Search

The European Union increasingly aims towards a “partnership” with private companies for ensuring public security. The loosely defined, or contested, area of “cybersecurity” provides the leading case for involving private actors in transnational security governance, which interacts with the dynamic debate on different models of “internet” or “cyberspace” governance. At the same time, official proclamations and the practice of such public private partnerships in cybersecurity remain highly diverse. This chapter therefore first sets out a typology for categorizing different forms of public–private interactions for cybersecurity, only some of which qualify as more regularized and operational “partnership”. On this basis, the chapter surveys the activities of ENISA and EUROPOL as the two leading agencies of EU cybersecurity. In particular, the increasing relations the EC3 cybersecurity centre within EUROPOL with leading private IT security companies is discussed. The conclusions underline the lack of public knowledge and need for critical normative reflection on these partnerships, particularly in so far as they extend to more proactive prosecution of cybercrimes.

If the ‘global default exists as was argued in previous chapters, which norms define this regime? The following chapter will attempt to sketch out the three key norms that keep reappearing in the international debate on freedom of expression before attempting to provide an overarching analysis of how the normative regimes and governance interact. Based on the previous analysis it has become evident that three key narratives keep returning to debates on freedom of expression: children, memory and sexuality. The analysis in turn will then explore aspects of social and political theory – based in particular on Michelle Foucault – in attempting to understand how and why these narratives have become so prominent and what role both play in wider debates on governing the Internet.

The final chapter of this book looks more broadly at what can this book contribute to understandings of Internet Governance and the wider field of Global Governance. It argues that many of the trends found in Internet Governance such as the technification of regulatory demands or the expansion of disciplinary capacity over the Internet apply to many more areas of governance than just the governance of free expression.

This chapter looks at how the ability of the Internet to control communications has changed in the past two decades. The chapter is loosely modelled on the structure of the Internet itself, where information passes through a chain of control points. In doing so it looks at ‘the ability to control Internet content’ which is termed here ‘disciplinary capacity.’ It then looks at Internet accessibility devices, the domain name system, Internet service providers and more broadly Internet networks, online service providers and Internet hosts. In conclusion, it argues that the discussed shifts in the Internet ecosystem since the mid-1990s have brought with them a gradual increase in the disciplinary capacity of the Internet.

This book examines the changes in the governance of human expression as a result of the development of the Internet. It tells the story of the emergence of a global regime that almost completely lacks institutions, and develops a concept of ‘expression governance’ that focusses on the governance practices of key actors in Europe and North America. The book illuminates the increased disciplinary capacity of the Internet infrastructure that has become apparent to the public following Edward Snowden’s leaks in 2013, and provides a theoretical frame within which such changes can be understood. It argues that the Internet has developed a ‘global default’ of permissible speech that exists pervasively across the globe but beyond the control of any one actor. It then demonstrates why the emergence of such a ‘global default’ of speech is crucial to global conflict in the international relations of the Internet. The book concludes with an elaboration of the regulatory practices and theatrical performances that enable a global regime as well as the three key narratives that are embedded within it. -- 1 Governing Internet Expression : An Introduction, 1 -- 2 Towards a Theory of Information Control : Content Regulation, Disciplinary Capacity and the Governance on the Internet, 11 -- 3 Internet Technologies Increasing Ability to Control : The Development of Disciplinary Capacity in the Past Two Decades, 35 -- 4 The Public Sector and Content Regulation: Focussing on Pornography and Child Sexual Abuse Material, 63 -- 5 The Private Sector and Content Regulation: The Margin of Permissible Expression, 97 -- 6 Governing Internet Expression: Sketching Out the Borders of a Global Default of Freedom of Expression, 121 -- 7 Global Expression Governance: The Norms of a Global Regime, 137 -- 8 Symbolic Power and Legitimacy Theatre: Constructing Legitimacy in Global Internet Governance, 157 -- 9 Conclusion: Logics of Appropriate Governance in Internet Governance and Global Governance, 175 -- Additional Sources and Interviews, 183 Published version of EUI PhD thesis, 2013

Who decides what is normal and abnormal content? How is this process of regulating Internet content normalised? Restrictions of certain types of Internet content can only be understood in their specific historical context, as an evolution of regulatory practices and Internet technologies. That some types of Internet content are regulated and not others is not a technical or economic necessity. In order to study this phenomenon this chapter looks at public sector governance of Internet content in the UK, Germany and the US with a focus on pornography and child sexual abuse material. In conclusion it argues that answering that the regulation of Internet content is heavily dependent on state capacity to induce self-regulatory regimes on the private sector.

This chapter argues that communities of practice construct a global regime of competence which enables a ‘global default’ of free expression governance. While there are parts of the regime that draw from public regulation and even state legislation, the vast majority of the regime is based on private norms and practices. The regime itself is embedded within agreements between private sector actors, who are responsible for definition, management and implementation of the regime. In conclusion it argues that the regulation of technical systems is consistently preferred to the regulation of individual human beings, which is itself a key enabler of the global default.

Questions of Internet regulation and governance are enormously laden with normative presumptions. This is particularly the case in regard to Freedom of Expression and its restriction that is typically termed ‘censorship.’ This chapter proposes a theoretical model of information control based on (a) communities of practice, (b) governance through architecture and (c) network gatekeeping to assist in understanding how the boundaries of Internet expression are defined. It argues that communities of practice regulate speech according to their own logics of appropriateness.

How can this global system of expression governance be justified? On which actors and institutions does it base its legitimacy? How can it continue to govern internationally, despite on-going predominance by a small set of countries and corporations? This chapter will argue that the picture, painted to the public of Global Internet Governance, has little to do with the actual governance practices. In conclusion this chapter will suggest that multi-stakeholder model of Internet Governance has devolved into a theatrical performance. It is practised at international conferences and events around the world and it has become common for all actors to pay lip service to their support of it. However, it has thus far had little influence on actual practices of Internet Governance.

This chapter focuses on private sector models of content regulation. It argues that the legal need and external pressure for content regulation creates a demand for norm-creation within many Internet companies. Particularly, as Internet companies operate in many international jurisdictions with frequently conflicting legal norms, companies are constantly responding to multiple regulatory demands. In order to explore this logic in greater detail, three cases were selected as they demonstrate crucial cases in the evolution of the private sector model of Internet content regulation: AOL, Google & Facebook.