is repression in a similar light. I have a business degree and respect intellectual property rights my point isn't to insinuate that corporations are repressive.

Open Source has been shown to work in the real world and open source was enabled by the Internet. I read somewhere about business people coming up with analogies, grappling with the definition of open source. One lawyer explained that open source software is analogous to law in a democracy. I'd argue that the mechanisms behind this new "law" can also be applied to the lawlessness that defines terrorism.

[Jozef Imrich]

There is nothing training cannot do. Nothing is above its reach. It can turn bad morals to good; it can destroy bad principles and recreate good ones; it can lift men to angelship.
-Mark Twain

As usual, thought-provoking post with solid foundation, built on the rock but without shallow or rocky concepts. In the Catholic Slavic parts of Europe many generations of slaves have been well aware that the Lord knows how to give generously, but He has no idea how to distribute things evenly among His children... May the egalitarian net lift all men to angelship and better distributionship.

BTW, today I came across a quote by Dan I have not seen before:

"Big media treated news as a lecture. We told you what the news was. You bought it or you didn’t. It was a world that bred complacency and arrogance, and was unsustainable. Tomorrow’s news reporting will be more of a conversation or seminar, the lines will blur between producers and consumers, changing the roles of both in a way we are only beginning to grasp. The communication network will be a medium for everyone’s voice."

PS: A website of note since 1996: Terrorism Research Center

[Octavio Isaac Rojas Orduña]

Kirk: It was Owen, not me who you quoted.

Stressing the point that media are bad and open source journalism is good, is a dangerous simplification.

There are biased blogs and free media.

People have sources to choose, for me this is the key.

[Franco Aleman (Barcelona, Spain)]

¿spontaneous? well, only if you believe that on October 20, 1938, people spontaneously went out on the streets because the Martians were coming. After all, nobody forced them, nor explicitly told them to go out in panic, right?

If SMS and blogs would've been available back then, people would have used them, but it would be silly to say that everything happened because of them.

Because not only was what Montse, Maty and Pablo point out; there was also the inestimable help of relevant media organizations (particularly the pro-Socialist PRISA group, owners the no. 1 news TV; no.1 radio network; no. 1 newspaper), who were reporting on the demonstrations sometimes before they had started, and in a tone that was undoubtedly what brought many people to it. So it was mutual feedback, back and forth between the media and the not-so spontaneous SMS and blogs initiatives.

And if you tell me, "of course, the media had to report about the demonstrations because they were news", well, you should only listen to what they did. I was listening/watching almost non-stop for 72 hours and, other than explicitely endorsing the demonstrations, they did everything else, including repeating and spreading false information (i.e. that law enforcement had discovered suicide bombers in the trains, but the government was covering it up; or that the government was going to cancel the elections in a coup d'etat after meeting the King in his residence; or that several things -a van with explosives, a video with the reivindication- had been found many hours earlier but the gov't was mum, though we know now from forensic experts that it was materially impossible because the tapes hadn't been even recorded at the time the media said they had been found)

[Jon Garfunkel]

Dan-- your atom feed says that this was updated on Mar 12 2005 7:33 PM.

I defend anyone's right to update one's content post-publication, but I am curious, what did you change?

[Dan Gillmor]

Jon, I added the names of the working group participants and some links to the organizers and moderators.

[Jon Garfunkel]

Yes, I thought so, I noticed the names on Martin's website, and then all of a sudden saw them here this morning. That proved very helpful, I think I was misled for a time about the various quotes about the "Usual Suspects" (U.S.) that were going to Spain to write this doc. Ethan's background on this is tremendous. I took my muse about the "Silicon Rule" and I am trying to put it within the whole context of the coverage.

Such is the life of the non-blogging online essayist, whose turnaround time is usually about 9 days after the things I'm writing about happens. I kinda break the rules that way.
But that's on hold till I finish my 3,000 words on the feminist rumblings that led up to the proposal for bloghercon.