Access to data by either citizens or organizations continues to raise hairs. IT companies, with their respective wealth, might, and influences are at the forefront of data access, utilization, and transformation. And at most levels, these initiatives are strong contributors to the “how to improve our bottom line” syndrome. Free markets tend to marginalize vulnerable groups and deprive “owners” of what is legitimately theirs. A vivid example and reminder of this is the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica scandal – where the personal data of millions of Facebook users was harvested for political advertising purposes without their consent. While the unscrupulous initiative’s effects remain deep and wide, Cambridge Analytica, like many of its peers, remained relatively unscathed. The reality is that this example represents just the tip of the iceberg. Social network and related platform users continue to be manipulated by providers of “free” emails, social networks, etc. And the strategies used by these service providers are quite complex — and successful. I have always wondered how many IT users go through the lengthy agreements they casually consent to. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details, and many of us come to realize the full meaning of the expression only after it’s too late.

 

Many governments are becoming more adept and introducing laws and policies to address many data-related loopholes. Some low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) use “national security” as the primary reason for “policing” citizens and their insatiable thirst to use their data. Some have succeeded to a significant extent. For example, access to Facebook and Twitter platforms among others is banned in China. This, of course, is not the case in the more developed countries in the West.

 

The contemporary dynamics of the Internet are cumbersome, diverse, intriguing, and inclusive. For example, the rich west criticizing LMICs for restricting “universal access” to these platforms is not an indicator of sound judgment. Countries have the right and autonomy to manage their respective resources in the most suitable way. Access to data is no exception. Restricting access is one way of establishing law and order and accountability. The EU, for example, continues to be uncompromising when it comes to the influence of IT companies across the EU territory. Cited privacy concerns are one controversial concern. So why should LMICs not introduce and implement models that work for them?

 

Interestingly, these restrictions are not only limited to LMICs. According to a report produced by The Organization Freedom House and cited by The New York Times Magazine in its November 17, 2019 edition, the data restriction carnage is global! Based on an eight-year analysis, amongst ten select countries, and with the most recent figures (2019), Iceland tops the list of “free” internet access countries (about 95 per cent); followed by the US with just under 80 per cent; and France coming in third with about 75 per cent. With respect to “partly free” access, India comes in first with about 50 per cent; Sri Lanka follows with about 45 per cent; followed by The Gambia with about 45 per cent; while Turkey and Russia are at the bottom of that group with about 35 and 30 per cent respectively. The average rating among this group was about 54 per cent in 2019. Finally, China comes up as the most Internet-averse country with about ten per cent in the “not free” category.

 

While I remain a strong advocate of the free flow of information across territorial boundaries, I also remain convinced that certain levels of checks and balances are required to protect national interests. However, these options do come with trade-offs. It is true that the high-handed degree of “policing” has an unintended consequence of data-rights abuse and other outcomes. So, the big question is who decides? And where is the line drawn?

 

The reality is that the big IT companies are, to a significant extent, only interested in their bottom line. And the bigger and richer ones continue to find their way through. And that keeps shareholders happy!

 

In conclusion, it is my view that one way to address these challenges linked to a “universal” internet is for all stakeholders to establish a policy and forum more inclusive than what is currently in place. A good starting point would be to engage the UN and member countries to develop an inclusive policy and platform with contributions from every member state. Let countries sign in as it’s currently the practice with conventions. This will establish a level playing field that will ultimately entice countries to contribute to solving this ubiquitous Internet access problem.