A publicly-funded inventor or researcher still deserves to profit from their efforts  The developer of a new idea, theory, technology, invention, etc. has a fundamental intellectual property right. Academics in universities, through deliberate effort create new things and ideas, and those efforts demand huge amounts of personal sacrifice and invention in order to bear fruit. State funding is often given to pioneering researchers who eschew traditional roads in pursuit of new frontiers. Often there are no obvious profits to be immediately had, and it is only because of the desire of these individuals to expand the canon of human knowledge that these boundaries are ever pushed. It is a matter of principle that these academics be able to benefit from the fruits of their hard-won laurels. [1] The state stripping people of these rights is certainly a kind of theft. Certainly no amount of public funding to an institution can alter the fundamental relationship that exists between creator and the product of their endeavour. The state-funded University of Illinois, for example, has led the way in many technologies, such as fast charging batteries, and has spawned dozens of high-tech start-ups that have profited the university and society generally. [2] The state can easily gain a return on its investments in universities by adopting things like licensing agreements that can provide the state with revenue without taking away the benefits from the developers of research. Furthermore, this policy strips control of researchers’ control over their works’ use. State funding should obviously come with some requirements in terms of some sharing of revenues, etc., but it is also important to consider the extent of the impact work may offer the world. For example, the team that produced the atomic bomb at the University of Chicago became extremely worried after seeing what their invention could wreak, yet the power over their invention was taken over entirely by the state. [3] Certainly that is an extreme example, but it highlights the risks of stripping originators of control over what they produce.  [1] Sellenthin, M. (2004). “Who Should Own University Research?”. Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies.   [2] Blumenstyk, G. (2012) “Universities Report $1.8 Billion in Earnings on Inventions in 2011”. The Chronicle.   [3] Rosen, R. (2011). “’I’ve Created a Monster!’ On the Regrets of Inventors”. The Atlantic.


If universities want to invest in pursuits that will not have any tangible benefit for society then they are welcome to do so. But they should not expect to be able to do that on the government dime. If people want to study the humanities they can pay the tuition fees needed, and universities should be able to prioritize its funding as they prefer. The state acts best when it serves the public interest. By making the research and work of academics who receive state funding available to the public it does its job by freeing people to use vast amounts of information to the betterment of all. If that means a few less books about Marxist-Feminist literary theory, then that is a cost the state should be willing to pay.


To use such websites governments already need to be committed to democracy. Promoting democracy in already-democratic countries is irrelevant. Countries that are not democratic, and seek to maintain autocratic rule will not be impacted by the availability of those resources and harness the internet only for continued repression 1.  1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded, 2010


Websites can strengthen democratic institutions.  The promotion of democracy is not only about forming new democracies; strengthening existing democratic institutions around the globe. To do so, transparency and government-citizen communication is necessary. Britain has set up two websites that achieve exactly that. Writetothem.com is a website where people can figure out who their parliamentary representatives are, and write to them about their problems in an effort to create a stronger relationship, and channels of communication between MPs and their constituents1. 130,000 people were using the website in 2009. Theyworkforyou.com is another website where people can find out who their representatives are, and then read about their recent actions in parliament. This site receives between 200,000 and 300,000 hits per month2. Elections are also strengthened by the internet. Voting can be conducted online which makes the process easier and can reduce intimidation at the polls. Now that politicians have websites, their policy platforms can be more easily accessed and understood by voters. Increasing information and communication between leaders and their constituents contributes to a more transparent system and therefore a healthier democracy. The internet is not only useful for promoting movements for democratic reforms in authoritarian countries, but also for making democracy more effective in democratic countries.  What about civil society and alternative media action sites within ‘official’ democracies that aim to bring about greater democratization through their protests and information for example-  .  1. Escher, Tobias, Analysis of users and usage for UK Citizens Online Democracy, mysociety.org, May 2011  2. Escher, Tobias, WriteToThem.com, mysociety.org, May 2011


The internet is only a place for coordination and cannot replace real-life action so if people are not willing to take to the streets, then the internet is not going to help—and even without the internet, disgruntled masses can still make their points known, as in the French Revolution1. Egypt shut down internet and phone service during part of the revolution, yet it continued indicating that this movement is not based online2. Therefore the internet is not necessarily the force that propels people towards change. SMS has been a very important part of the organization of these protests, which is entirely separate from the internet3. Close to 5 billion people use cell phones and SMS, therefore the impact of the cell phone cannot be distinguished from the internet so it is inaccurate to say that the internet is contributing to democratization when it is very possibly thanks to mobile phones4.  1. Wikipedia, French Revolution  2. BBC, “Egypt’s opposition pushes demands as protests continue”, 2011  3. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded: The Power of Mobile Phones, 2010  4. Melanson, David, “UN: worldwide internet users hit two billion, cellphone subscribers top five billion”, 2011.


The internet promotes the free flow of information both in and out of a country, which is essential for a truly free democracy.  Media can be one of the most important factors in democratic development. If governments successfully control the media, they can direct information towards their constituents that casts the regime in an undeniably good light. They can prevent news of faked elections, protests, violence, repression, and arrest from ever reaching the people subject to those violations 1. Without external sources of information people do not question government propaganda, which decreases the likelihood that they advocate for their civil liberties and democracy. The internet promotes the free flow of information that leads to social consciousness and enhances democracy. News of political corruption and scandal in China can go viral in a matter of minutes among its 540 million internet users 2. Even when the government blocks certain websites, and makes avid use of firewalls for censorship, uploading videos to Facebook and YouTube, and posts to Twitter can allow information to be disseminated within the country. Once information is accessible it is almost impossible for the government to continue to censor the internet. For example, in the most recent Egyptian protests, as information leaked out of the country via social networking sites, cell phone pictures and videos were shown on international news broadcasts, making it difficult for the government to spin the situation in a positive light 3. The internet provides a place to find information, and also a place to discuss and debate it with others. The latter is the essential step to truly shifting views. The internet promotes free media which is essential to both creating and maintaining a functioning democracy as it promotes government transparency.  1. Reporters Without Borders, "Press Freedom Index 2010" 2010,  2. Economy, Elizabeth and Mondschein, Jared, "China: The New Virtual Political System", Council on Foreign Relations 2011  3.  ">Richard Waters. "Web firms aim to benefit from role in uprising" Financial Times, February 13, 2011,


overnments still successfully censor information. Take China for example. Often the government shuts down Facebook and Twitter, arrests bloggers, and takes down content. Terms like ‘Tiananmen Square’ and ‘Inner Mongolia’ provide no search results because of the protests that have gone on there1 Governments’ ability to censor information is advancing. Therefore the idea that the internet promotes the flow of unbiased information is not necessarily true, which counters the claim that the internet promotes democracy. Further, the internet is not always used for access to Western news sources, but instead, over 500 million sites in the indexes of search engines are pornographic. In 2003 25% of internet use was for accessing porn. Five of the twenty most visited internet sites are download sites for video games and porn 2. The internet is not largely used for access to information, but instead other forbidden resources, and therefore cannot be directly linked to democratic development.  1. Shirong, Chen, "China Tightens Internet Censorship Controls", BBC, 2011  2. Change.org, "Petition to Unsubscribe America from Internet Porn", 2011,


For many countries, communication with outside actors does not make any difference. Iran has some internet freedom and access to outside information, yet president Ahmadinejad casts the West as a great evil trying to destroy Iran's culture1 . The government remains a theocracy and while there have been some protests, there are many that still support the system of governance2 . Additionally, China may have made reforms, but it is not a democracy even though they have extensive contact with the West3 . Therefore, contact does not necessarily indicate that values will be adopted. When it comes to information flowing out of oppressive countries, the international community might make matters worse. When the West gets involved in local movements, often it can make leaders hold a tighter grip on their power, and turn the blame for the situation on the West leading to violence, and hindering democratic development. This is similar to the situation in Libya4.  1 CNN Wire Staff, 'The West is to blame for regional unrest, Ahmadinejad says', CNN Worl, 18 April 2011  2 Wolverson, Roya, 'How Iran Sees Egypt's Protests', Council on Foreign Relations, 10 February 2010  3 Kurlantzick, Joshua, 'Beijing has bought itself a respite from middle class revolt', The National, 7 March 2011  4 Zenko, Micah, 'Think Again: Libya', Foreign Policy, 28 April 2011


The internet allows political dissidents to communicate, organize, and grow a grassroots movement.  Another extremely important requirement for successful opposition movements advocating democratic reform is the ability to organize mass numbers of people. It is one thing if you hate your government, but don’t think anyone else does. It is entirely different if you can access the thoughts of thousands of others and realize that you are in fact not alone 1. Proportionally the number of people benefiting from repressive authoritative regimes is very small in comparison to the people who are suffering. Therefore, if the people who are hurt by the regimes realize the numbers that they have, it spells trouble for the governments. The internet has 2 billion users, and 950 million people have mobile broadband 2. Mobile phones with pay-as-you-go access plans are more available and affordable than ever before. Protesters do not need to own a computer: they can access social networking and news sites from their phones. The internet means that opposition groups don’t have to be organized under a particular leader, as there can now be many leaders and various causes that fit under the same umbrella and band together. These loose connections, as in Egypt, strengthen the movement 3. The internet also reduces the cost of organization, which can be the difference between success and failure 4. In the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia which called for democracy, the internet was first used to create events on Facebook to increase the number of people aware of and attending protests 5. Then the videos, photographs, and twitter posts that became available on the internet increased the support for the movement as citizens became aware of the violence the government was subjecting the country to. The internet allows users to communicate, then organize demonstrations, and then grow the movement. All of these functions of the internet are essential factors of a grassroots push for democratic reforms.  1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded, 2010, pp. 101-118  2. Melanson, Donald, 'UN: worldwide internet users hit two billion, cellphone subscriptions top five billion', engadget, 28 January 2011  3. BBC, "Egypt's opposition pushes demands as protests continue", 2011  4. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded: Digital Activism in Closed and Open Societies. 2010  5. Alexander, Anne (2011), "Internet Role in Egypt Protests", British Broadcasting Company,


The internet enhances communication between countries.  The internet does not only make information available to oppressed people within a country, but also communicates that situation to the rest of the world. People also learn about other authoritarian—and democratic—governments around the world. For example, the internet allowed information about Tunisia’s revolution to reach Egypt, which made it clear that overthrowing a government was entirely possible1. Information about the actions of other countries, and their governments can lead to a push for democratic reforms around the world. In addition, as information flows out of a country it becomes more difficult for the globe’s powers to ignore the events that are ensuing, and makes it more likely that they will take action. This action can create the internal and external pressure necessary for democratic reform as was seen in both the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia2. Contact between countries can also have a more subtle impact as well. It enhances communication between open and closed societies particularly in the form of business, which can bring about an exchange of values. Thanks in part to the internet; Western firms increasingly own large shares of Middle Eastern and East Asian businesses, putting pressure on governments to remove their economic protectionism measures and to allow greater transparency. For example, while China is not a democracy it has made some government and economic reforms that are on the right track3.  1. Jerome, Deborah (2011), “Understand Tunisia’s Tremors”, Council on Foreign Relations, [Accessed June 22, 2011].  2. Wikipedia, “International reactions to the revolution in Egypt”, [Accessed June 24, 2011].  3. Wikipedia, “Chinese Economic Reforms”, [Accessed June 24, 2011]


With any tool there are going to be people who misuse it, yet cases of misuse do not outweigh times when the internet has proven to be an important force for democracy. Internet and SMS have helped to organize almost every uprising in the Middle East and the Orange Revolution in Georgia1. Cases of citizen misuse are few and far between in comparison to the change that has been made partially thanks to the internet. Further, the internet provides tools to successfully catch the abusers and prevent continued undemocratic actions through tracking IP addresses and other tactics. The same goes for targeting terrorist networks.  1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded: Digital Activism in Closed and Open Societies. 2010


The quantity of information on the internet, and the number of talented computer users makes it very difficult for the government to fully censor information. The more information there is, the harder it becomes for the government to control it. The US is investing $19 million into researching how to break the firewalls of China and Iran1. There is plenty of easy to use software to evade firewalls2. Internet censorship can be evaded. Therefore, regimes cannot entirely maintain control over information, and any external information can be considered good information.  Furthermore, regimes like China and Iran are not the only countries to “watching” their populations. Many democracies including the US and most of Western European use digital surveillance to safeguard their population- watch out for possible activity that may be harmful to the state.  1. Gaouette, Nicole, 'U.S. Launches New Effort to Evade China's Internet Firewalls', Bloomberg.com, 11 May 2011  2. Irish Times, 'Bunnies Hop the Great Firewall', 2 February 2011


The digital divide leaves the same people in places of influence and power.  The internet doesn’t necessarily put power in the hands of the vulnerable; in many places it strengthens the influence of the traditional elite. In low-income countries the cost of broadband is 900% of average monthly income1. Most people simply cannot afford to have internet access. Internet penetration is not up to par in low income, developing, and traditionally non-democratic countries. For example, Africa has 15% of the world’s population and only 5% of its internet users. There are only about 100 million internet users on the continent, which accounts for only 11% of its population2. As the lower income members of society remain unable to afford internet access, the power that the internet boasts remains with those who can afford it. The traditional elites are the ones that maintain the ability to access the internet, and they can use it for their own purposes and to strengthen their position and power – i.e. the internet may actually increase inequalities on the ground, against democracy. The internet could play a positive role in society, but until it is affordable, the oppressed who long for democracy will not have the tools to advocate for it.  1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded, 2010  2. Internet World Stats. “Internet Usage in Africa", 2011


The internet can be used to quash democratic movements.  The internet makes it much easier for states to target and locate dissidents. They can be located by their IP addresses or records kept by internet cafes. It is almost impossible by today’s standards to remain anonymous on the internet1. Surveillance used to be the only technique for governments to track down dissidents, however the internet has made governments’ task of quashing opposition easier. Since 2003, 202 bloggers have been arrested around the world and 162 of the arrests were for political reasons. The government doesn’t need a true reason because only 37 of the cases were tried in the judicial system. Political parties, ethnic and religious groups, civil rights movements, and leaders can all be targeted through government internet surveillance2. When the government can find the names of political dissidents and arrest them, it makes it more difficult for successful movements to occur, because they lack leaders and potential participants are intimidated. The internet can also be used to reverse democratic momentum  1. Digital Activism Decoded: Digital Activism in Closed and Open Societies.  2. Digital Activism Decoded: New Casualties: Prisons and Persecution.


Citizens often use the internet in ways that detract from democracy.  The idea that the internet promotes democracy also operates under the assumption that the people with internet access will use the tool for ‘good’. Yet, this is also not the case. The internet is the primary medium of coordination for Jihadist groups looking to undermine the few Middle-Eastern states which are in the process of transition to democracy. In April 2007, groups of hackers (allegedly backed by the Russian government) attacked the websites of key politicians, ministries and utilities in Estonia in retaliation for the removal of a Soviet war memorial. Hackers can block access, destroy content, and organize in malicious activity as in the case of terrorism and the Estonian ‘hactivists’ 1. Information can also be misused.In the US, neo-Nazism has always been an issue of contention and use the internet to further promote their viewpoints.For example, UK animal rights activists post information about people they feel to be targets, which can lead to intimidation. The internet can often be hijacked for less-than-ideal purposes and therefore does not directly promote democracy, but can be used by the people to counter reform 2.  Moreover, there are questions over the limits on democratic freedoms due to the ‘corporate colonization’ o f the internet. For a start, a lot of the ‘trusted’ news sites that users frequent for their information simply reproduce the views of Western media corporations. And corporate social network platforms like Facebook claim to provide for democratic interaction while undertaking surveillance of their user information so as to produce profiles to sell advertising, profiles that could also be used by governments.  1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded: The Double Edged Sword of Digital Tactics. 2010  2. Ibid


The internet can be successfully censored so that it only promotes pro-regime propaganda.  The internet is said to promote democracy based on the claim that it leads to the free flow of information. Unfortunately, this is false in many parts of the world. 40 countries around the globe actively censor the internet, and 25 have blocked Google over the past few years1. This gives their governments a false legitimacy by removing material critical of anti-democratic policies and as acting as a psychological bulwark against discontent and dissent. The government retains the ability to control the information that its citizens have access to and can use this power to promote pro-regime information and prevent anti-regime, pro-democratic content from ever seeing the light of day. The internet is a new tool, but governments can become more sophisticated as well and harness the internet to repress dissent2. For example, China has almost no internet freedom and the terms “Tiananmen Square” and “Inner-Mongolia” provides no search results because protests occurred there3. Google in 2010 refused to uphold their firewalls and were therefore no longer allowed to operate in the country. The internet can be used by authoritarian government for enhanced media repression.  Even more concerning is corporate surveillance for marketing purposes, which means that people are pushed certain information from certain sources, meaning that not all voices are equally heard online. Democracy in the online world is not about having your voice published, but about it being seen and heard. As a result some players can gain a lot more attention than other, even if everyone with access can publish.  1. Hernandez, Javier C., 'Google Calls for Action on Web Limits', The New York Times , 24 March 2010  2. Joyce, Mary (Editor). “Digital Activism Decoded: New Mechanics of Change”. International Debate Education Association, New York: 2010.  3. Shirong, Chen, "China Tightens Internet Censorship Controls", BBC, 2011


Governments cannot always get away with the targeting of internet dissidents. Bloggers are often famous and followed intently by many people. If a popular blogger all of a sudden disappears it is more likely to generate increased support for the blogger and the cause than lead supporters to defect to the government1. Further, the government cannot arrest everyone, and the internet provides a tool for social movements to be poly-centric2—they have many leaders and anyone can step in.  1. Digital Activism Decoded: New Casualties: Prisons and Persecution.  2. Digital Activism Decoded: Digital Activism in Closed and Open Societies.


There are ways to make the internet affordable. Internet cafes and purchasing multiple SIM cards and pay as you go plans for cell phones can address the need to have a computer and therefore decrease the cost of internet use1. Further, the internet is a jumping off point. Not every low-income person needs to have internet access but if a handful do, then they can be part of the organization of protests and movements by taking the information available online and disseminating it through networks of people through SMS, calls, and word of mouth. Tunisia was not a rich country; in fact, people were protesting the pervasive poverty. Even so, they were able to successfully organize a revolution, with the help of the internet2.  1. Joyce, Digital Activism Decoded: The Power of Mobile Phones, 2010  2. Jerome, Deborah, 'Understanding Tunisia's Tremors', Council on Foreign Relations, 14 January 2011


Hate speech will happen regardless. A significant amount of online hate speech is made through accounts under the real life name of the speaker. It is notable that Facebook has required its users to use their real names since 2011, [1] but has still had significant issues with hate speech long after that. [2] The fact is that an enormous amount of hate speakers see what they are saying as entirely legitimate, and are therefore not afraid of having it connected to their real life identities. The fact is that 'hate speech' is localised and culture-dependent. Since the Internet brings many cultures together, hate speech will happen almost inadvertently.  Additionally, online hate speech is very difficult to prosecute even when connected to real life identities, [3] so this policy is unlikely to be effective at making those who now would be identified see any more consequences than before. In the Korean example the law was simply avoided by resorting to foreign sites. [4] The similar lack of consequences is likely to lead to a similar lack of disincentive to posting that kind of material.  [1] ‘Twitter rife with hate speech, terror activity’. Jewish Journal. URL:   [2] ‘Facebook Admits It Failed On Hate Speech Following #FBrape Twitter Campaign And Advertiser Boycott’. International Business Times. URL:   [3] ‘Racists, Bigots and the Internet’. Anti-Defamation League. URL:   [4] ‘Law on real name use on Internet ruled illegal’, JoonAng Daily,


Reducing hate speech.  Openly racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory comments made through public forums are much more likely when made anonymously, as people feel they are unlikely to see any consequences for voicing their hateful opinions. [1] This leads firstly to a propagation of these views in others, and a higher likelihood of attacks based on this hate, as seeing a particular view more often makes people feel it is more legitimate. [2] More importantly, it causes people from the targeted groups to feel alienated or unwelcome in particular places due to facets of their identity that are out of their control, and all people have a right not to be discriminated against for reasons such as these.  The proposed policy would enormously reduce the amount of online hate speech posted as people would be too afraid to do it. Although not exactly the same a study of abusive and slanderous posts on Korean forums in the six months following the introduction of their ban on anonymity found that such abusive postings dropped 20%. [3] Additionally it would allow governments to pursue that which is posted under the same laws that all other speech is subject to in their country.  [1] ‘Starting Points for Combating Hate Speech Online’. British Institute of Human Rights. URL:   [2] ‘John Gorenfield, Moon the Messiah, and the Media Echo Chamber’. Daily Kos. URL:   [3] ‘Real Name Verification Law on the Internet: A Poison or Cure for Privacy?’, Carnegie Melon University,


Moves illegal activity in harder to monitor areas. Those partaking in planning illegal activity will not continue to do so if hiding their identities is not possible. Instead, they will return to using more private means of communication, such as meeting in person, or using any online services that do guarantee anonymity such as TOR. While this may make planning illegal activity more difficult, it also makes it more difficult for law enforcement officials to monitor this behaviour, and come anywhere near stopping it: at least under the status quo they have some idea of where and how it is happening, and can use that as a starting point. Forcing criminals further underground may not be desirable. The authorities in cooperation with websites are usually able to find out who users are despite the veil of anonymity for example in the UK the police have arrested people for rape threats made against a campaigner for there to be a woman on UK banknotes.1  1 Masters, Sam, 'Twitter threats: Man arrested over rape-threat tweets against campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez', The Independent, 28, July, 2013,


Reducing cyberbullying.  When internet anonymity is used for bullying, it can make the situation much worse. Firstly, perpetrators are much less likely to hold back or be cautious as they are less concerned with the possibility of being caught. This means the bullying is likely to be more intense than when it is done in real life. [1] Additionally, for victims of cyberbullying, being unable to tell who your harasser is, or even how many there are can be particularly distressing. [2]  Anonymous posting being significantly less available takes away the particularly damaging anonymous potential of cyberbullying, and allows cyberbullying to be more effectively dealt with.  [1] ‘Traditional Bullying v. Cyberbullying’. CyberBullying, Google Sites. URL:   ‘The Problem of Cyberbullies’ Anonymity’. Leo Burke Academy. URL:   [2] ‘Cyberbullying’. Netsafe. URL:


Stopping anonymity does not meaningfully prevent bullying. Internet anonymity is not essentially to bullying: it can be done through a nearly infinite number of media. Importantly, it is not even essential to anonymous bullying. For example, it is quite simple to send anonymous text messages: all that is required is access to a phone that the victim does not have the number of. It is similarly easy to simply write notes or letters, and leave them in places where the victim will find them. Anonymous posting on the internet is far from the only place where these kinds of anonymous attacks are possible.  All this policy does is shifts the bullying into areas where they may be more difficult to monitor. Rather than sending messages online that can be, albeit with some difficulty, traced back to the perpetrator, or at least used as some kind of evidence, bullies are likely to return to covert classroom bullying that can be much more difficult to identify.


Similar prevention can be achieved through raising internet awareness. In the case of children, parents taking a more pro-active role in monitoring and controlling their children’s online activities is likely to be more effective than the measures of this policy. Indeed, signalling that they do need to monitor their children can actually put their children in more danger, as there are considerable risks to children online even without anonymous posting.  Other kinds of fraud can be similarly avoided by raising awareness: people should be made to realise that sending money or bank details to people you don’t know is a bad idea. In fact, the removal of internet aliases may even encourage people to trust people they don’t know, but do know the real names of, even though that is no more advisable.


Reducing currently illegal activity.  Internet anonymity is very useful for planning and organising illegal activity, mostly buying and selling illegal goods, such as drugs, firearms, stolen goods, or child pornography, but also, in more extreme cases, for terrorism or assassinations. This is because it can be useful in making plans and advertisements public, thus enabling wider recruitment and assistance, while at the same time preventing these plans from being easily traced back to specific individuals. [1] For example, the website Silk Road openly offers users the opportunity to buy and sell illegal drugs. Sales on this site alone have double over the course of six months, hitting $1.7million per month. [2]  This policy makes it easier for the police to track down the people responsible for these public messages, should they continue. If anonymity is still used, it will be significantly easier to put legal pressure on the website and its users, possibly even denying access to it. If anonymity is not used, obviously it is very easy to trace illegal activity back to perpetrators. In the more likely event that they do not continue, it at least makes organising criminal activities considerably more difficult, and less likely to happen. This means the rule of law will be better upheld, and citizens will be kept safer. [3]  [1] Williams, Phil, ‘Organized Crime and Cyber-Crime: Implications for Business’, CERT, 2002,   p.2  [2] ‘Silk Road: the online drug marketplace that officials seem powerless to stop.’ The Guardian. URL:   [3] ‘Do dark networks aid cyberthieves and abusers?’ BBC News. URL:


Reducing fraud using fake identities.  Anonymous posting can be used to make people believe you are someone who you are not. This can be done in order to acquire money from victims either by establishing a dishonest relationship or offering fraudulent business opportunities. [1] It is also a frequently used tool in child abduction cases, where the perpetrator will pretend to be a child or even classmate to gain enough access to a child in order to make abduction viable. It is estimated that nearly 90% of all sexual solicitations of youth are made in online anonymous chat rooms. Additionally, in the UK alone over 200 cases of meeting a child following online grooming, usually via anonymous sites are recorded. [2]  These are enormous harms that can be easily avoided with the removal of anonymous posting online.  [1] ‘Online Fraud’. Action Fraud. URL:   [2] ‘Online child grooming: a literature review on the misuse of social networking sites for grooming children for sexual offences’. Australian Institute of Criminology. URL:


Protest of this kind is less meaningful. When an organisation such as this is criticised only by anonymous individuals, who are likely to be difficult to contact or learn more about, it is less likely to lead to any kind of long-term meaningful resistance. In the case of Anonymous and the Church of Scientology, there have been no notable acts of resistance to the Church of Scientology other than Anonymous.  Anonymous resistance makes other kinds of resistance less likely to happen, and rarely leads to significant change or action.


Freedom from consequences is not a necessary component of freedom of speech. If someone is free from legal restraints surrounding their ability to speak, they are free to speak. Freedom of speech does not entitle an individual to absolute freedom of consequences of any kind, including social consequences to their speech. While someone should certainly be free to state their opinion, there is no reason why they should be entitled to not be challenged for holding that opinion.


Limiting ability of oppressed individuals to seek out help and community.  Anonymous posting means people who are made to feel ashamed of themselves, or their identities within their local communities can seek out help and/or like-minded people. For example, a gay teenager in a fiercely homophobic community could find cyber communities that are considerably more tolerant, and even face the same issues as them. This can make an enormous difference to self-acceptance, as people are no longer subjected to a singular, negative view of themselves. [1] Banning anonymous posting removes this ability.  [1] ‘In the Middle East, Marginalized LGBT Youth Find Supportive Communities Online’ Tech President. URL:   ‘Online Identity: Is authenticity or anonymity more important?’ The Guardian. URL:


Limiting ability to experiment with identity.  The ability to post anonymously on the internet means that people can create a new identity for themselves where they will not be judged in terms of what they have done before. This can be particularly useful for people who are attempting to make significant positive reformations to their lives, such as recovering addicts, thereby facilitating self-improvement. Banning anonymous posting reduces individual’s abilities to better themselves in this way. [1]  [1] ‘Online Identity: Is authenticity or anonymity more important?’ The Guardian. URL:


Reducing the extent to which large and powerful organisations can be criticised.  Organisations with lots of wealth and legal power can be difficult to criticise when one’s name and personal information is attached to all attempts at protest and/or criticism. Internet anonymity means that individuals can criticise these groups without fear of unfair reprisal, and their actions are, as a result, held up to higher levels of scrutiny. For example, internet anonymity were instrumental in the first meaningful and damaging protests against the Church of Scientology by internet group Anonymous. [1] Similarly anonymity has been essential in the model for WikiLeaks and other similar efforts like the New Yorker’s Strongbox. [2]  [1] ‘John Sweeney: Why Church of Scientology’s greatest threat is ‘net’. The Register. URL:   ‘Anonymous vs. Scientology’. Ex-Scientology Kids. URL:   [2] Davidson, Amy, ‘Introducing Strongbox’, The New Yorker, 15 May 2013,


Damaging to freedom of speech.  People are only truly free to say what they wish when they do not have to worry about being personally persecuted, either by peers, strangers, or their government, for what they are saying. [1] Removing the right to post anonymously increases the pressures people feel to post in a particular way, and thus limits the extent to which they can speak freely.  [1] ‘Anonymity’. Electric Frontier Foundation. URL:


Self-improvement through an alias or false identity is unlikely to lead to genuine self-improvement. When individuals have multiple identities, they may think of them as distinct from one another, and are thus unlikely to transfer self-improvement from one to another. For example, a recovering addict may only have a renewed attitude in their online identity, and not in real life where it is more important. This is unlikely to be beneficial, and may be actively harmful in terms of limiting the improvement of real life identities.


Small reduction in ability to seek out help and community outweighed by a large reduction in hate speech. Anonymity is not essential to seeking out help and community. The internet is a large and expansive place, meaning that if an individual posts on an obscure site, people that they know in real life are very likely to see it. Even having your real name attached is unlikely to single you out unless you have a particularly distinctive name. Anonymity adds very little to their ability to seek out this help and community.  Additionally, anonymity is frequently used as a tool to spread hate speech, [1] which the people this point is concerned with are the primary victims of. Even if a lack of anonymity means a marginal reduction in their ability to seek out a supportive community, this is a worthwhile sacrifice for a significant reduction in the amount of hatred directed at them.  [1] ‘Starting Points for Combating Hate Speech Online’. British Institute of Human Rights. URL:


Providing such mechanisms does not help activists and can even harm them. These activists will have few guarantees that the technology will work. Previous technologies meant to give anonymity have often not worked or else the governments will come up with ways to break them. Haystack is a good example of a technology meant to help dissidents that could have ended up causing more harm than the good it did.


Providing secure channels is the easiest way to help dissidents and democracy activists  If democracies are to provide money to help dissidents then this option of funding research into and distributing software to defeat censors is the easiest way in which to help these dissidents. Those who are trying to exercise their freedom of speech do not want help in the form of military intervention or diplomatic representations rather they want to have the space and capacity to exercise those freedoms. The internet means that for the first time it is possible for external actors to provide that platform for freedom of speech without having to take those who wish to exercise these freedoms outside of the country that is violating those freedoms.  The internet is very important in the economies of many authoritarian regimes. In China for example there are 145 million online shoppers and the e-commerce market is worth almost $100 billion and could be worth over $300 billion by 2015. [1] As a result authoritarian regimes can’t easily just turn off the internet and ignore it so long as they want their economy to operate. As a result except in extreme cases such as North Korea or for particularly prominent dissidents who are locked up physical access to the internet is unlikely to be denied.  So long as there is physical access to the internet it will be possible to help by providing ways to avoid firewalls so that they can access information their state has banned and express opinions to both the outside world and their compatriots. It is equally important to provide ways for these people to avoid being tracked by the authorities so as to prevent retaliation against them for evading censorship. While Haystack was a failure there have been other projects that are receiving state department funding that may be more successful such as ‘InTheClear’ which provides a “panic button” app for smart phones allowing contents to be quickly erased and prewritten texts sent so having the dual effect of making it more difficult for those making the arrest to find out what the user was doing and raising the alarm that this person has been arrested. [2] This technology helps meet a clear need; Egyptian democracy activists when asked what kind of technology they needed most said they wanted safer cellphones. [3]  [1] The Economist, ‘An internet with Chinese characteristics’, 20 July 2011.  [2] Burkeman, Oliver, ‘Inside Washington’s high risk mission to beat web censors’, guardian.co.uk, 15 April 2012.  [3] McManus, Doyle, ‘Technology that protects protesters’, Los Angeles Times, 18 September 2011.


Funding such technologies is unlikely to result in large benefits or will result in escalating costs. China has billions invested in its online censorship activities. Any attempt to fund ways to counter this censorship would likely become involved in an online arms race if it wanted to do more than temporary good. This could end up being a costly on-going operation with very few benefits. The money would be better spent helping the truly needy from hunger than allowing the global middle classes to exercise their freedom of speech.


We all have an obligation to help maintain freedom of speech.  Article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights defines freedom of speech as “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” [1] It is something innate in humans to have opinions and to want to express them to others and within a few limits governments have a duty to allow this freedom of expression. Where governments are not allowing this freedom of information this affects not only those whose opinions are being suppressed but those who cannot hear their opinions. The right to the freedom to receive and seek this information is just as important as the right to voice these opinions. Moreover as stated in Article 19 this is “regardless of frontiers”; those outside a country have just as much right to hear these opinions as those inside.  Government aid programs from democracies in Western Europe and America are already concerned with promoting human rights including freedom of speech. Australia’s aid program for example has a Human Rights Fund of $6.5 million per year that provides grants to among other things “educate and/or train human rights victims, workers or defenders”. [2] Enabling victims of human rights abuse to get around their government’s censorship is the obvious next step.  The concept of the ‘responsibility to protect’ introduced by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in 2001 provided that when governments were unable or unwilling to protect their own citizens then that responsibility devolves to the international community and may ultimately lead to military action for particularly gross violations. This responsibility to react should be “with appropriate measures” [3] and for the breach of the human right of freedom of expression providing a method to enable those whose freedom of expression/speech is being violated to exercise this right is the most appropriate and proportional response.  [1] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ‘Article 19’, 1946.  [2] AusAID, ‘Human rights and Australia’s aid program’, Australian Government, 22 February 2012.  [3] Evans, Garath and Mohamed Sahnoun Chair’s, ‘The Responsibility to Protect’, International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, International Development Research Center, December 2001, p.XI.


That there is a right to freedom of speech does not mean that we have an obligation to make sure that everyone around the world has freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and expression is indeed a human right in the universal declaration of human rights however this is something that it is obligated for governments to uphold for their own people rather than for other countries to enforce. If governments are infringing on the freedoms of their people the correct way to counter this is through international diplomacy rather than seeking to undermine that state.  The responsibility to protect, itself controversial, was only ever meant to apply to the very worst human rights violations - such as the genocide in Rwanda. If there are massacres of civilians and all other options have failed then there may be a need to intervene to prevent more killing. However violations of freedom of speech are not something that is time dependent. Diplomacy may often take a long time but can eventually work, as is being shown in Burma's opening up


Funding technologies to evade censorship could have immense benefits for very little cost  Most government aid budgets are small and have numerous other important calls on their resources such as development aid. Between 2008 and 2011 the United States Congress funded the effort against internet censorship with $76 million. [1] While this may sound like a lot compared to the $168 million of aid to Liberia and $152 million to UNICEF in 2011 it is not a large commitment. [2] Yet due to the nature of the internet small investments can have immense benefits. Money spent on food aid will buy enough food to feed a limited amount of people yet if a technology is developed that allows internet users to get around censors and not be tracked then hundreds of millions would benefit. It would at the same time have the incalculable benefit of making it more difficult for authorities to track and crack down on those who are breaking the authorities’ censorship.  [1] Burkeman, Oliver, ‘Inside Washington’s high risk mission to beat web censors’, guardian.co.uk, 15 April 2012.  [2] USAID, ‘Where does USAID’s Money Go?’ 30 September 2011.


While most of the population may not be enraged enough by censorship to attempt to get around it this does not mean they would not benefit from having the capability to do so. Governments often intrude into social discussion, music and even games by banning them and taking down discussions. These people would be much freer if they had complete freedom of choice rather than a government controlled set of boundaries on the internet.


Far from being a violation of sovereignty it should be considered that the internet is a global commons that needs to be defended against the encroachment of sovereignty. As Hillary Clinton has argued “The internet has become the public space of the 21st century – the world’s town square, classroom, marketplace, coffeehouse, and nightclub. We all shape and are shaped by what happens there, all 2 billion of us and counting.” [1] This means that national sovereignty cannot be considered to apply to the internet. If one part of the internet becomes fenced off then it affects the rest of the internet as well.  [1] Clinton, Hillary, ‘Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Speech on Internet Freedom *updated*’, Secretaryclinton, 15 February 2011.


Funds could be better spent on helping development  Access to the internet is not the most pressing concern that foreign aid should be used to solve. Instead aid should help the 1.4billion who live on less than a dollar a day, [1] the 216 million people infected with malaria every year, [2] or the 42 million people who have been uprooted by conflict and natural disaster. [3] Internet access while it has expanded immensely is still something that only the relatively rich have access to, not the kind of people that aid money should be spent on.  Finally if money is to be spent on the internet it should not be on the issue of evading censorship but focusing on the potential economic benefits of increasing internet penetration to the poorest.  [1] World Bank Updates Poverty Estimates for the Developing world’, World Bank, 26 August 2008.  [2] Malaria, World Health Organisation, Fact Sheet no. 94, April 2012.  [3] ‘UNHCR annual report shows 42 million people uprooted worldwide’, UNHCR, 16 June 2009.


This will needlessly antagonise non-democratic countries  The relationships which democratic countries have with non-democratic countries are much too important to jeopradise with such interference. Democracies and non-democracies need to be able to live peacefully with each other and engage in economic contact. Having democracies supporting segments in a non-democracy’s population that is seen to be undermining the state not only sours relations but provides a direct point of contention that could potentially lead to conflict.  Democracies already show that they are aware of the conflict they create through their promotion of human rights by toning down their rhetoric in relation to the most powerful non-democratic countries. The British Council has for example invited Liu Binjie, China’s censor in chief, to lead a delegation to the London Book Fair which is celebrating Chinese Literature. [1] It is double standards to be lauding autocrats in public and yet seeking to undermine their countries through helping dissidents.  [1] Jian, Ma, ‘Britain’s Cultural Kowtow’, Project Syndicate, 12 April 2012.


Evading censorship is already possible and censorship does not prevent the use of the internet.  Proposition itself concedes that authoritarian states in the vast majority of cases are unlikely to cut off access to the internet for their population entirely. For many people the internet is not about free speech but about economic benefits. Most don’t want to protest but rather carry on inane social discussions, play computer games and listen to music. Things that even authoritarian governments are happy to occur. This money is therefore not aimed at addressing the concerns of the vast majority of netizens.  Those few who are concerned are already able to find ways around censorship for example proxies can be used to access external sites. China’s censorship system may be vast but it is only 40,000 attempting to watch hundreds of millions. Even China’s censors sometimes work at cross purposes as for example where weibo censored the official Xinhua news bulletin that Bo Xilai, former party chief in Chongqing, had been stripped of his party posts. [1] During this same event for the first time the weight of discussion has shown that the censors can fail to keep up and where the mass of the public really is interested in discussing something they can. [2]  [1] MacKinnon, Rebecca, ‘The Not-So-Great Firewall of China’, ForeignPolicy, 17 April 2012.  [2] Pei, Minxin, ‘The Paranoid Style in Chinese Politics’, Project Syndicate, 17 April 2012.


Violation of Sovereignty  Sovereignty is the exercise of the fullest possible rights over a piece of territory; the state is ‘supreme authority within a territory’. [1] The sovereignty of nations has been recognised by all nations in article 2 of the UN charter. [2] Funding attempts by citizens of a nation to avoid its own government’s censorship efforts is clearly infringing upon matters that are within the domestic jurisdiction of individual states and is as such a violation of sovereignty. It is also clear that when it comes to enforcement of human rights there is a general rule should be followed that states should have the chance to solve their own internal problems domestically before there is international interference. [3]  Censorship by governments can be there for the good of society; for example South Korea censors information about North Korea and forces internet users to use id cards and real names when posting on forums and blogs making them easy to trace. [4] This does not however mean that democracies should be helping South Koreans to bypass this system, South Korea as a nation has decided to place some restrictions on the use of the internet and that should be respected by other nations.  It is simply unfair and unequal to apply one set of standards to one set of nations and different standards to another. If democracies have the right to decide how their internet should operate so should non democracies. The fundamental principle of non-interference should apply to all states.  [1] Shaw, Malcolm N., International Law 4th ed., Cambridge University press, 1997, p.333  [2] Charter of the United Nations, ‘Chapter 1: Purposes and Principles’, 1945.  [3] Shaw, Malcolm N., International Law 4th ed., Cambridge University press, 1997, p.202  [4] The Economist, ‘Game over: A liberal, free-market democracy has some curious rules and regulations’, 14 April 2011.


This implies that without efforts by democracies to ‘undermine’ non democratic regimes the internet would be nice and peaceful and everyone could get on with what they like doing on the internet. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is already a significant amount of conflict on the internet both in the form of insulting each other on forums and criminal activity. There have been numerous attempts, particularly originating from authoritarian countries, to attack the internet presence of other countries firms or governments or to hack and steal state secrets. This kind of behaviour is much more likely to cause conflict than any funding of research towards bypassing censors.


Money will be spent on development anyway. However trade is often the best way to encourage growth and reductions in poverty. These technologies by making communication easier will make doing business in that country easier. Breaking through communication barriers on the internet could have much more impact than 'development' aid.


Governments have, prima facie, a different relationship with their own citizens than they have with those of other countries. In addition, as with the previous argument, extending the right of access does not, per se, require total access. The approach is also simply impractical as it would require every nation on the planet to take the same approach and to have comparable standards in terms of record keeping and data management. At present most states publish some data but the upper and lower thresholds of what is made public vary between them. To abolish the upper limit (ministerial briefing, security briefings, military contractors, etc.) would require everyone to do it, otherwise it would be deeply unsafe for any one state to act alone. The likelihood of persuading some of the world’s more unsavory or corrupt regimes to play ball seems pretty unlikely. The first of those is improbable, the latter is impossible.


Compelling public bodies to publish information ensures that non-citizens, minors, foreign nationals and others have access to information that affects them.  Genuine transparency and accountability of government action is not only in the interests of those who also have the right to vote for that government or who support it through the payment of taxes. The functioning of immigration services would seem to be a prime example. Maximising access to information relating to government decisions by dint of its automatic publication of information relating to those decisions ensures that all those affected will have recourse to the facts behind any decision.  If, for example, a nation’s aid budget is cut or redirected, why should the citizens of the affected nation not have a right to know why [i] ? If, as is frequently the case, it has happened because of an action or inaction by their own government, then it is important that they know. Equally if such a decision were taken for electoral gain, they at least have the right to know that there is nothing they or their government could do about it.  [i] Publish What You Fund: The Global Campaign For Aid Transparency. Website Introduction.


The idea that, presented with a vast mass of frequently complex data, everyone would be able to access, process and act on it in the same way is fantasy. Equally the issue of ‘who guards the guards’ that Proposition raises is a misnomer; exactly the groups mentioned are already those with the primary role of scrutinizing government actions because they have the time, interest and skills to do so. Giving a right to access would give them greater opportunities to continue with that in a way that deluging them with information would not.


If public bodies do not have an obligation to publish information, there will always be a temptation to find any available excuses to avoid transparency.  The primary advantage of putting the duty on government to publish, rather than on citizens to enquire is that it does not require the citizen to know what they need to know before they know it. Publication en masse allows researchers to investigate areas they think are likely to produce results, specialists to follow decisions relevant to their field and, also, raises the possibility of discovering things by chance. The experience of Wikipedia suggests that even very large quantities of data are relatively easy to mine as long as all the related documentation is available to the researcher – the frustration, by contrast, comes when one has only a single datum with no way of contextualising it. Any other situation, at the very least, panders to the interests of government to find any available excuse for not publishing anything that it is likely to find embarrassing and, virtually by definition, would be of most interest to the active citizen.  Knowing that accounts of discussions, records of payments, agreements with commercial bodies or other areas that might be of interest to citizens will be published with no recourse to ‘national security’ or ‘commercial sensitivity’ is likely to prevent abuses before they happen but will certainly ensure that they are discovered after the event [i] .  The publication of documents, in both Washington and London, relating to the build-up to war in Iraq is a prime example of where both governments used every available excuse to cover up the fact that that the advice they had been given showed that either they were misguided or had been deliberately lying [ii] . A presumption of publication would have prevented either of those from determining a matter of vital interest to the peoples of the UK, the US and, of course, Iraq. All three of those groups would have had access to the information were there a presumption of publication.  [i] The Public’s Right To Know. Article 19 Global Campaign for Freedom of Expression.  [ii] Whatreallyhappened.com has an overview of this an example of how politicians were misguided – wilfully or otherwise can be found in: Defector admits to lies that triggered the Iraq War. Martin Chulov and Helen Pidd. The Guardian. 15 February 2011.


Relying on a right of access would also have addressed the concerns set out by Proposition but would do so in a way that would not endanger actual concerns of national security by allowing citizens the right to challenge such decisions. An independent review could determine where the motivation is genuinely one of national security and those where it is really political expediency. The right to information for citizens is important but should not jeopardize the right to life of combat troops.


It seems unlikely that total publication would save much in the way of time or money. If the data was not indexed in some way it would be absurdly difficult to navigate - and that takes time and money.  There are advantages to building a delay into systems such as this, if a piece of information genuinely justifies a news story, then it will do so at any time. If it’s only of interest in the middle of a media feeding frenzy, then it seems unlikely that it was all that important.


Even the most liberal FoI regime tends to pander to certain groups in society full disclosure levels that playing field  People have many different interests in the accountability of governments; different areas of concern, differing levels of skill in pursuing those interests and so on. They deserve, however, an equal degree of transparency from governments in relation to those decisions that affect them. Relying on a right to access is almost certainly most likely to favour those who already have the greatest access either through their profession, their skills or their social capital. The use of freedom of information requests in those countries where they are available shows this to be the case, as they have overwhelmingly been used by journalists, with a smattering of representation from researchers, other politicians and lawyers and so on. In the UK between 2005 and 2010 the total number registered by all ‘ordinary’ members of the public is just ahead of journalists, the next largest group. The public are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the listed professional groups [i] .  Required publication, by contrast, presents an even playing field to all parties. Rather than allowing legislators to determine how and to whom – and for what – they should be accountable, a presumption in favour of publication makes them accountable to all. As a result, it is the only truly effective way of ensuring one of the key aims set out in favour of any freedom of information process.  [i] Who Makes FOI Requests? BBC Open Secrets Website. 14 January 2011.


A faster, cheaper and simpler process  There are cost concerned with processing FoI requests both in terms of time and cash terms. [i] To take one example Britain’s largest local authority, Birmingham, spends £800,000 a year dealing with FoI requests. [ii] There is also a delay from the point of view of the applicant. Such a delay is more than an irritant in the case of, for example, immigration appeals or journalistic investigations. Governments know that journalists usually have to operate within a window of time while a story is still ‘hot’. As a result all they have to do is wait it out until the attention of the media turns elsewhere to ensure that if evidence of misconduct or culpability were found, it would probably be buried as a minor story if not lost altogether. As journalism remains the primary method most societies have of holding government to account, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that the methodology for releasing data should, at least in part, reflect the reality of how journalism works as an industry.  [i] Independent Review of the Impact of the Freedom of Information Act. Frontier Economics. October 2006.  [ii] Dunton, Jim, ‘Cost of FoI requests rises to £34m’, Local Government Chronicle, 16 September 2010,


There are, of course some costs to having a truly open and accountable government, but an effective right of access would allow much of that information to be made available. After all what the public sector bodies are paying in commercial transactions is of great interest to the public. If public bodies are getting a particularly good rate from suppliers, it might well raise the question of “Why?” For example, are they failing to enforce regulations on a particular supplier in return for a good price. In that instance, their other customers and their competitors would seem to have every right to know.


Although it would be time-consuming to approach so much information, it is not impossible to manage it effectively. As Wikileaks has demonstrated, given access to large quantities of information, it is a relatively straightforward process to start with records that are likely to prove interesting and then follow particular routes from there. In addition, governments, like all organisations, have information management systems, there would be no reason not to use the same model.  Additionally, the very skill of journalism is going beyond the executive summary to find the embarrassing fact buried away in appendix nineteen. That would still be the case under this model, it would just be easier.


Public bodies require the ability to discuss proposals freely away from public scrutiny  Knowing that everything is likely to be recorded and then published is likely to be counter-productive. It seems probable that anything sensitive – such as advice given to ministers by senior officials – would either not be recorded or it would be done in a way so opaque as to make it effectively meaningless [i] .  By contrast knowing that such conversations, to focus on one particularly example, are recorded and can be subjected to public scrutiny when there is a proven need to do so ensures that genuine accountability – rather than prurience or curiosity, is likely to be both the goal and the outcome.  None of us would like the process of how we reached decisions made public as it often involves getting things wrong a few times first. However, there are some instances where it is important to know how a particular decision was reached and whether those responsible for that decision were aware of certain facts at the time – notably when public figures are claiming that they were not aware of something and others are insisting that they were. In such an instance the right to access is useful and relevant; having records of every brainstorming session in every public body is not. As the Leveson inquiry is discovering, an extraordinary amount of decisions in government seem to be made informally, by text message or chats at parties. Presumably that would become evermore the case if every formal discussion were to be published [ii] .  [i] The Pitfalls of Britain’s Confidential Civil Service. Samuel Brittan. Financial Time 5 March 2010.  [ii] This is nothing very new, see: Downing Street: Informal Style. BBC website. 14 July 2004.


It is reasonable that people have access to information that effects them personally but not information that relates to their neighbours’, employers’, former-partners’ or other citizens who maythose who work for public bodies.  The right to access allows people to see information that affects them personally or where there is reasonable suspicion of harm or nefarious practices. It doesn’t allow them to invade the privacy of other citizens who just happen to work for public bodies or have some other association [i] .  Unless there is reason to suspect corruption, why should law-abiding citizens who sell goods and services to public bodies have the full details of their negotiations made public for their other buyers, who may have got a worse deal, to see? Why should the memo sent by an otherwise competent official on a bad day be made available for her neighbours to read over? A presumption in favour of publication would ensure that all of these things, and others, would be made a reality with the force of law behind them.  This would place additional burdens on government in terms of recruitment and negotiations with private firms – not to mention negotiations with other governments with less transparent systems. Let’s assume for the moment that the British government introduced a system, it is quite easy imagine a sense of “For God’s sake don’t tell the British” spreading around the capitals of the world fairly quickly.  [i] Section 40 0(A) od the FOIA. See also Freedom of Information Act Environmental Information Regulations. When Should Salaries be Disclosed? Information Commissioner’s Office.


Considering the amount of data governments produce, compelling them to publish all of it would be counterproductive as citizens would be swamped.  It is a misnomer in many things that more is necessarily better but that is, perhaps, more true of information than of most things. Public bodies produce vast quantities of data and are often have a greater tendency to maintain copious records than their private sector equivalents. US government agencies will create data that would require “20 million four-drawer filing cabinets filled with text,” over the next two years. [i] Simply dumping this en masse would be a fairly effective way of masking any information that a public body wanted kept hidden. Deliberately poor referencing would achieve the same result. This ‘burying’ of bad news at a time when everyone is looking somewhere else is one of the oldest tricks in press management. For example Jo Moore, an aide to then Transport Secretary Stephen Byers suggested that September 11 2001 was “a very good day to get out anything we want to bury.” Suggesting burying a u turn on councillors’ expenses. [ii]  For it to genuinely help with the transparency and accountability of public agencies it would require inordinately detailed and precise cataloguing and indexing – a process that would be likely to be both time consuming and expensive. The choice would, therefore, be between a mostly useless set of data that would require complex mining by those citizens who were keen to use it or the great expense of effectively cataloguing it in advance. Even this latter option would defeat the objective of greater accountability because whoever had responsibility for the cataloguing would have far greater control of what would be likely to come to light.  Instead ensuring a right of access for citizens ensures that they can have a reasonable access to exactly the piece of information they are seeking [iii] .  [i] Eddy, Nathan, ‘Big Data Still a Big Challenge for Government IT’, eweek, 8th May 2012,   [ii] Sparrow, Andrew, ‘September 11: ‘a good day to bury bad news’’, The Telegraph, 10 October 2001,   [iii] Freedom of Information as an Internationally Protected Human Right. Toby Mendel, Head of Law at Article 19.


It is frequently useful to see the general approach of a public organisation as reflected in routine discussions. Opposition is wrong to suggest that such information would only cast a light on ideas that were never pursued anyway so they don’t matter. It would also highlight ideas that agencies wanted to pursue but felt they couldn’t because of the likely impact of public opinion, knowing such information gives useful insight into the intentions of the public agency in question.


The state is rarely an efficient service provider. Conventionally, it provides a shoddy service when it faces no competition, and when it charges low prices it is usually at the expense of the infrastructure and quality of service. When free of market forces, the state is even more likely to rest on its position of monopoly and provide insufficient service. But even with a state service, prices cannot be guaranteed to be kept low, but rather states can well overcharge and exploit their privileged position.


It would provide an efficient service for everyone  A single, universal provider of broadband would allow the government to rationalize the management and development of the service. Multiple private service-providers ultimately end up causing three serious problems. The first two are straightforward, that private firms competing in the same area waste money creating multiple distribution channels that are unnecessary for the number of consumers, and that when they opt not to compete they end up dividing up territory into effective utility monopolies. The third problem is especially salient to the state when it is attempting to provide for everyone: many areas are too sparsely populated or economically underdeveloped that private firms are unwilling to invest in them; these areas are entirely dependent on state intervention to allow them to get broadband access. Thus for example, in the United States 19 million people in the United States still have no broadband access. [1] Much like electrical and water utilities, a single provider can create the most efficient outcome for consumers, and when that provider is the state it can guarantee affordable prices and commit to not price-gouging as private firms are wont to do. [2] Broadband should be treated as a utility, and the state has always proven to be the best purveyor of public utilities.  [1] Elgan, M. “Should Wireless Carriers be Nationalized?”. Huffington Post. 10 October 2012,   [2] Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Public Utility." Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. 2013


Broadband is a necessary evolution of internet technology that firms would be wise to avail of if they wish to remain competitive. But it is this very desirability that makes the provision of broadband a lucrative business in which many firms participate. Business on a large scale is rarely organised in diffuse patterns, but clustered in major population centres. Economic development can be furnished by the private sector investing in broadband where there is a market. Growth will not be slowed just because some farmers in Nebraska have slower internet. Singapore is an aberrant example, as it is so small and its population so dense that it would be impossible to compare its provision of broadband access to most other countries.


The information age demands a right to broadband access  As information technology has come more and more to pervade people’s lives, it has become abundantly clear that a new set of positive rights must be considered. In the forefront of this consideration stands broadband. Broadband allows for far more rapid access to the internet, and thus access to the world of information the internet represents. Today, a citizen of a free society must be able to access the internet if he or she is to be able to fully realise their potential. This is because the ability to access the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and civic and social participation are now contingent upon ready access to the internet. Thus access to the internet has itself become a right of citizens, and their access should be guaranteed by the state. This right has been enshrined by several countries, such as France, Finland, Greece, and Spain, thus leading the way toward a more general recognition of this service as a right in the same way other public services are guaranteed. [1] It is a right derived from the evolution of society in the same fashion that the right to healthcare has grown out of countries’ social and economic development.  [1] Lucchi, N. “Access to Network Services and Protection of Constitutional Rights: Recognizing the Essential Role of Internet Access for the Freedom of Expression”. Cardozo J. of Int’L & Comp. Law, Vol.19, 2011,


Internet access is not a fundamental right. It is a useful enabler of rights. But that is not reason to guarantee it to all, any more than states owed every citizen access to a printing press a few centuries ago. Even were it a right, internet access could be provided far more efficiently and effectively through the private, rather than the public, sector.


States can develop new power-grids without needing to furnish all citizens with broadband in order to avail of the smart grid. The cost of developing these technologies and implementing them across the board are woefully high, and the inefficient nature of government services means they would only be more costly to the taxpayer. A better solution would be to liberalize the energy markets in order to encourage private firms to invest in the development of the smart grid.


Broad-based access to broadband is essential for countries to be competitive and to excel  Information technology is critical to the success of contemporary economies, with even the simplest business ventures. Uneven or non-existent penetration of broadband is a major drag on economic progress. [1] The private sector has been unable to effectively adapt with a holistic approach to the provision of data space and internet speed. The state providing these services would guarantee a high quality of service, and penetration across the country, linking all citizens to the network. For a country to compete internationally it needs broadband, and the surest way to provide it, since the private sector has resolutely failed to do so, and where it does provide services, it tends to overcharge. [2] As the Western world is left behind by the internet speeds of erstwhile developing states like Singapore, which has almost total penetration of high quality, state-sponsored broadband, it needs to refocus on what can reverse the trend. [3] Broadband is one of the steps toward the solution.  [1] Elgan, M. “Should Wireless Carriers be Nationalized?”. Huffington Post. 10 October 2012,   [2] ibid  [3] Kass, D. “FCC Chairman Wants Ultra High Speed Broadband in 100 Million US Households by 2020”. IT Channel Planet. 18 February 2010.


Universal broadband is a necessary prerequisite to developing more efficient and effective power-grids  Advanced infrastructure technology often relies on the existence of broadband technology universally installed across the grid. Countries like South Korea and Japan have succeeded in expanding their power grids by means of “smart grids”, power-grids that are far more efficient than existing structures in previously leading states like the United States, that make use of the broadband network in the provision of power. The US government has since committed to creating its own new grid, one that would increase efficiency, supply and management, and lower costs of energy provision to its citizens. [1] Such grids depend on the reliable and advanced broadband networks. The incentive for states to employ broadband across their territory is tremendous, beyond mere access to fast internet. This is why private firms will never be sufficient in efficient provision of broadband, because they do not reap all the benefits directly of the smart grid that can arise from its development. The state providing broadband is an essential part of upgrading energy provision for advanced countries in the 21st century.  [1] Kass, D. “FCC Chairman Wants Ultra High Speed Broadband in 100 Million US Households by 2020”. IT Channel Planet. 18 February 2010.


If the state overstepped in its regulation, no doubt private competitors would be able to fill the void. But such an eventuality is rather unlikely given the robustness of civil institutions in free societies and the willingness of people to come out in arms against attacks on their freedoms. The state is not a bogey-man. Rather, it is the best outlet by which to deliver inexpensive, efficient broadband service.


State firms do not necessarily crowd out private firms. Rather, they can furnish services in areas that private firms consider unprofitable, and can coordinate infrastructural process on a wider area, allowing for gains in economies of scale. Eircom provides an example of this too as its reduction in investment in broadband post privatisation meant that the government had to begin reinvesting in broadband itself. [1] Private firms will still have incentives to develop new technologies because there will still be profits to be made. But absent private firms, innovation will still exist. State investment in innovation and new technology can be very effective, as was the case with the Space Race.  [1] Palcic, D., and Reeves, E., “Privatisation and productivity performance in Ireland”,  P.200


The state can work more effectively through the private sector  If the state is worried about provision of broadband in areas too sparsely populated or disadvantaged, they can provide subsidies to private firms to develop the areas that are not profitable without needing to develop full government-operated companies. Just because the state is not providing the service does not mean that there cannot be compulsory to provide access to everywhere, many countries post offices for example are obliged to deliver to every address. [1] Government employees tend to be overpaid and underworked, leading to chronic inefficiencies that would be absent in a private firm, even one backed with government money.  Furthermore, the cost to the state is prohibitively expensive to go it alone, because state contracts have a marked tendency to go over budget, ultimately harming the taxpayers. These overruns are a standard part of government projects, but they can be ruinous to large scale information technology projects. Indeed, one-third of all IT projects end with premature cancellation as the direct result of overruns. [2] The future of countries’ economic prosperity cannot be entrusted to an organization that will stack the odds toward failure. This policy does not make sense when it is an area in which the private sector is willing to make substantial contributions to the cost. The only way to guarantee a decent level of service and an appropriate level of cost is to allow the private sector to take the lead, and to supplement it with incentives to build more and better systems. In the United States encouraging private investment in broadbrand infrastructure has led to a total of $1.2trillion ploughed into broadband access while Europe’s more state investment approach is falling behind. [3]  [1] United States Postal Service, “Postal Facts”, 2012,  Royal Mail Group, “Universal Service Obligation”,


It would give undue power to the government over access to the internet  Monopoly, or near-monopoly, power over broadband is far too great a tool to give to governments. States have a long history of abusing rules to curtail access to information and to limit freedom of speech. Domination of broadband effectively gives the state complete control of what information citizens can or cannot consume online. ISPs function generally under the principle of Net Neutrality, in which they are expected to allow the free transit of information online. If they are the sole gatekeepers of knowledge, people may well be kept from information deemed against the public interest. It is harder for opponents of government regulations to voice their opinions online when they have no viable alternative to the state-controlled network. The internet is a place of almost limitless expression and it has empowered more people to take action to change their societies. That great tool of the people must be protected from any and all threats, and most particularly the state that could so profit from the curtailment of internet freedom.


State intervention would crowd out private firms  The imposition of a powerful state firm dominating the broadband market would serve to reduce the ability of private providers to compete. The greater resources of the state would be able to give it the power to dictate the market, making it less attractive to private investment. Creating a monopolistic provider would be very dangerous considering that this is a sector upon which much of future national development relies. [1] Crowding out private firms will make them less inclined to invest in new technologies, while the state provider is unlikely to fill the gap, as traditionally state utilities rely upon their power of incumbency and size rather than seeking novel services. An example of this is Eircom which, when it was the state utility, provided broadband of a lower quality and at higher price than most private providers. The end result of state dominance and reduction of private competitors is a loss of innovation, a loss of price competition, and an erosion of customer service.  [1] Atkinson, R. “The Role of Competition in a National Broadband Policy”. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 7. 2009,


The private sector will never be able to meet the demands governments would make in order to build a working broadband network and the subsequent smart grid because their profit motives cannot internalize the social benefits of the new grids and technology. Unfortunately the private sector will only build the infrastructure in profitable densely populated areas neglecting rural areas. The state must therefore fill the gap, either by subsidizing private firms to provide service to unprofitable areas, or to service them itself. Furthermore, it can provide the service more freely and more fairly in order to guarantee that citizens get the services they deserve and need to succeed in the 21st century.


Collaboration in editing does not encourage democratic principles, but merely privileges the loudest voice, or in this case, the most regular user. As such, creating knowledge by consensus is inherently flawed. A fact is not true simply because lots of people think so. Traditional encyclopaedias are written and edited by academics and professional experts, whose reputation is put on the line by the articles they produce. They have the credentials and expertise that give them the authority to write without requiring widespread communal feedback. However, anyone can write a Wikipedia article, regardless of how much or how little knowledge he or she has of the subject. Worse yet, because contributors are effectively anonymous, it is impossible to assess the quality of an article on an unfamiliar topic by assessing the credentials of those who have produced it. Collaboration, therefore, becomes a barrier to the provision of reliable, accurate and up-to-date information.


Collaboration in editing encourages democratic principles  The process of collaboration required to create and maintain an up-to-date, factual source of information encourages democratic practices and principles. Wikipedia seeks to achieve its democratic goal of the spread of free, open material by democratic means. As an open-source project it relies upon the collaboration of tens of thousands of people who constantly add, check and edit articles. Disagreements and disputes are sent up the line to moderators, who oversee the editing process. This “socialisation of expertise” as David Weinberger puts it [1] ensures that errors and omissions are rapidly identified and corrected and that the site is constantly and accurately updated. No traditional encyclopaedia can match this scrutiny. Indeed, “Wikipedia has the potential to be the greatest effort in collaborative knowledge gathering the world has ever known, and it may well be the greatest effort in voluntary collaboration of any kind.” [2] Not only do such democratic processes encourage democracy more generally, but they are an effective means to create a user-friendly product, as illustrated by open source software such as Firefox and Linux.  [1] The Economist. (2006, April 20). The wiki principle. Retrieved 16 May 2012, from The Economist.  [2] Poe, M. (2006, September). The hive. Retrieved May 11, 2012, from The Atlantic.


Wikipedia is a common starting point for enquiries, but not because it is excellent; it has become a standard source of reference because it is free and easy to access. Wikipedia, through its popularity, is often the first search result found when using public search engines like Google, which draws users to its information regardless of the reliability that other sources may offer. Many of its users are students, with too little experience to ascertain the quality of an article but anxious to find the quickest and ostensibly most efficient path to the information they require. Overdependence on Wikipedia means that students in particular never develop proper research skills and increasingly accept that an approximately right answer is good enough. [1] , [2] Middlebury College’s history department even banned students from citing Wikipedia in papers, [3] and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales himself has asserted that changes to Wikipedia are necessary to make it a suitable resource for college students. [4] , [5]  [1] Graham, L., & Metaxas, P. T. (2003, May). “Of course it’s true; I saw it on the Internet!” Critical thinking in the Internet era.Communications of the ACM, 46(1), 71-75.  [2] Frean, A. (2008, January 14). White bread for young minds, says University of Brighton professor. The Times. Retrieved June 9, 2008.  [3] Jaschik, S. (2007, January 26). A stand against Wikipedia. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved March 4, 2008.  [4] Young, J. R. (2006, June 12).Wikipedia founder discourages academic use of his creation. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 4, 2008  [5] Young, J. R. (2008, May 16). A ‘frozen’ Wikipedia could be better for college, founder says. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 4,


Wikipedia models, in an accessible form, the process of knowledge creation through writing.  hrough the process by which its articles are constructed, Wikipedia supports “notions of revision, collaboration, and authority” that many academics value and helps to make visible the knowledge-making process. [1] With its Discussion and History pages, Wikipedia illustrates the peer review process academic writing goes through as well as the iterative, recursive nature of public writing. Thus, it can disabuse students of the notion that good writing happens in isolation in one sitting. Therefore, Wikipedia can be an excellent teaching tool. [2] [3]  [1] Purdy, J. P. (2009). When the tenets of composition go public: A study of writing in Wikipedia.” College Composition and Communication 61(2), W351-W373. Retrieved May 9, 2012.  [2] Wilson, M. A. (2008, April 1). Professors should embrace Wikipedia. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from Inside Higher Ed.  [3] Lundin, R. W. (2008). Teaching with wikis: Toward a networked pedagogy. Computers and Composition 25(4) (2008) 432–448.


Wikipedia provides free, open access to knowledge  Wikipedia exists to provide free, open and easy access to information and knowledge. Its goal is to ‘distribute a free encyclopedia to every single person on the planet in their own language, and to an astonishing degree (it) is succeeding’. [1] It already has over 3.5 million articles in English alone. [2] This is more than ten times those of Encyclopaedia Britannica, its nearest printed rival. Traditionally, reference works were very expensive, which meant previously that knowledge was restricted to the wealthy, or those with access to well-funded public libraries. Wikipedia liberates that knowledge and provides volumes of online information to anyone with access to a computer, or even a smartphone, and the internet. Its impact is only restrained by the reach of internet providers and the desire of people to learn. Users do not need to be able to afford particular print objects but can access contents of Wikipedia from any location with Internet connectivity.  [1] Schiff, S. (2006, July 31). Know it all: Can Wikipedia conquer it all? Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The New Yorker  [2] Asrianti, T. (2011, April 27). Writing culture on the web: Are we still better at talking? Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Jakarta Post


Wikipedia does not provide free, open access to knowledge, for it only applies to those who already have access to both a computer and internet access. Furthermore, since very few computer retailers or internet service providers are willing to provide their services free of charge, to declare Wikipedia free is disingenuous; there are substantial charges before Wikipedia can be utilized. Moreover while Wikipedia may provide free open access to knowledge this is mostly for those who speak English. Those who need this resource are those who speak much smaller languages but as yet Wikipedia is not a good resource in these languages. The Punjabi Wikipedia only has 3,000 articles [1] despite it being a language with more than sixty million speakers. [2] . Lastly, whilst Wikipedia has advantages over traditional print encyclopaedias, tangible objects have the advantage of never going offline and therefore being able to provide their information constantly.  [1] Wikimedia. (2012). List of Wikipedias, Retrieved May 16, 2012, from meta.wikimedia.org.  [2] Ethnologue. (2000). Languages of Pakistan, Retrieved May 16, 2012, from ethnologue.org.


Wikipedia may document the process of creation of encyclopaedia articles, but it does not illustrate the kind of research-writing we should be teaching students. Academic peer review is limited to expert readers. While expert readers can participate in Wikipedia, their voices are often drowned out by the less knowledgeable masses. Moreover, Wikipedia discourages appropriate source use and citation practices. Not only do students frequently plagiarize from Wikipedia, [1] but they also plagiarize in contributing to it. [2]  [1] Nagel, D. (2011, November 3). Wikipedia tops list of plagiarized sources. Retrieved May 9, 2012, from THE Journal.  [2] Sormunen, E., & Lehtio, L. (2011, December). Authoring Wikipedia articles as an information literacy assignment: Copy-pasting or expressing new understanding in one’s own words. Information Research 16(4). Retrieved April 27, 2012.


No organisation can succeed in being completely neutral and unbiased as is shown by the number of complaints the BBC, which is obliged to be impartial in political matters, [1] gets about bias on issues ranging from politics, [2] [3] to Israel, [4] [5] to climate change. [6] Similarly Wikipedia can be criticised for its inbuilt bias, intolerant of dissenting views. Even Wikipedians themselves acknowledge that its topic coverage is slanted. [7] Religious conservatives object to the secular liberal approach its editors consistently take and have found that their attempts to add balance to entries are swiftly rejected. This bias even extends to the censorship of facts which raise questions about the theory of evolution. Some conservatives are so worried about the widespread use of Wikipedia to promote a liberal agenda in education that they have set up Conservapedia as a rival source of information. [8]  [1] BBC. (2012). BBC Charter and Agreement. Retrieved May 16 2012, from the BBC.  [2] Helm, Toby. (2011, December 31). Labour turns on BBC over ‘pro-coalition coverage’. Retrieved May 16, 2012, from The Observer.  [3] Johnson, Boris. (2012, May 14). The statist, defeatist and biased BBC is on the wrong wavelength. Retrieved May 16, 2012 from The Telegraph.  [4] PNN. (2012, May 16), Protest Outside the BBC: End Your Silence on Palestine. Retrieved May 16, 2012 from Palestine News Network.  [5] Paul, Jonny. (2010, April 28). Watchdog: BBC biased against Israel. Retrieved May 16, 2012, from The Jerusalem Post.  [6] Black, Richard. (2009, October 13). Biases, U-turns, and the BBC’s climate coverage. Retrieved May 16, 2012, from the BBC.  [7] Why Wikipedia is not so great. Retrieved November 14, 2004, from Wikipedia.  [8] Jane, E. (2011, January 11). A parallel online universe. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Australian


Wikipedia is an excellent starting point for enquiries  Wikipedia pools information that previously was spread far and wide in cyberspace into one readily accessible location. Enquiries will not and should not end at Wikipedia, but it provides accessible background information as well as links to additional research and publication on a topic and is, therefore, an obvious starting point. [1] Nobody at Wikipedia has claimed that it is a definitive account of human knowledge or a replacement for in-depth research. But it gives a quick guide to an unknown subject and points the enquirer on to more specialist sources. It is used to good effect by students, teachers, journalists and even judges, among many others – showing it is a valued reference source. Experienced users can quickly assess the quality of an article from its written quality and the thoroughness of its references, so they need not accept its content out of hand. Nothing on the internet should ever be accepted uncritically, but Wikipedia has earned its reputation as a valuable starting resource.  [1] Purdy, J. P. (2010). Wikipedia is good for you!? In C. Lowe and P. Zemliansky (Eds.), Writing spaces: Readings on writing, Vol. 1 (pp. 205-224). Fort Collins, CO and West Lafayette, IN: WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.


Wikipedia enshrines the principle of freedom of information  A key principle for Wikipedia is to present information as neutrally as possible. This has led to Wikipedia being banned in China, after Jimmy Wales refused to censor articles to make the site acceptable to the Chinese government. [1] Wikipedia, thus, epitomizes the principle that all should have access to the necessary information required not just to live, but also enjoy and cherish our lives. As such, Wikipedia is not threatened by variants and rivals that also seek to promote freedom of knowledge because it views them as partners to a mutual goal, not rivals. Its founder, Jimmy Wales, readily acknowledges it will eventually be superseded by another way of sharing knowledge on a mass level. [2]  [1] Revill, D. S. (2006, September 10). Wikipedia defies China's censors. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Observer  [2] Barnett, E. (2009, November 17). Jimmy Wales interview: Wikipedia is focusing on accuracy. Retrieved May 11, 2011, from The Telegraph.