How political beef threatens to destabilize and fragment the internet
Cyberspace just isn’t what it used to be
The biggest risks to the global internet
We take measurements at various layers of the internet’s technological stack, from cables to content delivery networks. With those measurements, we identify weak points in the global internet. And from those weak points, we build theories that help us understand what parts of the internet are at risk of disruption, whom those disruptions will affect and how severely, and predict what would make the internet more resilient.
Currently, the internet is facing twin dangers. On one side, there’s the threat of total consolidation. Power over the internet has been increasingly concentrated primarily in the hands of a few, U.S.-based organizations. On the other side, there’s fragmentation. Attempts to challenge the status quo, particularly byRussia and China, threaten to destabilize the internet globally.
While there’s no single best path for the internet, our indicators can help policymakers, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, activists and others understand if their interventions are having their intended effect. For whom is the internet becoming more reliable, and for whom is is it becoming more unstable? These are the critical questions. About3.4 billion people are just now getting onlinein countries including Fiji, Tonga and Vanuatu. What kind of internet will they inherit?
A US-controlled internet
Since at least 2015, the core services that power the internet have become increasingly centralized in the hands of U.S. corporations. We estimate that U.S. corporations, nonprofits and government agencies could blocka cumulative 96% of content on the global internetin some capacity.
The U.S. Department of Justice haslong used court orders aimed at tech providersto block global access to content that’s illegal in the U.S., such as copyright infringements. But lately, the U.S. federal government has been leveraging its jurisdiction more aggressively. In June, the DOJ used a court order to briefly seizean Iranian news sitebecause the department said it was spreading disinformation.
Due to interlocking dependencies on the web, such as content delivery networks, one misstep in applying this technique could take down a key piece of internet infrastructure, making a widespread outagemore likely.
Meanwhile, U.S.-based technology companies also risk wreaking havoc. Consider Australia’s recentspat with Facebook over paying news outlets for their content. At one point, Facebook blocked all news on its platform in Australia. One consequence was that many people in Fiji, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatutemporarily lost a key news sourcebecause they rely on prepaid cellphone plans that feature discounted access to Facebook. As theseskirmishesincrease in frequency, countries worldwide are likely to suffer disruptions to their internet access.
A splinternet
Naturally, not everyone is happy with this U.S.-led internet.Russia throttles Twitter traffic.China blocks access to Google.
These domestic maneuvers certainly threaten localized meltdowns. India now regularlyshuts down the internet regionally during civil unrest. But, in aggregate, they present a more global threat:internet frgamentation. A fragmented internet threatens speech, trade andglobal cooperation in science.
It also increases the risk of cyberattacks on core internet infrastructure. In a global internet, attacks on infrastructure hurt everyone, but walled-off national internets would change that calculus. For example,Russia has the capacity to disconnect itself from the rest of the world’s internetwhile maintaining service domestically. With that capacity, it couldattack core global internet infrastructurewith less risk of upsetting its domestic population. A sophisticated attack against a U.S. company could trigger a large-scale internet outage.
The future of the internet
For much of its history, the internet has been imperfectly, but largely, open. Content could be accessed anywhere, across borders. Perhaps this openness isbecause, rather than in spite, of the U.S.‘s dominanceover the internet.
Whether or not that theory holds, the U.S.’s dominance over the internet is unlikely to persist. The status quo faces challenges from the U.S.’sadversaries, itshistorical alliesand itsown domestic tech companies. Absent action, the world will be left with some mixture of unchecked U.S. power and ad-hoc, decentralized skirmishes.
In this environment, building a stable and transnational internet for future generations is a challenge. It requires delicacy and precision. That’s where work like ours comes into play. To make the internet more stable globally, people need measurements to understand its chokepoints and vulnerabilities. Just as central banks watch measures of inflation and employment when they decide how to set rates, internet governance, too, should rely on indicators, however imperfect.
This article byNick Merrill, Research Fellow,University of California, Berkeley, is republished fromThe Conversationunder a Creative Commons license. Read theoriginal article.
Story byThe Conversation
An independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists.An independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists.
Get the TNW newsletter
Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.
