Sanad Arora

BBA LLB’18

18010797

Post Snowden Era Evolution of the internet

Ever since the genesis of internet, the society has been concerned with the internet
divide, about how the internet is actually halting productivity instead of increasing it,
about how the exposure to the internet without proper knowledge can be harmful, but
another important question which stares right in the face of human civilisation, is about
who are the people, who are skilled enough to exploit this commonly used resource to
their advantage. With an exponential amount of people having access to the internet, it
has become a colossal source of data, because every transaction which takes place
through the internet leaves a digital footprint. And this digital footprint, which is available
in some nook and corner of the internet, can be processed and be used to know about the
individual. In the last few years internet has become a very intrinsic part of our lives,
from mobile phones, desktops, to even our refrigerators and tv’s everything is connected
to the internet, which thus implies that almost every action of ours occurs through the
internet, and hence is traceable. And there are certain people and institutions, who possess
the necessary means and expertise to trace and store this data on billions of individual,
thus subjecting them to perpetual unwarranted surveillance. Perhaps it was not until early
2013 that most of us, were made aware of the invisible digital “Panopticon” we were
living in and all the credit for it goes to one person.

Silicon Valley Reaction

The revelation of the infamous PRISM data collection program, by the now fugitive
Edward Snowden, was a much-needed eye opener for the world when it comes to data
privacy. This program allowed the NSA to collect data from individual’s phone calls,
emails, texts, private servers of companies etc 1. It was important for the people to realise
that essentially, they are living in the Orwellian world of 1984, a police state, where every
single one of their actions was being monitored and recorded. Further fuel to the fire was
added, when it was also disclosed that the tech giants in the Silicon Valley are an
accomplice to this gross violation of consumer data privacy, like some captive with
Stockholm Syndrome2. This unmasking of the Cambridge Analytica Scandal, where
Facebook was selling private data of its consumers to a data mining firm which in turn
was selling the data to the government, highlighted the government’s abuse of power sent
1
Russell L. Weaver, ‘U.S. Cybersurveillance in the Post-Snowden Era’, Revue Internationale de droit des
données et du numérique 5, no. 0 (16 April 2019): 83–88.
2
Zack Whittaker, ‘Five Years after Snowden: What Changed?’, ZDNet, accessed 26 August 2020,
https://www.zdnet.com/article/edward-snowden-five-years-on-tech-giants-change/.
major shock waves down the society, which called for a revolution in how their personal
data was managed. It was at this moment when the tech nobility at Silicon Valley feared
losing their consumer’s trust and decided to take charge of the matters themselves, which
significantly altered the internet governance policy for years to come, because now finally
the spotlight was shifted to the concept of protection of personal data.

Change in governmental policy making

The Post Snowden era where people were newly enlightened with the idea of granular
government intrusion through devices connected to the internet, many reforms were made
by the Congress which curtailed the power of the NSA, after which it couldn’t
capriciously pry on personal data, as encryption was added from third party apps to the
memory of the device itself. Under PRISM the NSA was allowed to collect metadata (i.e
information regarding phone numbers, duration of calls) but with a 2015 law passed by
the Congress, now instead of entering through the back door, the NSA had to present
legal notices to companies in case they had to inquire about an individual’s personal
data3.
And as mentioned above, since the tech companies and the Government worked in
tandem, Corporate Surveillance which essentially led to the commodification of data also
needed to be scrutinised4. It is often seen that Private Companies generate profits by
selling data of their consumers, for example AVG, lets its users avail its antivirus services
for free, but in return collects and sells their data to other private entities. With the
availability of personal data reaching new heights because of social media, surveillance
by the state and the corporates has also taken a new form of this unconsented and explicit
surveillance where both the state and the corporates do not even have to prove their
justiciability to this surveillance because the end users willingly give their consent to it.
This has lead to the formation of an oligopoly, where only a few players, regulate
majority of the data. The Post Snowden Era, brings with it an end to this limited multi-
stake holder system where only a clique of privileged individuals exercised their power
on personal data of tens of thousands of individuals. Essentially, corporate data collection
is effectively state surveillance by proxy as data flows between the two in a process of
“liquid surveillance”5. A similar trend of limited multilateral governance can be seen in
“Internet Governance”, this translates to a single UN international body and other
sovereign authorities regulating the data of its citizens. For example India’s efforts to
store the data of its citizens within data silos developed within its countries, the EU
GDPR, Germany trying to build a separate European in intranet with France 6. Even in the

3
Russell L. Weaver, ‘U.S. Cybersurveillance in the Post-Snowden Era’, Revue Internationale de droit des
données et du numérique 5, no. 0 (16 April 2019): 83–88.
4
(MacAskill, 2013)
5
See Joshi, S. (2013, Dec. 7). India to push for freeing Internet from US control. The Hindu. Retrieved from
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-freeing-internetfrom-us-
control/article5434095.ece
6
6 See Abboud, L. and P. Maushagen (2013, Oct. 25). Germany wants a German Internet as spying scandal
rankles. Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/25/us-usaspying-germany-
idUSBRE99O09S20131025
international organisations have shifted more towards a multi stake holders ideology with
the formation of institutions like Internet Society and International Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
But as noted above in the case of the state and the corporate working in cahoots, a
number of scholars have argued that multi-stakeholders serves either as a cover for the
assertion of state control7 or for domination by a few, powerful organizations over
discourses that are ostensibly open and democratic 8. It can also be argued that this policy
of multiple stake holders isolates the international institutions from the policies being
implemented at a national level and the corporates from the individuals. This would lead
to many complications including weakening the incentive to build cross-cutting
mechanisms or overarching consensus. Importantly, they primarily serve an agenda-
setting and framing function, and their actual influence over policymaking is relatively
limited9. A major opposition to such political schemes has arisen in the form of public
diplomacy in the Post Snowden Era. The CEO of ICANN, Fadi Chehade has called
public diplomacy as an important tool in interacting with governments and institutions.
This increase in public intervention when it comes regulation of the internet would ensure
that a broad range of interests are accounted at the stage of policy making. People from
different social strata and cultural backgrounds bring in varied perspectives thus, making
sure that no one is ostracised, making the internet a more democratic platform.
Conclusion
It can be noticed that the Post Snowden Era, has brought with It a diverse set a changes,
ranging from the government taking note of its citizens data privacy to increased public
intervention playing a counter majoritarian role in the development of the internet. This
increased participation has lead to a distributed form of governance which at one hand
increases participation but also introduces new variables into the process of internet
governance, which are yet to be fully understood and solved.

7
See Drezner, D. W. (2004). “The Global Governance of the Internet: Bringing the State Back In”. Political
Science Quarterly, 119, 3, 477-498 and Van Eeten, Michel JG and Milton Mueller. (2013). “Where is the
governance in Internet governance?”. new media & society, 15, 720-736
8
See Palfrey, J. (2004). “The End of the Experiment: How ICANN’s Foray Into Global Internet Democracy
Failed”. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 17, 2, 409-473 and Pigman, Geoffrey Allen. (2006). World
Economic Forum: A multistakeholder Approach to Global Governance. London: Routledge.
9
6 Mathiason, J. (2006, Jul. 3). Internet Governance Wars, Episode II: the Realists Strike Back. Internet
Governance Project