Welcome To The “Splinternet”
Since its commercial and political value was recognized, dominance over the Internet has been fought over. Choosing to balkanize the Internet, also loosely referred to as the “splinternet," would bring with it both interesting risks and rewards. Neither would come without requiring massive changes, including trying to keep the Internet duct-taped together the way it is today.
By fracturing the Internet into divides based on country, the guarantee of Internet access would vary greatly. A decentralized internet would allow for a local centralized internet to be formed and controlled by each government; it would fall to them to determine the criteria for granting their citizens access. It depends on the territory in question. However, this is already the case in countries like China that maintain their internet connectivity. This shift of centralizing connection independently would exacerbate social issues in countries like Bahrain, which already has a "brutal history of repression" and is doing its best to control the freedoms that internet access provides. They enforce stringent censorship as a “constitutional monarchy.” (Marczak).
Fragmentation could become an appealing option to authoritarian governments; however, the reality could be devastating. Citizens would be subjected to a new level of control, stifling democracy, monitoring activities, and at constant risk of exploitation and infringement of their privacy rights. Citizens would also be at high risk of having their information sphere carefully curated by their government, keeping them uninformed and in the internet dark about current issues and potential threats. Essentially it could become the worst nightmare scenario, and no one on the outside would know except "illegally" since all communications would be tightly monitored and controlled. One would hope that sanctions from the United Nations could help deter this kind of behavior, but as we have seen in China, that is rarely the case and has not proven enough to stop governments from engaging in such behavior. China's invasive monitoring and mass internment of the Muslim Uighur population (Allen-Ebrahimian) is an excellent example of an overbearing authoritarian government using technology in ways that violate the fundamental human rights of privacy (United Nations) and does not seem to be yielding when faced with sanctions. Denying the accusations as anything unsavory, China has been able to control the narrative internally because of the lengths of control they enforce over the rest of their population. Fear is as much a policing factor as the actual officers patrolling.
Now for the potential positives of an internet Babylon, at this current time in the United States, the Internet is a for-profit service each individual has to purchase. If there was more government involvement, the Internet could potentially be recognized as an essential service and provide opportunities for lower-income individuals to work from home by providing low-cost internet connectivity. Monthly Internet fees in the U.S. are some of the highest globally (Chao). Providing connectivity could be particularly beneficial to families who do not have reliable transportation. However, subsidies and partnerships between internet service providers the government could also address this problem without requiring a massive internet makeover.
A centralized U.S. internet service could provide the ability to ensure best practices are being followed and receive more protection and support by classifying it as a part of government critical infrastructure. However, with that comes a con; centralization means adversaries would only need to focus on one large target to disrupt the Internet across the country.
Another way this could be a potential benefit is decentralization could address radicalization in the U.S.; it could help prevent dangerous ideals from reaching over the border and radicalizing citizens. For example, the way "The Islamic State, or ISIS, can motivate … lone wolves to massacre their officemates." (Slaughter 77). However, like with most things blocked on the Internet, where there is a will, there is a way. Additionally, to implement a form of restriction targeting terrorist development, we would also be stepping on freedom of speech principles. Education may be a more efficient way to address this issue.
I do not think it is very likely, at least not in the near future, that this route of "balkanization" would be chosen. Not every country develops and maintains their own nuclear weapons arsenal; the same logic applies to hosting and maintaining internet services. Not every country has the means and the infrastructure to support it, hence why they rely on service providers in the first place. If this fracturing still took place, then the countries that cannot afford it would need to fall under another country's internet umbrella, which would essentially land them back at square one. The "follower" countries in the technology space would not benefit, nor would the "leaders." The leaders in this space would potentially face losses. As Nye put it, "cyberspace … illustrates the point that diffusion of power does not mean equality of power or the replacement of governments as the most powerful actors in world politics." (19)
A fracturing of the Internet has already begun, though not deliberately. McDonald argues that the Silicon Valley dream of a free and open global internet is a utopian ideal and has failed in reality. Claiming "widespread misinformation, hate speech, and political manipulation" has already helped destroy that vision (3). Internet utility services offered through governments are also beginning to emerge; the United Kingdom and Cuba are in the process of deploying nationalized services. Furthermore, India requires companies who wish to conduct business to use their government-controlled architecture (McDonald). The world is already divided into open Internet and censored internet connections (Watts 20). We must also look at the balance between security and freedom, a dilemma almost anyone implementing security measures quickly discovers. Although there is always a sacrifice for security, it is typically at the cost of convenience, freedom, or both. Anne-Marie Slaughter said it well when she wrote, "A measure of insecurity is the price of liberty and democracy." (79).
In Morgus's view, he defines the ideal internet to possess the "five ideals," which are "free, open, interoperable, secure, and resilient" (10). However, he notes a serious gap between these ideals and reality. Therefore, we must consider this when evaluating ways to secure the future internet and scrutinize how these ideals are implemented and functioning. For example, the concept of a "free" internet can be open to various forms of interpretation regarding the precise technical details. It would be an understandable assumption to think this means freedom of speech on the internet; however, Morgus defines it as the ability of any user to access and share information on the internet without experiencing "unreasonable restriction."(10). The term "unreasonable," however, could easily be misinterpreted. So how do we know that we are meeting this ideal today? Before we can move on to stabilizing and securing the future internet, we must first take stock of where we are today.
Focusing on strengthening a distributed approach to security could help prevent further fracturing of the Internet as it is today. Slaughter suggests an approach that empowers the public as security partners and removes the government and organizations as the primary protector (79). However, there is a proven benefit to partnerships between the private and public sectors. This appeals to me as a better approach than putting pressure on individual citizens to help secure the U.S.; this isn't Dunkirk. She advocates for a networked approach which can be highly effective; however, the average computer user is busy, uninterested, or just lazy. If the fate of the nation's national security is in the hands of the "average American," I am greatly concerned. I agree with Slaughter's idea of choosing a multi-pronged approach; however, I suggest modeling it differently. Including the public is a great idea; digital literacy is a significant issue that would need to be addressed alongside this plan. However, I would recommend putting more pressure on the product owners who supply the software and technologies citizens use to aid this distributed approach. Functioning successfully in this networked fashion would increase security individually (as a citizen and a nation) and globally.
Nye also made a keen observation on the reliance on cyber systems, saying:
"If anything, dependence on complex cyber systems for support of military and economic activities creates new vulnerabilities in large states that can be exploited by non state actors." (4)
Meaning all critical systems should be able to function without internet connectivity. A massive event equivalent to the talked about to death "cyber pearl harbor" could do to the Internet what 9/11 did to airports and homeland surveillance. A desperate and scared nation may be in a vulnerable position and be willing to relinquish more of its freedoms for the sake of security. Preventing incidents like this will also keep further fracturing at bay.
I found Australia's approach to cyber security particularly noteworthy in the 2020 Cyber Strategy published by the Australian government. I agree and would recommend the same approach. This would include developing "strong foundations" by addressing multiple issues, similar to the previously discussed networked approach (9). Opening a Cyber Security Center, establishing a center to foster joint partnerships between the public and private industries, and investments in digital literacy for the public are examples of how Australia plans to strengthen its cyber security stature. Additionally, detailing the different roles different members of the community have. I appreciated how this was categorized between government, business, and community—keeping the significant infrastructure roles at the government level, including national security, combating cybercrime, and supporting businesses to achieve higher levels of cyber security. Then they charged businesses with the responsibility of providing secure products and services to their clients, educating employees on cybersecurity topics, and blocking malicious activity at the business level. Moreover, the community is responsible for reporting cybercrime, conducting a reasonable level of due diligence when looking to purchase a product, and utilizing the resources provided when needed (18). This is an excellent strategy and addresses the issues we have examined thus far.
To prevent further splintering of the existing internet structure and promote security for the future, a networked and holistic approach is necessary. Based on what we have covered, the benefits of balkanization do not outweigh the negatives. The inter-relationship between access to technology and connection to the Internet has come to require a level of "privilege." Something many of us in developed countries take for granted. Introducing this level of segregation online would further expand existing divides and cultivate new, sided conflicts. Part of what makes the Internet beneficial is the voice of the global community and having the ability to come together collectively and freely communicate, learn about each other, and help each other. The risk of the power shifts because of balkanization would be too significant and even a matter of life and death for some.
Allen-Ebrahimian, Bethany. “Exposed: China’s Operating Manuals for Mass Internment and Arrest by Algorithm.” ICIJ, 25 Nov. 2019, www.icij.org/investigations/china-cables/exposed-chinas-operating-manuals-for-mass-internment-and-arrest-by-algorithm.
“Australia’s Cyber Security Strategy 2020.” Australian Government, 2020, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/cyber-security-subsite/files/cyber-security-strategy-2020.pdf. Accessed 27 Feb. 2022.
Chao, Becky and Claire Park.“The Cost of Connectivity 2020.” New America, www.newamerica.org/oti/reports/cost-connectivity-2020/global-findings. Accessed 27 Feb. 2022.
Marczak, Bill. “From Pearl to Pegasus: Bahraini Government Hacks Activists with NSO Group Zero-Click iPhone Exploits.” The Citizen Lab, 27 Aug. 2021, citizenlab.ca/2021/08/bahrain-hacks-activists-with-nso-group-zero-click-iphone-exploits.
McDonald, Sean Martin, and An Xiao Mina. “The War-Torn Web.” Foreign Policy, 19 Dec. 2018, foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/19/the-war-torn-web-internet-warring-states-cyber-espionage.
Morgus, Robert and Justin Sherman.“The Idealized Internet vs. Internet Realities (Version 1.0): Analytical Framework for Assessing the Freedom, Openness, Interoperability, Security, and Resiliency of the Global Internet,” New America, 2018, www.newamerica.org/cybersecurity-initiative/reports/idealized-internet-vs-internet-realities. Accessed 27 Feb. 2022.
Nye, Joseph, et al. “Cyber Power.” Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, www.belfercenter.org/publication/cyber-power. Accessed 27 Feb. 2022.
Slaughter, Anne-Marie. “How to Succeed in the Networked World: A Grand Strategy for the Digital Age.” Foreign Affairs, 25 June 2019, www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/world/2016-10-04/how-succeed-networked-world.
United Nations. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations, www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights#:%7E:text=No%20one%20shall%20be%20subjected%20to%20arbitrary%20interference%20with%20his,against%20such%20interference%20or%20attacks. Accessed 27 Feb. 2022.
Watts, John, et al.“Alternate Cybersecurity Futures.” Atlantic Council, 23 May 2020, www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/alternate-cybersecurity-futures.
Weinberg, Dana, et al. “From Anti-Vaxxer Moms to Militia Men: Influence Operations, Narrative Weaponization, and the Fracturing of American Identity.” Brookings, 8 Nov. 2021, www.brookings.edu/research/from-anti-vaxxer-moms-to-militia-men-influence-operations-narrative-weaponization-and-the-fracturing-of-american-identity.
