|
Web watchdog imperils
freedom
By Liu Ching-Yi 劉靜怡
The National Communications Commission announced several days ago that the
government has allocated a budget for an “Internet watchdog” mechanism to
replace the Watch Internet Network (WIN), currently the only agency in Taiwan
that deals with complaints about Internet content.
The new mechanism is to be a joint, interdepartmental “protection institution
for Internet content” to deal with Internet content deemed potentially
detrimental to the physical and psychological development of children and
teenagers.
The commission has declared that Internet content is to be monitored “if not by
a designated watchdog, then through a collaborative effort by experts, NGO
representatives and Internet companies.” At the same time, “in order to avoid
there being government interference ... the commissioned NGOs will deal with
everything in an open, transparent way, so that the freedom of expression will
not be impinged upon,” the commission says.
Although this announcement sounds well-intentioned, it sets off alarm bells.
Above and beyond the paternalistic authoritarianism that informs it, it also
sounds menacingly indicative of purposeful interference and an encroaching
totalitarianism that regards the Internet as the enemy.
The government does not consider the creative potential of the Internet, or how
it benefits people. For years now, the legislative and executive branches of
government have been looking for an excuse to implement a range of Internet
controls, presenting them as addressing mainstream concerns while actually
seriously curtailing people’s basic freedoms.
Now, the government has announced, in lofty language, that it is to introduce
Internet censorship, dressing it up by using one of the excuses favored by
countries that take a totalitarian approach to the Internet like China, Libya
and Iraq: the need to protect children.
This scandalous anomaly — of Internet censorship being rolled out in a
democratic country — is sure to be included as a major development in the annual
reports of Internet status surveys by international Internet monitoring
agencies.
The commission says it is only implementing the law and that this Internet
watchdog mechanism is provided for in Article 46 of the Protection of Children
and Youth Welfare and Rights Act (兒童及少年福利與權益保障法). Leaving aside for the moment
the unclear wording of the clauses therein, and that the stipulations are
possibly unconstitutional and certainly contentious, the stated goal of the
clause — to prevent children and teenagers from being exposed to information
detrimental to their physical and psychological health — raises several
questions: How is this goal to be achieved? What will be the nature of the
non-governmental organization (NGO) made to achieve the goal? What
self-disciplinary measures are to be expected of Internet companies?
What democratic credentials will the NGOs given this watchdog role have that
qualify them to decide what content is detrimental to young people? Will the
results of these decisions be subject to judicial review — as they should be in
any constitutional democracy — so that freedom of expression and access to
information are not affected?
To what extent did the current agency, WIN, balance the interests of different
parties over the course of the last few years? It is the duty of the commission
to provide the statistics of what WIN has been up to and make them public,
rather than trying to pull a fast one with vague, non-specific nonsense about
changing from dealing with complaints to being a watchdog. Those two roles could
not be more different.
In addition to betraying a lack of understanding of what freedom of expression
is, it is abundantly apparent that, by drafting in “civil” agencies to impinge
upon the freedom of information, the commission seeks to absolve itself of
responsibility.
How does the collaborative and open, transparent nature of the process described
prevent anyone from violating the freedom of expression? When an NGO with zero
liability monitors or even guides Internet content with government backing, what
makes this pernicious proposition — giving unconstitutional powers to violate
people’s freedom of information without liability — any different from the
Chinese government pressuring international Internet companies such as Yahoo and
Google to help it curb Internet freedom?
When the government is unable to dispel doubts about its intentions, citizens in
the Internet age would be advised not to indulge such preposterous plans to
provide protection from Internet content, wherever such powers are invested. If
we do, we will be complicit in helping the government create the framework for a
closed state.
Liu Ching-yi is a professor in the Graduate Institute of National Development
at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
|
