Sovereignty in
Cyberspace
Ian Brown, Oxford Internet Institute
Outline
•   Legitimacy in global governance
•   Three sites of global Internet governance
    •   NSA: Pretty Good Privacy and encryption controls
    •   WIPO: “The answer to the machine is in the
        machine” – copyright and Technological
        Protection Mechanisms
    •   ICANN: the travelling governance circus
•   Technocracy vs democracy; realpolitik vs
    rhetoric
•   Regulating technology; technologising
    regulation
Legitimacy and Internet
governance
•   Source, process or results-oriented?
    Mandates, accountability, consensus and
    technocracy
•   Constitutional review – whose constitution?
    US, ECHR, UDHR, IETF? Code as
    constitutional law
•   Rhetorical framing – ‘When I use a word,' Humpty
    Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just
    what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.'
National Security Agency
•   Lead US Signals
    Intelligence and
    Cryptology agency
•   Multibillion $ budget
•   Highly secretive (No
    Such Agency 1952-
    64)
•   Key driver of US and
    international policy on
    encryption
Encryption control timeline



                                                                                                             Matt Blaze
                1978: A Method for Obtaining
                Digital Signatures and Public-Key
                Cryptosystems,                                     1990: PGP software released via               1993: Al Gore leads US
                Rivest/Shamir/Adleman: c = me                      Usenet. Author Phil Zimmerman                  attempts to mandate
                mod n; m = cd mod n                                pursued through courts for 3 years            key escrow


1976: New Directions               1977-: NSA attempts to ban publication                     1992: AT&T announce
in Cryptography, Diffie            of cryptographic publications; to control                  DES phone
& Hellman                          funding of cryptography research; and to
                                   ban export of cryptographic software
Encryption rhetoric
•   “They have computers, and they may have other
    weapons of mass destruction.” –AG Janet Reno
    (1998)
•   "Terrorists, drug traffickers and criminals have
    been able to exploit this huge vulnerability in our
    public safety matrix.” –FBI Director Louis Freeh
    (2002)
•   “Many people also choose to use readily available
    encryption programmes to encrypt their email,
    files, folders, documents and pictures. These
    same technologies are also used by terrorists,
    criminals and paedophiles to conceal their
    activities.” –Home Office (2009)
Encryption realpolitik
•   “Law enforcement is a protective shield for all the
    other governmental activities. You should use the
    right word – we’re talking about foreign
    intelligence… The Law enforcement is a smoke
    screen” –David Herson, SOGIS (1996)
•   “We steal [economic] secrets with espionage, with
    communications, with reconnaissance satellites” –
    James Woolsey, CIA (2002)
•   "Encryption is no more prevalent amongst
    terrorists than the general population. Al-Qaeda
    has used encryption, but less than commercial
    enterprises.” –Juliette Bird, NATO (2006)
Encryption control unravels



               1996: IETF declares: “Cryptography
               is the most powerful single tool that
               users can use to secure the Internet.                        1997: OECD rejects attempts to
               Knowingly making that tool weaker                            mandate key escrow in its
               threatens their ability to do so, and                        Guidelines for Cryptography
               has no proven benefit.”                                      Policy

1995: Netscape adds                            1997: European Commission
encrypted links, enabling                      declares key escrow should be                                 2001: US essentially
e-commerce boom                                limited to that which is “absolutely                          abandons export controls
                                               necessary”
NSA summary
•   Encryption policy was driven by a small number of
    executive agency stakeholders (largely excluding
    legislators) with very little transparency, and
    widespread contention from Internet community –
    lack of source, process and results legitimacy
•   Differing stakeholder positions meant multilateral
    fora rejected US demands & bilateral negotiation
    failed
•   Effective regulation extremely difficult given global
    availability of cryptographic knowledge,
    programmers, distribution channel, open PC
    platform and user demand
WIPO
•   Part of UN system
    responsible for “developing a
    balanced and accessible
    international IP system,
    which rewards creativity,
    stimulates innovation and
    contributes to economic
    development while
    safeguarding the public
    interest”
•   Spent much of 1980s and
    1990s “updating” global ©
    treaties
© rhetoric
•   “the VCR is to the American film
    producer and the American
    public as the Boston strangler is
    to the woman home alone.” –
    Jack Valenti (1982)
•   “The answer to the machine is in
    the machine” –Charles Clark
    (1996)
•   “If we can find some way to [stop
    filesharing] without destroying
    their machines, we'd be
    interested in hearing about that.
    If that's the only way, then I'm all
    for destroying their machines.” –
    Senator Orrin Hatch (2003)
Technological Protection
Measures
WIPO Copyright Treaty §11
“Contracting Parties shall
  provide adequate legal
  protection and effective
  legal remedies against the
  circumvention of effective
  technological measures
  that are used by authors in
  connection with the
  exercise of their rights
  under this Treaty or the
  Berne Convention and that
  restrict acts, in respect of
  their works, which are not
  authorized by the authors
  concerned or permitted by
  law.”
Implementations
•   DMCA §1201: “No person shall circumvent a
    technological measure that effectively controls
    access to a work protected under this title”
•   EUCD §5: “Member States shall provide
    adequate legal protection against the
    circumvention of any effective technological
    measures”
•   Similar provisions in various US FTAs ever
    since
•   All mirror detailed US proposals to WIPO that
    were overruled during development of WCT
TPM realpolitik
•   “Accurate, technological enforcement of the law of
    fair use is far beyond today's state of the art and
    may well remain so permanently” –Ed Felten
    (2003)
•   “Legal backing for the right of access is essential
    in the interests of social inclusion and equitable
    treatment of people with disabilities” –European
    Blind Union (2006)
•   “Why would the big four music companies agree
    to let Apple and others distribute their music
    without using DRM systems to protect it? The
    simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t
    worked, and may never work, to halt music
WIPO summary
•   Consensus reached on TPM policy in UN
    agency, but implementation was driven by US
    and EU IP/trade agencies with widespread
    contention from users of © works – limited
    process and results legitimacy
•   Effective regulation extremely difficult given
    global availability of TPM circumvention
    knowledge, programmers, distribution channel
    for code and unprotected works, existing
    insecure platforms (CDs), open PC platform
    and user demand
ICANN
•   Internet Corporation for
    Assigned Names and
    Numbers
•   Private, public-benefit
    Californian corp (1998)
    operating under
    agreement with US
    Department of Commerce
•   Manages DNS, IP address
    and port allocation
ICANN governance
•   Original attempts to elect board abandoned in 2002
•   Now focused on process and result legitimacy
•   “to ensure the stable and secure operation of the
    Internet's unique identifier systems”
ICANN rhetoric
•   “Burdensome, bureaucratic oversight is out of
    place in an Internet structure that has worked
    so well for many around the globe.” –
    Condoleeza Rice (2005)
•   “No intergovernmental body should control the
    Internet, whether it's the UN or any other.” –
    David Gross (2005)
•   “On Internet governance, three words tend to
    come to mind: lack of legitimacy. In our digital
    world, only one nation decides for all of us.” –
    Brazilian WSIS delegation (2005)
ICANN realpolitik
•   Internet governance is “definitely a travelling
    roadshow, if not a flying circus”-Markus
    Kummer (2004)
•   “The ITU version of [the Internet] blurs…
    boundaries and takes us a step backwards
    into a centrally controlled, centrally managed,
    ‘more than good enough’network—
    administered, of course, by the ITU.” –Ross
    Rader (2004)
•   "Using 'talking shop' as a negative suggests
    communication is a bad thing” –Emily Taylor
ICANN summary
•   Source legitimacy still highly contentious –
    online board elections abandoned, relies on
    extreme consensus processes and result
    legitimacy – limited objectives have been
    achieved
•   Governance has just about held together,
    partly due to Internet community grudging
    acceptance of ICANN as least-worst solution.
    DNS alternatives are possible but so far
    unpopular
Comparison
              Encryption control            Anti-circumvention           Identifier management

Policy        Maintain intelligence and     Maintain excludability of    Maintain a stable and
objective     law enforcement intercept     information goods            secure addressing system
              capability
Stakeholder   SIGINT agencies, law          Copyright holders, trade     Registrants, registrars,
s             enforcement (US: NSA,         and IP agencies,             trademark holders
              NSC, DoJ), software cos       consumer electronics firms
Legitimacy    Source; little transparency   Source, some process         Multi-source, extreme
                                                                         process, result
Framing       Terrorists, paedophiles       Piracy is killing music      Private-sector innovation

Sites         COCOM/Wassenaar,              WIPO, US-EU-Japan            The travelling circus
              OECD, G8, special envoy       coordination, FTAs,
                                            special 301 procedure
Counter-      Anti-Big Brother, US          Defective by design, anti-   Anti-democratic, US-
framing       business interests            innovation, anti-            dominated
                                            competitive, anti-fair use
Main          Open source software, 1st     Open source software,        Finding consensus across
challenges    amendment, economic           P2P networks, consumer       extreme range of stake-
              espionage, consumer           preferences, Apple market    holders; legitimacy
              preferences, campaigners      power, campaigners
Conclusions
•   Internet policy cycle takes decades, not years; it does
    not provide democratic panaceas nor trivial
    consensus
•   Multi-stakeholder forums can take better account of
    technocratic expertise and civil society than bilateral
    and multilateral fora, building process and results
    legitimacy
•   Internet, cryptography and PCs have acted as a
    powerful constraint on public and private sector
    power; network effects and sunk cost make change
    difficult – does some code have a constitutional
    quality?
•   Effective, legitimate global regulation of information is
    hard; technological regulation is even harder
•   The answer to the machine is often elsewhere
References
•   W. Diffie & S. Landau (1998) Privacy on the line, MIT Press
•   L. Lessig (1999) Code: and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Basic
    Books
•   P. Drahos with J. Braithwaite (2002) Information Feudalism,
    Earthscan
•   V. Mayer-Schönberger & M. Ziewitz (2007) Jefferson
    Rebuffed: The United States And The Future Of Internet
    Governance, Columbia Science & Technology Law Review 8, 188—
    228
•   I. Brown (2007) The evolution of anti-circumvention law,
    International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 20(3) 239—
    260
•   R. Weber & M. Grosz (2008) Legitimate governing of the Internet,
    In S. M. Kierkegaard (ed.), Synergies and Conflicts in Cyberlaw,
    300—313
•   A. Adams & I. Brown (2009) Keep looking: the answer to the
    machine is elsewhere, Computers & Law 20(1)

Sovereignty in Cyberspace

  • 1.
    Sovereignty in Cyberspace Ian Brown,Oxford Internet Institute
  • 2.
    Outline • Legitimacy in global governance • Three sites of global Internet governance • NSA: Pretty Good Privacy and encryption controls • WIPO: “The answer to the machine is in the machine” – copyright and Technological Protection Mechanisms • ICANN: the travelling governance circus • Technocracy vs democracy; realpolitik vs rhetoric • Regulating technology; technologising regulation
  • 3.
    Legitimacy and Internet governance • Source, process or results-oriented? Mandates, accountability, consensus and technocracy • Constitutional review – whose constitution? US, ECHR, UDHR, IETF? Code as constitutional law • Rhetorical framing – ‘When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.'
  • 4.
    National Security Agency • Lead US Signals Intelligence and Cryptology agency • Multibillion $ budget • Highly secretive (No Such Agency 1952- 64) • Key driver of US and international policy on encryption
  • 5.
    Encryption control timeline Matt Blaze 1978: A Method for Obtaining Digital Signatures and Public-Key Cryptosystems, 1990: PGP software released via 1993: Al Gore leads US Rivest/Shamir/Adleman: c = me Usenet. Author Phil Zimmerman attempts to mandate mod n; m = cd mod n pursued through courts for 3 years key escrow 1976: New Directions 1977-: NSA attempts to ban publication 1992: AT&T announce in Cryptography, Diffie of cryptographic publications; to control DES phone & Hellman funding of cryptography research; and to ban export of cryptographic software
  • 6.
    Encryption rhetoric • “They have computers, and they may have other weapons of mass destruction.” –AG Janet Reno (1998) • "Terrorists, drug traffickers and criminals have been able to exploit this huge vulnerability in our public safety matrix.” –FBI Director Louis Freeh (2002) • “Many people also choose to use readily available encryption programmes to encrypt their email, files, folders, documents and pictures. These same technologies are also used by terrorists, criminals and paedophiles to conceal their activities.” –Home Office (2009)
  • 7.
    Encryption realpolitik • “Law enforcement is a protective shield for all the other governmental activities. You should use the right word – we’re talking about foreign intelligence… The Law enforcement is a smoke screen” –David Herson, SOGIS (1996) • “We steal [economic] secrets with espionage, with communications, with reconnaissance satellites” – James Woolsey, CIA (2002) • "Encryption is no more prevalent amongst terrorists than the general population. Al-Qaeda has used encryption, but less than commercial enterprises.” –Juliette Bird, NATO (2006)
  • 8.
    Encryption control unravels 1996: IETF declares: “Cryptography is the most powerful single tool that users can use to secure the Internet. 1997: OECD rejects attempts to Knowingly making that tool weaker mandate key escrow in its threatens their ability to do so, and Guidelines for Cryptography has no proven benefit.” Policy 1995: Netscape adds 1997: European Commission encrypted links, enabling declares key escrow should be 2001: US essentially e-commerce boom limited to that which is “absolutely abandons export controls necessary”
  • 9.
    NSA summary • Encryption policy was driven by a small number of executive agency stakeholders (largely excluding legislators) with very little transparency, and widespread contention from Internet community – lack of source, process and results legitimacy • Differing stakeholder positions meant multilateral fora rejected US demands & bilateral negotiation failed • Effective regulation extremely difficult given global availability of cryptographic knowledge, programmers, distribution channel, open PC platform and user demand
  • 10.
    WIPO • Part of UN system responsible for “developing a balanced and accessible international IP system, which rewards creativity, stimulates innovation and contributes to economic development while safeguarding the public interest” • Spent much of 1980s and 1990s “updating” global © treaties
  • 11.
    © rhetoric • “the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.” – Jack Valenti (1982) • “The answer to the machine is in the machine” –Charles Clark (1996) • “If we can find some way to [stop filesharing] without destroying their machines, we'd be interested in hearing about that. If that's the only way, then I'm all for destroying their machines.” – Senator Orrin Hatch (2003)
  • 12.
    Technological Protection Measures WIPO CopyrightTreaty §11 “Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.”
  • 13.
    Implementations • DMCA §1201: “No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title” • EUCD §5: “Member States shall provide adequate legal protection against the circumvention of any effective technological measures” • Similar provisions in various US FTAs ever since • All mirror detailed US proposals to WIPO that were overruled during development of WCT
  • 14.
    TPM realpolitik • “Accurate, technological enforcement of the law of fair use is far beyond today's state of the art and may well remain so permanently” –Ed Felten (2003) • “Legal backing for the right of access is essential in the interests of social inclusion and equitable treatment of people with disabilities” –European Blind Union (2006) • “Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music
  • 15.
    WIPO summary • Consensus reached on TPM policy in UN agency, but implementation was driven by US and EU IP/trade agencies with widespread contention from users of © works – limited process and results legitimacy • Effective regulation extremely difficult given global availability of TPM circumvention knowledge, programmers, distribution channel for code and unprotected works, existing insecure platforms (CDs), open PC platform and user demand
  • 16.
    ICANN • Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers • Private, public-benefit Californian corp (1998) operating under agreement with US Department of Commerce • Manages DNS, IP address and port allocation
  • 17.
    ICANN governance • Original attempts to elect board abandoned in 2002 • Now focused on process and result legitimacy • “to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems”
  • 18.
    ICANN rhetoric • “Burdensome, bureaucratic oversight is out of place in an Internet structure that has worked so well for many around the globe.” – Condoleeza Rice (2005) • “No intergovernmental body should control the Internet, whether it's the UN or any other.” – David Gross (2005) • “On Internet governance, three words tend to come to mind: lack of legitimacy. In our digital world, only one nation decides for all of us.” – Brazilian WSIS delegation (2005)
  • 19.
    ICANN realpolitik • Internet governance is “definitely a travelling roadshow, if not a flying circus”-Markus Kummer (2004) • “The ITU version of [the Internet] blurs… boundaries and takes us a step backwards into a centrally controlled, centrally managed, ‘more than good enough’network— administered, of course, by the ITU.” –Ross Rader (2004) • "Using 'talking shop' as a negative suggests communication is a bad thing” –Emily Taylor
  • 20.
    ICANN summary • Source legitimacy still highly contentious – online board elections abandoned, relies on extreme consensus processes and result legitimacy – limited objectives have been achieved • Governance has just about held together, partly due to Internet community grudging acceptance of ICANN as least-worst solution. DNS alternatives are possible but so far unpopular
  • 21.
    Comparison Encryption control Anti-circumvention Identifier management Policy Maintain intelligence and Maintain excludability of Maintain a stable and objective law enforcement intercept information goods secure addressing system capability Stakeholder SIGINT agencies, law Copyright holders, trade Registrants, registrars, s enforcement (US: NSA, and IP agencies, trademark holders NSC, DoJ), software cos consumer electronics firms Legitimacy Source; little transparency Source, some process Multi-source, extreme process, result Framing Terrorists, paedophiles Piracy is killing music Private-sector innovation Sites COCOM/Wassenaar, WIPO, US-EU-Japan The travelling circus OECD, G8, special envoy coordination, FTAs, special 301 procedure Counter- Anti-Big Brother, US Defective by design, anti- Anti-democratic, US- framing business interests innovation, anti- dominated competitive, anti-fair use Main Open source software, 1st Open source software, Finding consensus across challenges amendment, economic P2P networks, consumer extreme range of stake- espionage, consumer preferences, Apple market holders; legitimacy preferences, campaigners power, campaigners
  • 22.
    Conclusions • Internet policy cycle takes decades, not years; it does not provide democratic panaceas nor trivial consensus • Multi-stakeholder forums can take better account of technocratic expertise and civil society than bilateral and multilateral fora, building process and results legitimacy • Internet, cryptography and PCs have acted as a powerful constraint on public and private sector power; network effects and sunk cost make change difficult – does some code have a constitutional quality? • Effective, legitimate global regulation of information is hard; technological regulation is even harder • The answer to the machine is often elsewhere
  • 23.
    References • W. Diffie & S. Landau (1998) Privacy on the line, MIT Press • L. Lessig (1999) Code: and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Basic Books • P. Drahos with J. Braithwaite (2002) Information Feudalism, Earthscan • V. Mayer-Schönberger & M. Ziewitz (2007) Jefferson Rebuffed: The United States And The Future Of Internet Governance, Columbia Science & Technology Law Review 8, 188— 228 • I. Brown (2007) The evolution of anti-circumvention law, International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 20(3) 239— 260 • R. Weber & M. Grosz (2008) Legitimate governing of the Internet, In S. M. Kierkegaard (ed.), Synergies and Conflicts in Cyberlaw, 300—313 • A. Adams & I. Brown (2009) Keep looking: the answer to the machine is elsewhere, Computers & Law 20(1)

Editor's Notes

  • #6 RSA: http://www.msri.org/people/members/sara/articles/rsa.pdf
  • #20 http://management.silicon.com/government/0,39024677,39124419,00.htm