| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Internet Shutdowns: How Governments Pull the Plug on Human Rights | >
> | Fighting Internet Shutdowns | | |
-- By NiveditaMukhija - 11 Oct 2019
| |
<
< | The Case of Kashmir
On August 5, the Central Government announced the revocation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which grants a semi-autonomous status to the Muslim-majority state. The state was bifurcated into two Union Territories, to be directly controlled by the Central Government. | >
> | Government Doublespeak | | | | |
<
< | Since the announcement, nearly 4000 people have been detained, including lawyers and journalists, and curfews have been imposed throughout the state. Prominent politicians from the opposition parties have been placed in house arrest. Thousands of military troops have been deployed in the already highly militarized region, and all internet and telephone services have been suspended. | | | | |
<
< | This is not the first time Kashmir has faced an internet blackout. In 2019 alone, there were 59 instances of complete or partial blackouts in the region. But this is the longest blockade: as of the writing of this essay, internet services in the region still have not been restored. | | | | |
<
< | On August 8th, Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave an address to the nation, calling the decision to revoke Article 370 “historic”, and one that would end “separatism, terrorism, dynastic politics and corruption" in Jammu and Kashmir, and drive the region towards economic prosperity. Later, at a rally in Houston, he is quoted as saying that the move will finally provide the people of Kashmir equal rights as other citizens. There was no mention of the internet blackout in his speech, and as of yet there is no definite news as to when the blackout will end. A government spokesperson said, on September 12, that the internet blackout continues to be in place as there were fears that “Pakistan might misuse the internet to foment trouble,” a sentiment that was echoed by the Governor of the State. | >
> | On August 5, the Indian Government announced the revocation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, which grants a semi-autonomous status to the state of Kashmir. Soon after, all Internet and telephone services were suspended indefinitely in the state. This is not the first time Kashmir has faced an Internet blackout. In 2019 alone, there were 55 instances of complete or partial blackouts in the region. But this has been the longest blockade: even as of writing of this essay, Internet services in the region have only been partially restored. | | | | |
>
> | Kashmir is not an isolated case anymore – authoritarian governments are increasingly restricting complete or partial access to the Internet. The official reasons given by governments in these cases are coated in the familiar language of ‘national security’, ‘law and order’ and ‘preventing misinformation’. However, recent research has shown that not only are such blackouts ineffective in maintaining law and order, but they may even contribute to an increase in chaos, misinformation, and violence. | | | | |
<
< | Government Doublespeak | >
> | The real rationale of such governments seems to be to silence the voices of the people, to suppress dissent and to quell protests. Communication blackouts enable governments to have control over the narrative and over the flow of information, and to make sure that there are no records of state activities they may want to cover up. | | | | |
<
< | In the past decade, the democratizing power of the internet has frequently been used by protestors to raise their voices and organize themselves against unjust governments, the Arab Spring being a notable example of the same. But the internet has proven to be a better friend to authoritarian governments, who are increasingly restricting complete or partial access to the internet. | | | | |
<
< | The official reasons given by governments in these cases are coated in the familiar language of ‘national security’, ‘law and order’ and ‘preventing misinformation’. However, recent research (such as that conducted by Jan Rydzak at Stanford) has shown that not only are such blackouts ineffective in maintaining law and order, but they may even contribute to an increase in chaos and violence. | >
> | What are our Options? | | | | |
<
< | Studies show that communication blackouts at times of unrest can cause uncertainty and panic, as people struggle to gain information about their surroundings. The lack of legitimate news at such a time, a frequent byproduct of internet blackouts, can lead to the spread of disinformation and propaganda. Protestors that were otherwise non-violent and organized are fragmented and may resort to potentially violent acts to make themselves heard. | | | | |
<
< | The real rationale of such governments seems to be to silence the voices of the people, to suppress dissent and to quell protests. Communication blackouts enable governments to have control over the narrative and over the flow of information, and to make sure that there are no records of state activities they may want to cover up. | | | | |
>
> | Under international human rights law, restrictions on free speech must pass the three-prong test of legality, necessity and proportionality. Given that such restrictions are often taken as ‘precautionary measures’, such prior restraint also requires the government to clearly show that there is an imminent danger of public disorder. | | | | |
<
< | Internet Shutdowns as Human Rights Violations | >
> | Often, overbroad and outdated legislations relied upon to shut down the internet do not pass these criteria: a case in point is the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, drafted by an imperial government to quell any signs of a dissent, and passed in an era when technology did not have the bearing it does on life today. Such laws enable governments to rely on vague concepts of ‘national security’ and ‘public order’ to justify their actions, and frequently lack a sunset clause, adequate safeguards, and mechanisms to ensure transparency. Thus, while these shutdowns may be procedurally legal, the underlying legislations, with their arbitrary and unjust mechanisms, do not meet the test for substantive due process. | | | | |
>
> | It is natural to look to the judiciary to uphold constitutional and human rights in the face of such measures. However, when faced with such a challenge, the Indian Supreme Court's response was limited. On the one hand, it recognized that the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to carry on trade or business, using the medium of Internet, is constitutionally protected. It also asked the government to publish the Internet shutdown orders and review them to ensure they are reasonable, proportional, and not for an indefinite period of time. On the other hand, the judgment fell short of calling the long siege illegal, and did not provide much relief to the people of Kashmir. In response, the government merely issued a new shutdown order allowing 2G access to a limited number of government-approved websites, predictably excluding all social media. | | | | |
<
< | Until the telephone lines were restored recently, residents of Kashmir had no means to communicate with their family or friends outside the heavily militarized state, and no one could reach them for help. The healthcare services continue to be severely disrupted as patient data and medication details are often stored online. All work and education was suspended, with the state in a terrifying, silent limbo. Stephen Graham, who studies the links between human geography, urbanism, and the sociology of technology, calls communication blackouts and curfews as “infrastructural wars”, and a form of modern political violence, directed against civilians. | >
> | In an autocratic regime where the judiciary sides with the authorities, how can Internet shutdowns be fought then? It could be argued that international pressure can be used to pressurize the government to roll back such shutdowns, but major players in world politics have not pressed down on the issue, perhaps as a reflection of the increasingly illiberal political climate across the world. | | | | |
<
< | The social, physical, psychological and even economic damages of internet blackouts are immense. In 2016, the UN passed a resolution condemning Internet shutdowns and reiterating that people have the same human rights online as they do offline. There is a growing consensus that internet blackouts not only violate the fundamental rights guaranteed by a country’s constitution, but human rights that are recognized universally, including not only the right to free speech and expression, but also the right to freedom of association, health, education, and religious beliefs. It is this consensus that must be built upon in order to pressurize governments to cease relying upon such blackouts to control a population. | | | | |
<
< | Seen through this human rights framework, there are increasing doubts about whether internet blackouts can ever be justified. Under international human rights law, restrictions on free speech must pass the three-prong test of legality, necessity and proportionality. Given that such restrictions are often taken as ‘precautionary measures’, such prior restraint also requires the government to clearly show that there is an imminent danger of public disorder. | | | | |
<
< | The opaque nature of government reasoning about the actual harms it seeks to protect, coupled with the lack of temporal and geographical limitations on internet shutdowns, make such internet blackouts manifestly illegal. Further, overbroad and outdated legislations, relying on vague concepts of “national security” and “public order”, do not meet the test of legality. Such legislations frequently lack a sunset clause, adequate safeguards, and mechanisms to ensure transparency. A case in point is the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, drafted by an imperial government to quell any signs of a dissent, and passed in an era when technology did not have the bearing it does on life today. | >
> | Speak Up While You Can | | | | |
<
< | India, the world’s largest democracy, has had 159 internet shutdowns since 2016, and stands at the top of the growing stack of countries that are frequently cutting off civilian access to communication services to silence protests. Given this continuing trend, it is thus high time we view such blackouts for what they are: human rights violations on a mass scale, and one of the biggest threats to democracy today. | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | It appears that the only recourse citizens have in such a situation to safeguard their rights is to organize themselves, protest, and resist the shutdowns. The perception that the Internet is a first-world right is still entrenched in developing countries, and the governments there have taken advantage of that perception. However, the reality is that in a country like India, consisting of 560 million Internet users, such shutdowns bring life to a grinding halt. Until the telephone lines were restored, residents of Kashmir had no means to communicate with their family or friends outside the heavily militarized state, and no one could reach them for help. The healthcare services were severely disrupted as patient data and medication details are often stored online. All work and education was suspended, with the state in a terrifying, silent limbo. A recent report puts the economic cost of Internet shutdowns in India at 1.3 billion dollars last year. Communication blackouts thus become a kind of ‘infrastructural war’, a form of modern political violence directed against civilians. | | | | |
<
< | I don't disagree with anything you have said here. The rhetoric is strong, but also familiar. The most important part of the next draft will revolve around your idea, rather than other peoples' contributions. Put your voice first, saying what you have new to say from the outset, so that the rest of the context can take up less of the space than it takes here. | >
> | In 2017, when the government of Cameroon shut the Internet to stifle protests over discrimination faced by Anglophones, a massive grassroots campaign, #bringbacktheinternet was launched by Internet activists, and soon spread across the country and beyond. Faced with increasing pressure, the government was forced to restore the Internet after three months. Of course, not all protests are successful – large-scale protests across India over the enactment of the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act have not yielded any meaningful engagement or action from the government. And the government of Cameroon has imposed more Internet shutdowns since then. | | | | |
<
< | I'm not sure I know what your thoughts are, because the current draft is too modest about them. But it does seem to me that you can more clearly address the central problem the current draft identifies. There's nothing unlawful about the extensive use of shutdowns in India, because the law is exhaustively supportive of executive authority. Offering human rights objections to a course of action specifically made lawful domestically works only to the extent that there are significant supranational enforcement possibilities. This is not quite true in Europe, as the Polish and Hungarian situations with respect to rule of law enforcement in the EU show. Nowhere else is it even close to true. What role can non-Indian fora play in enjoining or interfering with activity which is made lawful by Indian legislation? | >
> | However, there is inherent value to protesting, even if it is unsuccessful in the short-run. Protesting signals to the government that people’s rights cannot be violated. It is required to co-opt more people in the society, bring awareness of the value of Internet to people’s lives, and put this issue on the global map. It is required to speak up for those who cannot due to the shutdowns, before our own ability to speak up is blocked. Protesting for any right strengthens the democratic process, but in the case of the Internet, the stakes are higher: by protesting for the right to access Internet, citizens are protesting not only for all the rights dependent upon it, directly or indirectly, but also for a crucial medium of protest itself. | | | | |
<
< | This is the primary puzzle, as you show. But your rhetoric doesn't address it. The next draft should. | | | | |
<
< | | | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|