Democracy Promotion/Soft Power—Affirmative Tentative 1AC
Internet Freedom Good—Economy
Download 0.51 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- The Internet is a key area for economic progress and social change
- Restrictions on Internet Freedom devastate destroy the economy
- Now is a key time to re-focus to global Internet freedom—it’s the key factor in economic growth
- Global Internet freedom provides opportunities for small businesses and better international innovation
Internet Freedom Good—EconomyThe mass surveillance model hurts global Internet freedom, a key part of the global economy and securityKehl et al ’14, (Danielle Kehl, Senior Policy Analyst, Open Technology Institute, Kevin Bankston, Director, Open Technology Institute, Robert Morgus, Program Associate, International Security Program, and Robyn Greene, Policy Counsel, Open Technology Institute, “SURVEILLANCE COSTS: THE NSA'S IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY, INTERNET FREEDOM & CYBERSECURITY,” Open Technology Institute, JULY 29, 2014, https://www.newamerica.org/oti/surveillance-costs-the-nsas-impact-on-the-economy-internet-freedom-cybersecurity/)//erg It has been over a year since The Guardian reported the first story on the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs based on the leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, yet the national conversation remains largely mired in a simplistic debate over the tradeoffs between national security and individual privacy. It is time to start weighing the overall costs and benefits more broadly. While intelligence officials have vigorously defended the merits of the NSA programs, they have offered little hard evidence to prove their value—and some of the initial analysis actually suggests that the benefits of these programs are dubious. Three different studies—from the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and the New America Foundation’s International Security Program—question the value of bulk collection programs in stopping terrorist plots and enhancing national security. Meanwhile, there has been little sustained discussion of the costs of the NSA programs beyond their impact on privacy and liberty, and in particular, how they affect the U.S. economy, American foreign policy, and the security of the Internet as a whole. This paper attempts to quantify and categorize the costs of the NSA surveillance programs since the initial leaks were reported in June 2013. Our findings indicate that the NSA’s actions have already begun to, and will continue to, cause significant damage to the interests of the United States and the global Internet community. Specifically, we have observed the costs of NSA surveillance in the following four areas: Direct Economic Costs to U.S. Businesses: American companies have reported declining sales overseas and lost business opportunities, especially as foreign companies turn claims of products that can protect users from NSA spying into a competitive advantage. The cloud computing industry is particularly vulnerable and could lose billions of dollars in the next three to five years as a result of NSA surveillance. Potential Costs to U.S. Businesses and to the Openness of the Internet from the Rise of Data Localization and Data Protection Proposals: New proposals from foreign governments looking to implement data localization requirements or much stronger data protection laws could compound economic losses in the long term. These proposals could also force changes to the architecture of the global network itself, threatening free expression and privacy if they are implemented. Costs to U.S. Foreign Policy: Loss of credibility for the U.S. Internet Freedom agenda, as well as damage to broader bilateral and multilateral relations, threaten U.S. foreign policy interests. Revelations about the extent of NSA surveillance have already colored a number of critical interactions with nations such as Germany and Brazil in the past year. Costs to Cybersecurity: The NSA has done serious damage to Internet security through its weakening of key encryption standards, insertion of surveillance backdoors into widely-used hardware and software products, stockpiling rather than responsibly disclosing information about software security vulnerabilities, and a variety of offensive hacking operations undermining the overall security of the global Internet. The U.S. government has already taken some limited steps to mitigate this damage and begin the slow, difficult process of rebuilding trust in the United States as a responsible steward of the Internet. But the reform efforts to date have been relatively narrow, focusing primarily on the surveillance programs’ impact on the rights of U.S. citizens. Based on our findings, we recommend that the U.S. government take the following steps to address the broader concern that the NSA’s programs are impacting our economy, our foreign relations, and our cybersecurity: Strengthen privacy protections for both Americans and non-Americans, within the United States and extraterritorially. Provide for increased transparency around government surveillance, both from the government and companies. Recommit to the Internet Freedom agenda in a way that directly addresses issues raised by NSA surveillance, including moving toward international human-rights based standards on surveillance. Begin the process of restoring trust in cryptography standards through the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Ensure that the U.S. government does not undermine cybersecurity by inserting surveillance backdoors into hardware or software products. Help to eliminate security vulnerabilities in software, rather than stockpile them. Develop clear policies about whether, when, and under what legal standards it is permissible for the government to secretly install malware on a computer or in a network. Separate the offensive and defensive functions of the NSA in order to minimize conflicts of interest. The Internet is a key area for economic progress and social changePeralta, ’14, (Adriana, PanAm Post reporter, “Censors Close In on Global Internet Freedom Four Years Running,” PanAm, DECEMBER 8, 2014, http://panampost.com/adriana-peralta/2014/12/08/censors-close-in-on-global-internet-freedom-four-years-running/)//erg During the presentation of the report, its findings were analyzed by six representatives from various think tanks in favor of internet freedom. Among them were the director of the study, Sanja Kelly, and the founder of Yahoo’s human-rights program, Michael Samway. The experts concluded that the internet is currently at a key moment for the future of humanity. They emphasized how information about the huge political and social changes of recent years has been rapidly disseminated around the world via the internet.+ All the panelists agreed that, in order for the web to continue being free, civil society must be vigilant about legislative proposals to control the creation, spread, and free access of online media.+ None were optimistic about the immediate future of web freedom, but they underlined the importance of continuing to fight in favor of liberty online, arguing that a free internet is synonymous with human well-being, freer markets, and economic progress. Multitude of reasons why global Internet freedom is the key factor in economic success—innovation, business credibility, e-commerce, promotion of institutionsSugarman, ’14, (Eli, Cyber Initiative Program Officer at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Adviser to Stanford University's Rule of Law Program and a Truman National Security Fellow, “Russia's War on Internet Freedom Is Bad for Business and the Russian Economy,” Forbes, 3/27/2014, http://www.forbes.com/sites/elisugarman/2014/03/27/russias-war-on-internet-freedom-is-bad-for-business-and-the-russian-economy/)//erg In December 2013, Russian lawmakers added content that promotes rioting, racial hatred, or extremism, including “public events held in violation of the public order,” (e.g. public protests, etc.) to the list of materials that can be blocked without a court order. President Putin’s own Committee on Human Rights denounced it as likely infringing upon the Russian constitution. And at least one technology industry group in Russia fears the law will be used by provocateurs to post objectionable comments on websites to trigger their blocking by prosecutors. Putin recently pushed through several new laws to enhance his government’s Internet surveillance powers, too. One law requires website owners and operators – ranging from Facebook to local Russian blogs – to archive all data from all users of their websites for six months, provide it to the government, and inform Russian security services every time a new user starts using their site or “exchange[s] information.” Taken literally, this law would place crippling compliance burdens on websites located in Russia and abroad (the law specifically states the foreign websites with Russian users are covered) while threatening hefty monetary penalties for violations. A second law limits online money transfers in Russia, which are the lifeblood of many businesses in addition to civic movements and campaigns. Russia also directs pro-Kremlin groups to engage in Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks against websites, pays commentators to post propagandistic content, and hijack blog ratings. It uses other forms of pressure, such as commitment to psychiatric facilities, to silence online critics and drive them out of Russia. And authorities routinely abuse surveillance platforms to access users’ email and data for political purposes (the state has direct access to phone-company and ISP servers through local control centers). These attacks on an open Internet not only undermine Russian democracy but also the country’s economy. A newly-released Dalberg study highlights five ways that a free and open Internet – one in which users can freely choose which platforms and services to use and what content to create, share, and access — stimulates economic growth. First, it is easier for users to access the Internet if it is open, which promotes Internet businesses. Second, a free Internet correlates with larger volumes of e-commerce, especially online banking, which often represents new economic activity instead of mere replacement of in-person transactions. Third, multinational companies are more likely to invest in countries with unencumbered Internet access. Fourth, a free Internet encourages innovation, which in turn, drives economic growth. Fifth and last, an open Internet promotes better quality education, institutions, and social capital, important hallmarks of a dynamic economy. Restrictions on Internet Freedom devastate destroy the economySugarman, ’14, (Eli, Cyber Initiative Program Officer at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Adviser to Stanford University's Rule of Law Program and a Truman National Security Fellow, “Russia's War on Internet Freedom Is Bad for Business and the Russian Economy,” Forbes, 3/27/2014, http://www.forbes.com/sites/elisugarman/2014/03/27/russias-war-on-internet-freedom-is-bad-for-business-and-the-russian-economy/)//erg Conversely, Internet restrictions, such as those implemented by Russia, inhibit economic growth in several ways. First, they reduce investor confidence by creating uncertainty and risk, which in turn reduces investment. Second, they hamper Internet business by requiring expenditures for compliance (e.g. purchasing hardware, installing software, retaining lawyers to fight frivolous charges, etc.) instead of value-added pursuits, such as hiring more employees, investing in research and development, etc. Third, they limit the availability of information that would otherwise catalyze innovation or stimulate economic growth. Fourth, these restrictive measures impede collaboration within and across borders, thereby making it more difficult for individuals and organizations to generate new ideas for products and/or services. Last, limitations create fear and mistrust among Internet users, which depresses online commerce and constrains the market place of ideas. The economic costs of Russia’s war on Internet freedom will be particularly acute because it is alienating younger Russians. Russians between the ages of 18 and 29 strongly believe in a free and open Internet while Russians above the age of 50 do not. In fact, Russia has the largest generation gap worldwide in terms of societal views on Internet freedom. Moscow should take note of this trend because Russia’s economy will increasingly rely on its youth to generate growth as the country’s population ages. As emerging markets grapple with important decisions about how and whether to regulate the Internet, Russia can ill afford to deprive itself of this vital engine of economic growth. Many countries are wisely embracing the transformative nature of the open Internet without which global e-commerce and cloud computing are not possible. Russia risks being left behind if it continues its attacks on Internet freedom, which pose an even greater long term risk to the Russian economy than Moscow’s ill-advised military foray in Ukraine. Now is a key time to re-focus to global Internet freedom—it’s the key factor in economic growthGENACHOWSKI and GOLDSTEIN, ’14, (Julius, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission and Gordon M. “'Global' Internet Governance Invites Censorship,” Wall Street Journal, April 3, 2014, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303978304579471670854356630)//erg The Commerce Department announced last month that the U.S. government intends to transition its authority overseeing the Internet's Domain Name System, which is run through a nonprofit organization called Icann (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), under a contract that expires in late 2015. This announcement comes at a time when global Internet freedom has never been more important or under greater threat. Governments around the world are considering measures to squelch free speech or free enterprise on the Internet, including efforts to suppress Twitter, YouTube and Facebook, and restrictions on cloud computing and other Internet data services. Multilateral organizations have already taken disturbing steps. At the 2013 International Telecommunication Union treaty conference in Dubai, a majority of countries joined Russia, Iran and China in supporting a measure calling on the ITU, a United Nations agency, to play an enlarged role in "international Internet governance." The ITU has historically had authority over certain international telephone rates and global spectrum allocations. At its next conference in South Korea in October, the ITU's 193 member states will likely consider extending the agency's authority to the Internet. The U.S. can influence this and other multilateral gatherings, working to convince countries on the fence that a free and open Internet promotes economic growth globally and within countries that embrace it. Toward this end, changes in the U.S. relationship with Icann should be designed to preserve the unrestricted flow of information and data over the Internet. This means, first of all, that any entity that might replace the U.S. oversight role cannot be a government entity. Instead, it must be a multistakeholder body rooted in the private sector and civil society, preserving the decentralized, nongovernmental approach that has "governed" the Internet from its inception. Otherwise, no deal. The Commerce Department made such conditions implicit when it announced its intention to eventually transfer its current oversight role with Icann. We believe these conditions should become explicit and nonnegotiable. First, the U.S. should not yield any authority to another government, group of governments or intergovernmental body, including the United Nations or a U.N. agency such as the ITU. Second, any transfer must be to an entity that is protected from governmental interference and includes both private sector and civil society organizations that depend upon the Internet remaining free of international actions that could impede innovation. Third, any transfer must guarantee the reliability, stability and resilience of the Internet, complying with official U.S. policy since the Bush administration. Finally, any transfer of authority over Icann must be subjected to "stress tests," hypothetical scenarios designed to expose potential vulnerabilities of any new oversight mechanism. America's relationship with Icann has been used as an argument to grant governing authority to a United Nations agency like the ITU or to otherwise Balkanize the Internet through increased restrictions by individual countries. Not coincidently, the argument has spread since the Arab Spring demonstrated that widely available Internet connectivity threatens nondemocratic governments. More recently, and without irony, some governments have cited the Snowden matter to advance international governmental involvement, despite the fact that American oversight of Icann is wholly unrelated to NSA matters. Bowing to these arguments would be a mistake. The Internet is the infrastructure of the modern global economy, and the free flow of data is essential to any country seeking economic growth. Global Internet consumption and expenditure now exceeds that of the agriculture and energy sectors. The Internet spurred 21% of GDP growth during the past five years in the world's 13 leading developed nations, according to a 2011 study by the McKinsey Global Institute. Global Internet freedom provides opportunities for small businesses and better international innovationGENACHOWSKI and GOLDSTEIN, ’14, (Julius, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission and Gordon M. “'Global' Internet Governance Invites Censorship,” Wall Street Journal, April 3, 2014, http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303978304579471670854356630)//erg Moreover, the Internet is a boon to small businesses and job creation. The Web helps new businesses start and young businesses expand, enabling them to sell more products and services across all industries. The lower infrastructure costs of the mobile Internet has brought innovation to countries that had given up on building a well-functioning communications system. And while it's caused disruption in some sectors, McKinsey also found that for every job eliminated, the Internet created more than 2.5 new jobs. The Internet is also driving innovation in health care and education world-wide, saving lives and creating economic opportunity for millions. Innovators in Africa have led the way on mobile health initiatives, such as texting services that send health reminders and tips to pregnant women and young mothers. Innovators in Asia are using the Internet and technology to expand literacy and basic skills. South Korea, for example, has pledged to replace all paper textbooks with digital learning by 2015. A censored Internet will choke these opportunities. A flourishing and free Internet, on the other hand, will expand them. A January Boston Consulting Group study of 65 countries found that reducing limitations on online activity, through enhanced broadband connectivity and access, can increase a country's GDP by as much as 2.5%. A fragmented global network encumbered by international regulatory restrictions will only limit this potential for growth. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 0.51 Mb. Share with your friends:
|