Nearly twenty-five years ago, Tim Berners-Lee outlined in a proposal the need for a 'world-wide web' and advocated the creation of a bill of rights to 'protect the neutral, open internet'. He did so out of the belief that there was need for protection for citizens in the digital age. This desire has now gained special focus after the recent series of revelations about the extent of surveillance online being exercised by some state authorities.
It has also assumed importance after reports that some tech giants have been deriving profits from their ability to collect data from the users of their 'free' services and then selling it to other businesses that are sometimes using such data for their own financial manipulations. This combination of state and corporate interests, it is now being interpreted, is sometimes posing serious challenges to the basic liberty of the individual. It is being described by some analysts as liberty being tainted with interference and arbitrary restrictions.
On the other hand, State authorities are responding by pointing out that internet facilities like all other digital processes need to operate within a framework of regulation and oversight to ensure that law-abiding citizens do not suffer in the context of their individual or collective liberties or that the State does not face problems with regard to its national security.
Some activists dedicated to upholding of human rights and freedom appear to have strong feelings on this subject. They maintain that the conception of freedom is particularly relevant when we turn to the internet. They point out that the problem here is not primarily one of overt coercion. Instead, as digital space becomes the primary means by which we share and discuss publicly relevant information, we become vulnerable to manipulation by those who own and infiltrate those spaces. In this regard they point fingers at the implicit nature of the business model of the tech giants.
Dan Hind has correctly pointed out that 'the State is making extensive use of corporate data-gathering' and has also suggested that it could also be using 'the Corporations as instruments of extensive manipulation'. This theory has since been supported by disclosures made by Edward Snowden who has been granted asylum by Russia. His leaks have highlighted the possible extent of manipulation of civil society by the State as a form of covert domination. In other words, according to Hind, 'we are free to do what we want, but the State tailors information to ensure that what we want to do doesn't get in the way of their plans'. It has been cynically described as: 'The barbed wire isn't around us. It is in our heads'.
Those belonging to the establishment in North America, European Union, China and Japan have, however, tried to explain their efforts pertaining to the use of the internet as their ambition being 'to re-order the wilderness of our individual wants and world-views into an orderly estate, in which broad avenues of conventional opinions stretch to the horizon.'
As a response, citizens and civil society representatives, sitting on the other side of the table, have urged that what is required is balance and transparency in the formulation of priorities. They have streesed that they need new powers for the sake of proper oversight. They believe that this should include 'powers to initiate and fund inquiry, powers to address fellow citizens, powers to oversee the operations of the State and their partners in the corporate sector'. This, they feel, is needed to face the challenges and create accountability within the digital process where businesses sometimes regulate public opinion.
The pivotal question that emerges next is whether there can be any disagreement on the question of ensuring free speech, press freedom and access to information. This is likely, particularly as we approach the evaluation of creating a new framework for development that can replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
Those involved with and interested in sustainable development know that behind the scene, the United Nations is seriously re-examining the way forward after the expiry of the 2015 deadline related to the achievement of the targets set forth in the MDGs. Discussions are already underway to formulate a new global development agenda. It is generally agreed that these new sustainable goals should result in a world without poverty in all its forms by 2030 - no violence, a healthy life for all, food security, permanent education, gender equality and good governance.
It is this future dream, in a digital context, that has raised the stakes not only with regard to freedom in the use of the internet but also a responsible use of this facility that is now in the hands of more than one billion people all over the world. Along with that has come the question of whether controlling the internet and cyber space might affect and impair global civil society efforts towards ensuring transparency, rule of law and accountability that is required for corruption-free good governance, vital for development, peace and a better world.
Most governments in developing countries agree with the ideas of freedom but also draw attention to the insidious effects that have been unleashed within some countries with the unfortunate nexus of religion and politics. In this regard, it would be correct to point out that this is already taking place in several countries in Africa, the Middle East and even in South Asia (including Bangladesh). The negative effects of political propaganda, disinformation and incitement to hatred and discrimination are well-documented.
Irresponsible behaviour has also found its way into both print and electronic media. That is casting a long shadow on many areas of professional journalism. We need to understand at this point that professional journalism is not the same as free speech. 'It', as correctly noted by Jan Douwe Keulen 'is a constrained form of free speech that takes into account principles of verification, fairness, accuracy, balance, responsibility and public interest'.
It is at this juncture that we need to pause and think further on this issue. Analysts are raising the question that if good governance implies upholding free speech, access to governmental information and independent media acting as a watchdog, the question remains how to incorporate these issues into the development agenda. Some have examined the legal parameters and now see accountability as a cross-cutting theme. Others, in agreement with most free speech and press freedom lobbyists, advocate for a separate global development goal. Free media and quality journalism, it is argued, play a crucial role in informing the public, facilitating the debate and creating a culture of accountability.
Whatever be the argument between the two sides, it is clear and true, as mentioned by Keulen, that citizens and governments need accurate and easily accessible data and information to make better decisions and to check that these decisions are effectively carried out. On the other hand, it is also equally important that governments share more of their information, online or otherwise.
It needs to be understood here that availability of vital data like reliable statistics, budgets, land registry records, evaluation and financial reports can prevent corruption, facilitate effectiveness in decision-making process and provide legitimacy to development programmes. In fact, economists have observed that absence of reliable and updated data is one of the biggest obstacles for achieving the millennium development goals (MDGs). With political will as a guarantor, modern technology can make it possible for the concerned authorities to open up and make government data available for citizens, experts and international organisations. This will help to create a better world where there may be political, sovereign frontiers but no barrier in the exchange of information or obtaining information as an inter-active engagement. We must not forget what has been guaranteed in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says, "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".
The media can play an active and constructive role in this regard by refusing to participate in counter-productive efforts related to the negative effects that might be created by subjective political propaganda, disinformation and incitement to hatred and discrimination. They must not forget the principles of verification, fairness, accuracy, balance, responsibility and public interest.
The writer, a former Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the EU, is specialised in foreign affairs, right to information, good governance. mzamir@dhaka.net
Internet freedom and sustainable development agenda
Muhammad Zamir | Published: August 04, 2014 00:00:00 | Updated: November 30, 2026 06:01:00
Share if you like