The Internet needs its own ‘declaration of independence’

A new ‘Declaration of Internet Freedom’ should spark a much-needed discussion about online rights and privacy.

Robert Galbraith/Reuters/File
Anti-piracy legislation protesters gather at City Hall in San Francisco to demonstrate against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) being considered by Congress in January 2012. A new Declaration of Internet Freedom aims to revive a discussion of what constitutes freedom online.

Consider just two facts about the Internet:

1. More than 2 billion people (about one-third of the world’s population) now go online. Nearly half of them are under the age of 25.

2. Kansas City is about to receive, courtesy of an experimental Google project, Internet service 100 times faster than the US national average. The city was chosen from among 1,100 who applied. Kansas City expects the ubiquitous, fast connection will make it a hotbed for start-up companies and all other manner of innovation.

RELATED: Vint Cerf of Google on Internet rights – interview

It’s hard to overstate the importance of a cheap, fast, reliable flow of digital information to both economic growth and political freedom around the world. A city offering superior Internet service now might be akin to one located on a river in the 18th century or a railroad line in the 19th, a decisive advantage.

Yesterday, an impressive coalition of companies and Internet and human rights activists endorsed a Declaration of Internet Freedom that aims to start a discussion about the basic principles that should underlie online access. Among the 20,000 groups or individuals already signing on to the declaration are Mozilla (creator of the Firefox browser), Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Internet deep thinkers such as Microsoft’s danah boyd and Harvard’s Jonathan Zittrain.

The document’s five points are simple, brief statements that oppose Internet censorship; encourage universal access, openness, and innovation; and advocate for privacy.

The declaration’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness: It contains very little with which most people would disagree. But at the same time it’s so vague and general that it doesn’t begin to pick away at the Gordian knot of problems our digital world presents. The document is a lofty declaration of independence, yes, but without the necessary bill of rights that spells out just what is and isn’t acceptable.

The generalities are intentional, the declaration’s framers say in a preamble: They want the document to be a set of talking points that engender a deeper conversation. “Let’s discuss these principles – agree or disagree with them, debate them, translate them, make them your own and broaden the discussion with your community – as only the Internet can make possible.”

That discussion is badly needed. Efforts by governments to censor the Internet are only one important part of the debate. What right to privacy should individuals expect online? What if it conflicts with governments’ need to track down criminals or terrorists? Or companies’ desire to market their goods? How can individual or corporate rights to creations (such as music and movies) be maintained in an Internet world that allows instant mashing up, sharing, and copying – and the boost to new creativity those practices can give?

Earlier this year the well-intentioned Stop Online Piracy Act (US House) and Protect IP Act (US Senate) were shot down through the efforts of many of the same groups now endorsing the declaration. The legislation failed to find a satisfactory middle ground between protecting intellectual property rights and maintaining online free speech and innovation. Well-known Internet players such as Google, Wikipedia, and Craigslist were among those who protested the bills.

America’s Declaration of Independence didn’t set out any specifics on how to create a nation or govern it. That was left to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

If the Declaration of Internet Freedom can ignite a similar revolutionary passion about preserving the freedom of the Internet, for today and for future generations, it could become a landmark statement too.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.