University of Bucharest

Faculty of Political Science

M.A. in Comparative Politics

Master Thesis

A Hegelian Inquiry on Internet Governance: Nine

Contemporary Internet Regimes in Comparison with the

Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle

Student,

Vlad Costea

Coordinator,

Conf. Univ. Dr. Luciana Alexandra Ghica

Bucharest

June 2016

2

3

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ………………………………………….……………………..…..………. p. 5

2. The Internet ………………………………………………………………………….… p. 13

2.1 What Is the Internet?............................................................................................. p. 13

2.2 Who Are the Main Stakeholders and How Do They Influence the Network? .... p. 16

2.3 The Internet in National Constitutions and the Users’ Existential Duality (Real Life v.

Virtual Presence) ………………………………………………………....……. p. 21

2.4 Separation of Powers on the Internet and Checks and Balances – The Montesquieu

Triangle as an Ideal Model …………………………..…………...…...…...….. p. 24

3. The Regime Classifications of Plato and Aristotle ………………………….……… p. 31

3.1 Why Is the Inquiry Relevant for Political Science and Internet Regimes?

……………………………………………………………………………….... p. 31

3.2 The Hegelian Method ………………………………………………………… p. 33

3.3 The Classification of Political Regimes …………………………………...…. p. 34

3.3.1 Plato’s Classification …………………………………………….……....…...….. p.34

3.3.2 Aristotle’s Classification …………………………………...……………………. p. 38

3.4 The Methods of Projecting Plato’s and Aristotle’s Ideas on the Internet

………..............…………………………………………………………………………..………… p. 40

4. The United Nations Model for Internet Governance ……………………………… p. 41

5. Internet Regimes in Nine States ……………………………...……….…….………. p. 46

5.1 The United States of America ………………………………………………… p. 46

5.2 China ………………………………………………………………………….. p. 48

5.3 India ……………………………………………………....…………………… p. 49

5.4 Turkey …………………………………………………....…………...………. p. 51

5.5 Estonia. ……………………………………………….………………………... p. 52

5.6 Russia ……………………………………………….…………...…….……….. p. 53

5.7 Egypt ……………………………………………….….………....…………….. p. 55

5.8 Saudi Arabia ……………………………………….…………....……………… p. 56

5.9 Cuba ……………………………………………..……….……...…………...…. p. 57

6. The Classification of the Nine Internet Regimes, according to Plato and Aristotle … p. 60

7. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..…………… p. 66

8. Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………….. p. 69

4

5

1. Introduction

The internet has become an essential information exchange and communication tool, and its

growth in terms of popularity and usage, along with the rising economic and political interests

surrounding it demonstrate its prominence as an all-encompassing medium. The development of

the network has enabled users to communicate instantly, remotely transfer data from a computer

to the other, but also interact with local governments, access health services, and pay taxes.1

However, the trans-border characteristics are regarded differently by the three main stakeholders

involved in internet governance, namely users, governments, and companies. Users demand for

more privacy and unrestricted freedom of both expression and access, governments seek to

maintain their political regimes legitimate and functional in the face of such a digital challenge,

while businesses try to develop a middle-ground approach that pleases users and satisfies the

sovereign demands of governments.

Initially, the internet served as a quick alternative for military information exchange, and today’s

openness and accessibility of the network is the sum of multiple paradigmatic shifts and

development stages. When we look at the internet today, we should keep in mind that it all began

with the United States Government’s ARPANET project, which was funded by the US Department

of Defense and served a military information exchange purpose2. But the network’s friendliness

and accessibility were given by the intensive use of its data-transfer features within university

campuses in the 1980s (with an emphasis on the e-mail capability)3, the blossoming of the

advertisement industry in the mid-1990s4, and the hardware advancements that continuously

provide easier access and interconnectedness to other computers worldwide. Ultimately, in spite

1 Paul BERNAL, “Internet Privacy Rights – Rights to Protect Autonomy”, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

2014, p. 2-5. 2 Internet Society, “Brief History of the Internet”, Origins of the Internet, Para. 1-7, Available at:

http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-internet/history-internet/brief-history-internet#Origins, Consulted on

June 11th 2016. 3 Ibidem, Transition to Widespread Infrastructure, Para. 2-7, Available at:

http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-internet/history-internet/brief-history-internet#Transition, Consulted on

June 11th 2016. 4 Ankit OBEROI, “The History of Online Advertising”, AdPushup, 2013, Available at:

http://www.adpushup.com/blog/the-history-of-online-advertising/, Consulted on June 11th 2016.

6

of the governments’ and businesses’ influence and contributions, end-users who have chosen to

support the technology of interconnected computers from its earliest stages of commercialization

and all the way to our present days, also deserve an honorable mention. As consumers, they

contributed to the growth of a network that initially wasn’t designed for mass utilization. As users

of the internet, through their interactions, opinions, and personal contributions (such as websites,

coded algorithms, and graphic designs), they have helped the environment become friendlier and

more popular.5

Accordingly, for the purpose of achieving a clearer and more precise research, internet users will

be divided in three categories: users (encapsulating the total amount of individuals and groups

which don’t serve a governmental or commercial purpose and use internet for personal reasons),

governments (referring to the authorities and officials that are legitimately in charge with political

affairs at the highest level within a given state), and businesses (the sum of commercial entities

that can be found on the internet, regardless of the nature of the goods or services they provide).

The term internet regime will designate the relation between the government’s internet policies,

and the two other main stakeholders on the network: businesses and users. This separation

establishes a very Montesquieu-esque triangular structure which, throughout the paper, will be

subject to an inductive and associative process. The distinction lays at the foundation of one of the

most fundamental contemporary questions in terms of legitimacy, governance and freedom

(understood as privacy rights for users, free market features for the businesses, and surveillance

and intervention rights for governments): “What are the best internet regimes that either exist

or can be developed, and how can the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle help identify them?”.

The question itself starts from the Hegelian assumption that every present stage of human

evolution is not absolute and every previous step can be a source of lessons for a better status-quo.

Correspondingly, it deals with issues from the fields of political philosophy, comparative political

regime classification, liberal economic principles, human rights, public policy, and international

relations. Plato and Aristotle have laid the foundations of Western political thought and have

proprietary classifications of political regimes, and the confrontation of something as

contemporary as internet regimes with power classifications that promote values such as virtue,

5 Mehdi KHOSROW-POUR, “Encyclopedia of E-Commerce, E-Government, and Mobile Commerce”, Idea Group,

London, 2006, p. 560.

7

morality, and justice, (which some may deem as obsolete) can provide a surprisingly-accurate

output. Additionally, since concepts which are no longer taken into account in regime classification

are being used, an old perspective will become fresh when confronted with a theme of our times.

The internet is a tool of information and economic globalization, yet its trans-border nature makes

it subject to both international and domestic law. Consequently, unlike the clear Montesquieu

triangle which provides a very clear understanding of the 3 major branches of government, the

internet doesn’t provide an equally comprehensive and self-evident separation: not only that the

relations between government, businesses and users feature a higher degree of complexity and

users can be both governmental authorities and commercial enterprises (and vice-versa), but the

nature of the internet is transcendent and simultaneously makes it a nationally-governed entity, as

well as a subject bound to international law. Thus, both perspectives will be taken into

consideration – but in order to make the study relevant for the field of comparative politics, there

will be a focus on the national governance of the internet, with mentions of what the international

law stipulates.

Authors who have approached the issue of internet governance are mostly user-centered and have

thought of various ways of balancing the interests involved. One of the most radical and basic

publications on this topic is John Perry Barlow’s 1996 opus on the independence of cyberspace,

which calls the internet (defined in broader terms as “cyberspace”) “the home of Mind”. This

environment should be left alone by “Governments of the Industrial World”, as their obsolete ways

of exercising authority are not compatible with a network of ideas6. The document neglects the

existence of various businesses whose interests might diverge from those of users, and focuses

solely on the antithesis between users and the antagonized governments. It came as a response to

the United States’ Telecommunications Reform Act and presented the measure as an insult to the

American Founding Fathers and liberal political philosophers like Alexis de Tocqueville.

Conversely, states where digital liberty had previously been suppressed by government

intervention are listed and described with a clear conclusion: no bureaucratic effort coming from

any obsolete hegemonic establishment can take control over such a large interconnected network

which establishes “a civilization of the Mind”7. Barlow’s fundamental argument is that the user’s

6 John Perry BARLOW, “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace”, Electronic Frontier Foundation, 1996,

Available at: https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence, Consulted on June 11th 2016, Para. 1-6. 7 Ibidem, Para. 11-16.

8

intellectual work is free to be accessed and distributed, represents the foundation of a new and

better society, and any governmental intervention is poorly informed (in the sense that

governments don’t understand the nature of the digital communities and seek only economic and

political interests) and undesirable. Therefore, it can be assessed that his perspective is purely user-

centric and reminiscent of economic libertarianism, as it disregards any other intervening actor.

A similar argument is presented in Wolfgang Sofsky’s “Privacy: A Manifesto”, but the emphasis

is put on the individual’s contemporary subjection to permanent privacy infringements on behalf

of every internet stakeholder: private persons, companies, and the government. The main

arguments revolve around a comparison between what happens in the virtual world and principles

of real-life natural law. Correspondingly, the centerpiece of his book is the story of an average

contemporary individual named Anton B., whose every move is being surveilled, recorded and

tracked throughout the day – from the moment he wakes up and checks his e-mail and all the way

to his checking-in at work and his security surveillance in the parking lot, he is subjected to an

Orwellian treatment which causes the disgruntlement of the author.8

University of East Anglia lecturer Paul Bernal is among the recent authors who approached the

issue of internet governance, and he chose a broader perspective, in which he pushes forward the

concept of The Symbiotic Web – a medium in which every internet stakeholder understands the

importance of the other and accepts to negotiate and find a middle ground between radical

libertarianism and Orwellian data collection. His answer to the question “How should the internet

be governed?” is not clear in the sense of naming the users, the governments or the businesses as

legitimate and rightful hegemons. Instead, he argues that the current state of affairs can be adjusted

in the interest of all actors: users can obtain a higher degree of privacy and anonymity,

governments can be less intrusive but just as effective in terms of providing security, and

businesses can adjust their models to please both users and governments through their data

collection (while also retaining their profits). As the name states, “The Symbiotic Web” relies on

tight connection and consensus among stakeholders, and is a reflection on the current state of

affairs and the future of the internet.9

8 Wolfgang SOFSKY, “Privacy: A Manifesto”, trans. from German by Steven Rendall, Princeton University Press,

Princeton, 2008, p. 1-11. 9 Paul BERNAL, (op. cit), p.53-82.

9

Another notable perspective is iterated by Anja Mihr, associate professor at the Utrecht University.

In her 2013 research paper on internet human rights, she underlines the importance of international

law protocols for the purpose of achieving a more accountable type of internet governance. Her

account revolves around the idea of a rule of law in cyberspace, and uses contemporary United

Nations treaties to legitimize internet privacy and access to the network as fundamental human

rights under the protection of legally-binding international treaties.10

Additionally, Jonathan Zittrain and John Palfrey present a very clear perspective on the ethics of

corporate practices of part-taking in human rights and freedom of internet access infringements.

In order to explain why companies are more likely to side with governmental regulations than to

favor international treaties and users’ rights, the authors argue that companies are bound to the

laws of their headquarters’ homeland, but also to the laws of every state they operate in. The

dilemma a company faces when starting operations in an authoritarian state like China is whether

they want to protect the Western values they believe in, or if they want to enter the market under

the demanded conditions. However, since a number of precedents have been set by computer

industry giants such as Cisco, Google, and Yahoo, (who decided to trade business ethics for

increased revenues by supporting local governmentally-demanded internet filtering and

censorship), the corporate guilt towards human rights infringements has perpetually increased.11

The perspective is relevant for the current study in order to explain the preference of internet

companies to collaborate with governments and comply to their demands, even though the

practices harm the users’ freedom.

Last but not least, there is a more cynical and international relations realism-oriented point of view

belonging to Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu. In their 2006 book “Who Controls the Internet?”, they

iterate that informational globalization and the digitized borderless world are mere illusions that

are subjected to governmental interventions. To them, due to various governments’ intrusions on

the content, the interconnectedness is outshined by arbitrary censorship and authoritarian

punishments on users. For example, China’s policies serve as a prime example of the described

10 Anja MIHR, “Public Privacy – Human Rights in Cyberspace”, The Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM),

Utrecht University, Utrecht, 2013, p. 4-10. 11 Jonathan ZITTRAIN, John PALFREY, “Reluctant Gatekeepers: Corporate Ethics on a Filtered Internet”, in

“Access Denied – The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering”, William J. DRAKE, Ernest J. WILSON III

(ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, 2008, p.103-122.

10

illusion of borderless globalization, as the state attempts to build a controlled nationalistic version

of the network within its borders. The internet is not just one free entity that is bound to

international law and regulations, but a telecommunications mean that is subjected to the will of

the national territorial government (to the same extent newspapers, radio, and television are bound

to analogous rules). And for this reason, in the view of Goldsmith and Wu, geographical

dimensions and political regime characteristics should always be taken into consideration, in spite

of and regardless of international treaties.12

The arguments presented in the books and articles mentioned lay at the foundation of an original

analysis on internet regimes and how the network should be governed. However, it should be

noted that these sources are mostly concerned with recent events from the time when they were

written, and seldom take into account principles and ideas of classical political thought and

philosophy. By virtue of the Hegelian tradition of approaching history, one can assess that the

referenced publications have been mostly pieces of original history (reports written about people,

institutions, deeds and events that are contemporary to the writers and are a part of their times and

culture), while the following research seeks to become a treaty on both reflective (events and facts

from the past regarded in a contemporary perspective) and philosophical history (via induction on

the events and facts). More precisely, ideas of governance which are present in classical philosophy

will be brought to attention, fitted and updated to the status-quo, while a personal and fact-deduced

take on the situation will eventually lead up to the conclusions.13

The nature of the question How should the internet be governed? (with emphasis on national

regimes) will be the middle ground between a Platonic induction on the ideal internet governance,

and the more Aristotelian argument on the best regime that exists and can be simultaneously

reached and sustained. For this purpose, a classification of internet regimes will be created by

taking into account the existing ways of governing in nine various states around the world,

featuring different types of constitutions and government: the United States of America (as the

source of the internet), China (as a radical left-wing authoritarian regime, as well as the state with

12 Jack GOLDSMITH, Tim WU, “Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of Borderless World”, Oxford University

Press, New York, 2006, p. 179-184. 13 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich HEGEL, “Lectures on the Philosophy of World History: Volume 1, Manuscripts of the

Introduction and Lectures of 1822-3”, Edited and Translated by Robert F. BROWN and Peter C. HODGSON with the

assistance of William G. GEUSS, Oxford University Press, New York, 2013, p. 133-140.

11

most internet users), India (as a federal parliamentary republic, as well as the country with the 3rd

most internet users), Turkey (as an quasi-authoritarian parliamentary republic with drifts in its

secular character), Estonia (as a post-communist democratic parliamentary regime which also

enables online suffrage), Russia (as a post-communist quasi-authoritarian federal semi-presidential

republic), Egypt (as a regime with an internet-fueled post-revolutionary pseudo-democratic

constitution, but authoritarian practices), Saudi Arabia (as an ecclesiastic absolute monarchy) and

Cuba (as a radical left-wing authoritarian state with more isolationist views). For a better

understanding of the various events taking place in each of the chosen states, Freedom House’s

2015 Freedom on the Net Report will be used for a quantitative analysis which takes into account

the comparative number of internet access infringements on the internet. The report is suitable for

the matter, due to its inclusion of cases about abusive government intervention, infringements of

free trade, but also cases of users’ unlawful or illegitimate behavior. The fact that the data available

is parallel and correspondent will help make a better comparison of internet regimes.

Ultimately, the paper will draw experiences and concepts from the theoretical perspectives

described, will amass the various constitutional experiences of the selected states and will combine

the Hegelian method of applying Ancient philosophy with the attributions of the three important

stakeholders on the internet (the users, the companies, and the governments). Taking ideas of

governing from around 380 BC (the approximated time when Plato’s The Republic was written)

and projecting them onto the 2016 AD (the latest Freedom on the Net Report by Freedom House)

framework is truly innovative, but suffers from certain limitations. First of all, due to the nature of

the classical treaties on government, there is a series of more recent perspectives along the way

which are certainly missed and not taken into account. Secondly, the spatial association might have

its boundaries, as states that have been subjected to the Western tradition of philosophy to a lesser

extent might have a lower degree of correspondence and application – yet, according to some

scholars, even the Chinese government is a loyal follower of Plato’s teachings (and many

constitutions draw inspiration from his writings).14 Furthermore, the fact that the political thought

of Plato and Aristotle dates back to almost 2100 years makes it more adaptable, general, and an

expandable framework which enables for correspondences and correlations due to the novelty and

14 Melissa LANE, “Comparing Greek and Chinese Political Thought: The Case of Plato’s Republic”, Journal of

Chinese Philosophy, 36:4, December 2009, p. 585-601.

12

freshness the writings had at the time. It is usually stated that every type of polity, as well as

religious establishment, has drawn inspiration from the Ancient Greek philosophy.

Additionally, the fact that the paper only takes 9 states and constitutions from the world and leaves

out two of the continents (Australia and Antarctica) might reduce the research’s scale of

applicability. However, the states were chosen according to the main existing types of constitutions

and only if they were featured in the internet freedom reports. Even though other states were

considered for the research, they didn’t make the selection due to the lack of parallel and

correspondent data to match the comparison. Additionally, the two fundamental works on

government (The Republic and Politics) are picked in order to have a middle ground for the ideal

and the most practical way to govern the internet. There are other works from the same area, as

well as more recent treaties, which tackle the same issue – but the direct relation between the two

works provides a clearer and more comprehensive comparison framework, while also offering a

fresh perspective on the issue of internet governance.

The main concepts that are to be taken into account throughout the research are internet

governance, political regime, filtering and censorship, freedom on the internet and internet privacy

in relation to national and international law, multi-stakeholder approach to governance, and

business interest. Each of them designates an important feature of the internet, thus constructing a

certain regime typology. Furthermore, the 9 cases are varied enough to produce different results

after the analysis, due to the different types of government and constitutions, but also the diverse

policies with respect to the internet.

Additionally, the research methods employed include data collection, data analysis, Platonic

induction, Hegelian approach to reflective and philosophical history, qualitative analysis of the

various policies, and quantitative analysis of certain measures (especially in the rankings and

ratings provided by the Freedom House report). The level of analysis is innately vertical, referring

to the government-user, government-business and business-user relations, and the main units

consist of policies. Accordingly, the discourse is not among the subjects of concern, as analysis of

actions, bills and passed pieces of legislation prevail over declarations and have a direct effect on

how the internet is experienced.

13

The question on ideal regimes will be answered by taking into account the mentioned works on

the state of the internet and its governance, as well as the classics by Plato, Aristotle, Montesquieu,

and Hegel. Moreover, complementary works from the field, belonging to various sources, will be

used in order to provide a broader and better-constructed argument on the matter. The analysis will

point out how the characteristics of ancient political regimes blend on the features of the internet,

and ultimately generate an original output.

2. The Internet

2.1 What Is the Internet?

The internet is a contemporary popular and widespread technological advancement that bridges

the modern and post-modern discoveries and innovations in terms of communication,

cryptography, digitization of information, and data transferring. Due to the very large number of

devices that are connected to the network and the gargantuan amounts of data that are transferred

at every instant across the world, the internet is regarded by many as the apex and flagship of the

information age, a virtual factor of globalization, and the shining star every new technological

device (and even household appliance) revolves around.

From a historical point of view, the internet is the more advanced and technologically-evolved

form of the military network ARPANET (The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network). The

latter, considered by many as the ancestor of today’s popular network, was developed by a number

of notable MIT and UCLA academics who worked for the United States Department of Defense

for the purpose of achieving a fast and reliable way to remotely exchange digital information from

a computer to another. ARPANET was first developed in the early 1960s, and was rapidly taken

to new peaks by equally-enthusiastic academics who wanted to take part to the process of

connecting computers and creating a larger network. By March 1972, the first e-mail message was

sent and it took only a few months for its functionalities to be expanded to reading, filing,

14

forwarding, and responding15. Nevertheless, due to the very small number of computers built

worldwide and across the United States of America, the e-mail service hasn’t reached mass

audiences until nearly 20 years later, after technology businesses have launched, marketed and

sold personal computers that were capable of fast processing and software companies have taken

advantage of the hardware advancements in order to create user-friendly services. It was also then,

when the companies that manufacture computers have switched to mass production and have

improved their business model, while the telecommunication companies have spread their services

on larger territory, that the internet could switch from a network of a few North-American

computers to an international and a global phenomenon.

However, in order to advance the argument and have a clearer measurement of the data and

phenomena, a clear distinction has to be made between the various layers of the internet.

Structurally, the network functions just like the practical example of sheets of papers stored in

drawers inside an institution’s offices: some files are publically-accessible and can be found and

consulted by anybody, while others are locked, hidden, and held as personal or institutional secrets.

The term which encompasses all the networks from the digital realm is “cyberspace”, meaning

that interacting computers use the same medium, but store and transfer information differently. In

a nutshell, the cyberspace encompasses the whole body of information that is stored and/or

distributed from a peer to the other, regardless of its availability or exclusivity. While

communication protocols largely differ, the internet consists of the information which is

publically-available and can be accessed by anybody with the opening of an internet browser

interface. Therefore, the internet will be defined as the public space which any computer user with

an internet connection can access without requiring special passwords or security bypasses. The

meaning of public is also meant to refer to the jurisdiction applicable on the network, via

translation to activities in a real-life public space.16 Examples of internet content include news

websites, video and entertainment hubs, forums, chats, and any other virtual space that search

engines display and provide access to. Conversely, there is still an indexing matter which divides

internet content and should be taken into consideration: while most of the content subjected to

filtering and censorship via governmental or corporate intervention is widely accessible and

15 Internet Society, (op. cit.), Origins of the Internet, Para. 1-7. 16 Paul BERNAL, (op. cit.), p. 8-9.

15

indexed, there are two branches of the internet which should also be taken into account. The first

is the so-called “Deep Web” and includes content that can be accessed by anybody but is not

indexed by search engines (for example, certain discussion boards and social media profiles and

content are set to be accessible according to a membership or friendship criterion). The Second

branch is the “Dark Web”, which is both restricted in terms of access and non-indexed. It mostly

consists of purposely-hidden content, such as government and corporate databases, but also illegal

or obscene undertakings. 17 According to the previously-established principle of applying real-life

principles, the same rules and laws that concern one’s private space should be applied on the Deep

Web, whilst the Dark Web is innately secret and should be treated accordingly (for example, just

like gatherings of secret societies or secretive meetings of citizens).

Table 1: The three types of internet, according to the accessibility-indexation

relation

Indexed Non-Indexed

Restricted - Dark Web

Accessible Internet Deep Web

Figure 1: The 3 layers of the Cyberspace

17 Daniel MIESSLER, “The Internet, the Deep Web, and the Dark Web”, Available at:

https://danielmiessler.com/study/internet-deep-dark-web/, Consulted on June 12th 2016.

16

2.2 Who Are the Main Stakeholders and How Do They Influence the

Network?

Now that the internet has been defined on the proper scale and distinguished from the broader

“cyberspace”, the next section will outline the 3 main actors involved in internet governance. As

presented during the introductory part of the paper, the stakeholders are users, governments, and

businesses. The internet is a fluid, versatile, ever-changing and ever-expanding environment,

which allows every participant to bring a contribution. Correspondingly, each stakeholder plays

an important role in the status-quo of the medium, as well as its overall governance.

Users are the main actors on the network and their persistent financial and intellectual efforts are

responsible for keeping the internet alive and under continuous development. Their choice of

purchasing a computer and paying the fees for an internet connection affects both government

Cyberspace

Internet

Deep Web

Dark Web

17

activities and business models. Just like in real life, their choices as citizens and consumers

contribute to the society at large.

Governments are responsible for the internet in the sense that they allow for the distribution of

information through their ministries of telecommunications or equivalents, but also have the

responsibility to provide security to the citizens and business under their jurisdiction. In a medium

filled with network attacks, identity theft, sales scams, as well as terrorist activities which might

be planned through exchanges of digital messages, governments have a responsibility to maintain

safety and order. Depending on the type of regime and constitution, governments also get involved

in removing or blocking content that displays and promotes illegal deeds: if the internet website is

under the domestic jurisdiction, then it is most likely that the content will be removed; conversely,

if the government identifies a threat for its establishment in internet content coming from other

states, then filtering or blocking will be used. Correspondingly, nearly every government (in a

more or less direct and transparent way) removes and marginalizes extreme cruelty, child

pornography and other types of behavior that are both immoral and illegal. However, some

governments might respect rights such as intellectual property and remove or filter content

accordingly, while others reject institutional or personal criticism directed towards their

administration by various means.18 For a better understanding of the situation, the 9 state examples

mentioned in the introductory part will serve as good example of various internet regimes and

practices.

Last but not least, businesses are on the more economic and profit-oriented side of the debate, as

they attempt to find a middle ground between users’ satisfaction and governmental legally-binding

demands. Depending on their nature and magnitude, they can be classical businesses which also

operate on the internet (such as retail stores), or internet businesses that are developed and used

entirely through the network (such as social networks or search engines). In terms of expectations,

there is no difference between the two types of internet businesses: they both want to know

personal and demographic information about their customers, as well as their preferences.

Accordingly, the goal for both types of enterprises is profit.

18 Jonathan ZITTRAIN, John PALFREY, (op. cit.), p.31-32.

18

However, when confronted to ethical dilemmas concerning data sharing and the users’ freedom

and privacy, businesses can choose between siding with the users and relocating their operations

under a different jurisdiction, or abiding to the demands made by the government in spite of the

rights of the users. In most cases, customer data-collecting businesses abide to the domestic rules

and provide whichever type of information is required. Once a precedent was set by industry giants

like Google, Microsoft and Yahoo19, choosing not to follow your competitors is an irrational

economic behavior and a potentially business-threatening decision. The cases in which companies

have refused to collaborate with governments are extremely rare, and one the most recent involves

the computer-industry giant Apple and the Federal Bureau of Investigation20 – a situation which

favored the company because it brought public praise and media coverage without affecting the

sales.

According to the present practices from most states, the users’ online activity is subjected to both

monitoring by governmental institutions (especially intelligence services which serve security

purposes) and tracking by internet companies (for business and marketing purposes). Monitoring

is defined as a combination of hardware and software techniques which enable continuous and

uninterrupted surveillance tasks. Unlike tracking which uses simple pieces of software that take

into account certain types of behavior, monitoring is much more complex and requires either

complete access to the computer or storage of every piece of information concerning the users.

Naturally, users are concerned about their privacy and want to remain anonymous, untracked and

without constant surveillance during certain moments. Just like Winston Smith in George Orwell’s

novel “Nineteen Eighty-Four”, users feel the need to get away from Big Brother’s watch – even

when their deeds are not necessarily against the law or punishable from a moral standpoint.

Similarly, users also want their way of internet use to be more private towards database-building

businesses that want to know everything about their customers and potential customers.

The United Nations Human Rights Council has declared in 2012 that human rights are applicable

online, as virtual life is considered to be a projection and an extension of real life21. Furthermore,

19 Jonathan ZITTRAIN, John PALFREY, (op. cit.), p.103-122. 20 Arjun KHARPAL, “Apple vs FBI: All you Need to Know”, CNBC, March 29th 2016, Available at:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/, Consulted on June 12th 2016. 21 The United Nations Human Rights Council, “First Resolution on Internet Free Speech”, July 12th 2012, Available

at: http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/u-n-human-rights-council-first-resolution-on-internet-free-speech/,

Consulted on June 15th 2016.

19

in December 2013, a year after the UNHR recognition, the 68th Session of the United Nations

General Assembly has adopted Resolution 68/167 which clearly states that the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) are

all legally transferrable on the internet, as every action that is performed online has consequences

on real life and there is a mirroring principle between the real and the virtual activity22. As a

consequence, there is an international legal framework which can be adapted at any point by

member states and organizations of states. However, the protocols are not legally-binding to UN

member states, and consequently serve as mere recommendations. Nonetheless, there is an

important call upon UN member states to extend their application of privacy rights to devices

which enable digital communication, create suitable national legislation which takes measures

against privacy violations and prevents them, review their procedures, practices, and legislation

regarding surveillance, communication interception, and data collections, as well as establish

independent bodies and agencies that guard the principle of privacy at the national level.23 In a

nutshell, the resolutions mark the beginning of a tendency to empower internet users on the basis

of comparisons with real cases taking place in everyday life. Companies and governments should

have limited power over the users to the same extent their abilities are limited in real situations. If

the line between life and virtual is thinned to the point in which distinguishing between the digital

avatar and the individual is increasingly harder, then practices and legislation should be adapted

accordingly.

Correspondingly, internet legislation can and should draw inspiration from real-life cases, since

the activity underwent through the network is considered to be an extension and projection of day

to day situations. Therefore, if the idea of internet privacy is transferred to the real life, we can

imagine a macro example involving the interactions between an average citizen, a police enforcer,

and a store clerk. The average citizen is very law-abiding, but likes and wants to stay isolated,

enjoy time alone, and keep human interactions to the minimum. The policeman, however, is

suspicious of everybody and passively listens to every conversation the citizens and store clerks

22 The United Nations General Assembly, Sixty-Eighth Session, Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 18

December 2013 [On the Report of the Third Committee A/68/456/Add.2], “68/167. The Right to Privacy in the

Digital Age”, Available at: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/167 23 Ibidem, p.2-3.

20

make, verifies every document that is sent and received, but also makes sure that the information

that gets to the citizens and businesses is kept under control and passes a rigorous verification

filter. The store clerk knows the names of all his costumers, knows at all times which product has

been viewed and which ones the customers add to their wish-list, and also saves private data of his

customers (such as home address, phone number, and e-mail address). The clerk is reluctant to

sharing this type of information to the customers, and might display a notice on the data collection

he undergoes and how it works. However, if he is ever asked by the policeman to share the

information, he knows that he is under the direct jurisdiction of the law and he complies. Through

the data he stores, the clerk expects that his business will grow, he will be able to message his

customers to present to them the latest offers at any time, and he will be able to keep track on the

loyalty of his customers – he will know, at any time, how many people have visited his shop, how

many bought something, what they bought, what their demands and wishes are, and which

costumers have returned for further purchases.

The example presented above is a real-life adaptation of the idea that everything that takes place

on the internet is public and has a natural, easily transferrable real-life correspondent. In the real-

life situations, the user has much more privacy and there are many moments (especially the ones

when he or she doesn’t use any type of telecommunications technology) when the trace is lost and

there is no way of knowing his or her whereabouts and the activities that he or she is involved into.

The policeman (in the previous parallel, bearing the responsibilities of many other governmental

institutions that are in charge with security) has a very limited jurisdiction and can intervene in

certain spaces only if special situations. If secret services intercept the internet activity of a citizen

(in the sense of reading and listening to any types of interactions) and engage into surveillance,

there is a high chance that the user will not find out – and even if he does, his means of proving or

winning a lawsuit are minimal. However, if the individual’s private property were violated without

warrant and some of his constitutional rights were infringed by abusive authorities, then the

individual has high chances of filing and winning a court case against the oppressive authorities –

though the example within the borders of states that respect the principles of rule of law.

As the technology advanced and the line between what is real and what is virtual has been thinned

out, governments have adapted their policies through an extension of their jurisdiction to the online

field, under the promise of broader and more complex security. However, the legislative

21

framework is poorly-formulated and suffers from the lack of basic principles and a weak

application of fundamental human rights. The right to secret correspondence is guaranteed by the

constitution of every liberal democracy, but the application of the principle on the internet is

uninspired, as private messages are treated by authorities (as well as companies, in many cases) as

public domain. Likewise, the distinction between public and private seems to get blurrier in time,

as the reality show culture promotes the thoughtless sharing of data and the norms shift towards a

society without secrets, where even the most intimate details become subject of public debate. 24

However, law should be formulated in spite of momentary trends and seek to provide genuine

protection through a framework that clearly distinguishes between what is public and what is

private. If whispering in someone’s ear cannot be used as proof in a court case for defamation,

then sending a private message shouldn’t be either – as the proof can also be questioned and

considered deliberately fake. Additionally, the commercial practices in terms of storing and trading

data to private peers should also be properly regulated – a customer can go to the same bakery for

10 years, talk to the same clerk, buy the same products, and even make a conversation without

informing the clerk or the business about the full name, address, and contact details. Contrary to

this practice, the first order on an online store adds the costumer to an extended database which

tracks every activity on the account – and if the real life argument is applied, then the practice of

storing personal data is illegitimate and unnatural. Correspondingly, users should get to choose if

they want their data to be stored and used as a part of an account, or if they want the data to be

erased from the databases as soon as the order is completed.

2.3 The Internet in National Constitutions and the Users’ Existential Duality

(Real Life v. Virtual Presence)

In order to legitimize the internet’s importance within the political field, four different instances

in which network access has become part of fundamental law will be presented and described. The

passed pieces of legislation are not just a token of recognition of several human rights that are

respected on the internet, but also a proof that the line between real and digital is continuously

24 Michael A. STEFANONE, “Reality Television as a Model for Online Behavior: Blogging, Photo, and Video

Sharing”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 14, Issue 4, 2009, p. 965-972.

22

thinning and bound to disappear. Correspondingly, the argument that internet rights require

tailored laws which are suited according to the real-life situations (theoretically, the fundamental

source of inspiration for law-makers) will be reiterated and emphasized.

Since 2004, three European Union states have recognized internet access as a fundamental human

right: Estonia, France, and Greece.25 Additionally, Finland’s communication minister has declared

that internet access is an enforced legal right, with a minimum speed threshold of 1 megabyte per

second.26 The next section will emphasize on the importance of the internet through an extension

of the previously-presented arguments.

Making up for the decades of Soviet occupation, Estonia has established itself as a leader in terms

of embracing new digital technologies: a few months ahead of their accession to the European

Union, the parliament from Tallinn has voted for a bill which transforms internet access into a

basic human right. The measure was 8 years ahead of the first United Nations resolution which

recognized the mirroring principle between real life and virtual undertakings, and it sought to

provide an extension to a digital chip-based medical healthcare system. The concept would allow

patients to store information about their health condition and previous checks in a very small

readable chip – and an internet connection was required for such an operation. Furthermore, the

Baltic state was trying to become competitive inside the investment’s market, through a highly-

qualified workforce.27 Internet connection was considered to be a prerequisite to achieving the two

pre-EU accession goals. Accordingly, it can be said that Estonia was among the first states in the

world to officially recognize that internet activity reflects real life – and the fact that vital

information was to be stored and exchanged through the network strengthens the argument.

Furthermore, it would take just one more year until Estonia implemented the first European

internet voting system: in 2005, during the municipal elections, Estonian citizens could cast their

ballot from the comfort of their homes. The project was considered such a success, that it was

continued during the 2007 parliamentary elections and became part of the norm during every

25 Paul BERNAL, (op. cit.), p.4-5. 26 BBC, “Finland Makes Broadband a <<Legal Right>>”, July 1st 2010, Available at:

http://www.bbc.com/news/10461048, Consulted on June 14th 2016. 27 Oana LUNGESCU, “Tiny Estonia Leads Internet Revolution”, BBC News, April 7th 2004, Available at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3603943.stm, Consulted on June 15th 2016.

23

suffrage.28 If political rights can be exercised through the internet by virtue of a legislative

decision, then there is a general acknowledgement that online activity is indeed an appendix of our

real selves and technological advancements have reached the point in which virtual identity mirrors

the real self.

In France, after the parliament has passed a very strict law against internet piracy (which would

punish citizens who download software illegally with a permanent disconnection from the

network), the Constitutional Council decreed that the internet is a fundamental human right that

can only be taken away by law courts, after the guilt is proven. Unlike the Estonian and Finish

cases, the decision bears a negative character which seeks to protect the “innocent until guilt is

proven” principle from the 1789 Declaration.29 30 However, acknowledging that human right

character recognizes that there are important real-life activities that can be performed through the

nature – and correspondently, the real life-internet mirroring is further admitted.

Last but not least, there is the case of Greece where participation to a so-called “Information

Society” is guaranteed by the text of the 1975 Constitution, as amended in 2001. The first

paragraph of article 5A entitles all persons to information access (with limitations imposed only

by national security, fight against crime, protection of rights and third-party interests), whilst the

second paragraph of the same article guarantees participation to the “Information Society”. The

state obliges itself to guarantee the “production, exchange and diffusion” throughout the facilitated

informational medium.31 While there is no clear mentioning of the internet (but rather of all the

electronic sources), the amendment is still paramount for legislation that recognizes the association

between real life and the virtual world.

28 Estonian National Electoral Committee, “Reports About Internet Voting in Estonia”, Available at:

http://www.vvk.ee/voting-methods-in-estonia/engindex/reports-about-internet-voting-in-estonia/, Consulted on June

15th 2016. 29 Ian SPARKS, “Internet Access Is a Fundamental Human Right, Rules French Court”, Daily Mail, June 12th 2009,

Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1192359/Internet-access-fundamental-human-right-rules-

French-court.html, Consulted on June 15th 2016. 30 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, Article 9, Available at:

http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/declaration.html, Consulted on June 15th 2016. 31 The Constitution of Greece, Greece, As Published in April 18th 2001, trans. from Greek by Refworld.org,

Available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/4c52794f2.html, Consulted on June 15th 2016.

24

2.4 Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances on the Internet – The

Montesquieu Triangle as an Ideal Model

After having established who the internet actors are and a distinction between their real-life roles

and their cybernetic correspondent, one must inquire on how the three powers can be balanced and

separated for a fairer type of governance. In his 1748 analysis of laws and constitutions,

Montesquieu establishes a tripartite system which clearly separates the main powers within a state:

the legislative, the executive, and the judicial are assigned different independent roles with specific

leverages against each other, hence ensuring a fair and accountable governance.32

Though the associations between three branches of government and three internet stakeholders

might appear to be easily assignable, there are still issues in conducting such an approach. First of

all, the branches of government belong to the same body, whilst the actors on the internet are

merely participants to an extended system. Secondly, no branch of government has an intrinsic

economic interest that seeks profit (like in the case of internet companies). The purpose of the

separation is that of establishing strong and independent powers within a state, not that of

mediating the conflicts that arise between different entities which already exist and have entirely

different origins and goals. Yet, for the sake of inquiry, in the name of scientific innovation and

due to a research necessity, an argument on separation of powers and checks and balances on the

internet will be advanced.

If the internet is regarded as a big government under construction, which seeks legitimation and

consensus from its stakeholders, then there are two different approaches to the matter. First of all,

as Mihr presented in her research, the internet is an instrument of globalization which can be

governed under international law.33 If the argument is true, then governments, users and their trans-

national representatives, as well as businesses, seek to construct an international regime on the

internet and under its rules. Such a regime has to be ruled by universal laws that regard human

rights, but also principles of fair commercial law and liberal democratic principles of rule of law

that limit government prerogatives. Accordingly, this type of construction can only be achieved in

the framework of political standardization and uniformization under Western democratic tradition.

32 MONTESQUIEU, “Spirit of the Laws”, trans. from French and ed. by Anne M. COHLER, Basia C. Miller &

Harold S. STONE, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989, p.138-154. 33 Anja MIHR, (op. cit.), p. 22-25

25

But as long as heads of states call the internet an antagonistic “CIA project” and seek to nationalize

sources of digital information along with various services (like in the case of Russian President

Vladimir Putin)34, while Chinese governmental bodies make efforts to establish “cyberspace

sovereignty” (the Chinese Government’s approach to filtered and isolationist internet)35, among

other similar examples, then the situation of the internationally-governed network becomes very

unlikely to happen. If internet is bound simultaneously to a free trans-border circulation of

information and a national sovereign filter, then one can assess that the internet is a plural entity.

Given the fact that citizens from China experience the internet differently from the users of

Germany, the statement which acknowledges the existence of multiple networks that encapsulate

into the internet becomes more plausible. As Goldsmith and Wu affirm in their book “Who

Controls the Internet?”, there is a pluralism of coercive powers which manipulate the internet: The

United States, China, and the European states have a different vision on how the internet should

look and function, thus establishing a “technological version of the cold war, with each side

pushing its own vision for the internet’s future”.36 In their treaty on internet filtering, Zittrain and

Palfrey agree that there are multiple internet experiences depending on territorial factors and

political regimes, but under the same network umbrella. As they put it, the internet is bound to a

regime of unregulability, and as long as every authoritarian regime shapes another version of the

network according to its own political agenda, then it can be stated that there isn’t just one World

Wide Web: instead, there is a Saudi Wide Web, an Uzbek Wide Web, a Pakistani Wide Web, a

Thai Wide Web, and so forth.37

Under the described circumstances, Montesquieu’s concepts of separation of powers and checks

and balances will not be applied on an international scale (consisting of organizations of

governments, lobby groups and various transnational corporations), but rather at the domestic

level. Given the fact that the current research attempts to balance ideal cases with the status-quo,

34 Aljazeera, “Putin Says Internet Is a CIA Project”, April 25th 2014, Available at:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/04/putin-says-internet-cia-project-201442563249711810.html,

Consulted on June 13th 2016. 35 Freedom House, “Freedom on the Net Report 2015”, Available at:

https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTN%202015%20Full%20Report.pdf, p.190-213, Consulted on June

13th 2016. 36 Jack GOLDSMITH, Tim WU, (op. cit.), p. 184. 37 Jonathan ZITTRAIN, John PALFREY, “Internet Filtering: The Politics and Mechanisms of Control”, in Access

Denied – The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering, William J. DRAKE, Ernest J. WILSON III (ed.),

MIT Press, Cambridge, 2008, p. 29-31.

26

the emphasis will be put on factual realities and how they can be improved. Once it was established

that the internet is a varied environment which differs according to the state from which it is

accessed, an assessment will be made on the relativity in relation to regime types. More precisely,

can the same separation of powers be applied to both ecclesiastic authoritarian monarchies and

secular liberal democracies? In the user-government-business scheme, the regime type is only one

of the variables whose interaction with the other two alters the nature of the internet. But if

ideology is left aside and the model is designed with only with Montesquieu’s legislative-

executive-judiciary separation in mind, then a series of comments can be made on the matter. First

of all, users and government officials, along with users and business representatives, are in many

cases equivocal. Before holding a high-ranked office in government and being a successful

business owner, individuals have to be citizens – and, to the same extent, they belong to the

personal user category when they stop exercising their prerogatives. Secondly, the users and

businesses can have leverages on the government only under the principles of rule of law and after

some fundamental civil rights have been recognized by the polity. Therefore, as self-evident as it

might seem, Montesquieu’s model can only be applied to internet regimes which respect

fundamental human rights and include incentives for citizens and commercial entities to question

authority in front of independent tribunals. There can be no separation of powers on the internet

without a government that recognizes the principle and acknowledges that there might be legal

leverages against itself.

Accordingly, after having eliminated more instances from the debate, the inquiry on how

Montesquieu’s separation of powers, accompanied by checks and balances, can be applied shall

be narrowed down to the cases of liberal democracies.

In an ideal world, the users should be allowed to play a parliamentary-esque role. The legislative

is usually the branch of government with the most numerous opinions, interests, and expectations.

Users may not have absolute power in the sense that they can both draft and ratify law, but they

are plentiful and their actions and decisions shape the behavior of governments. In the previously-

presented cases, there are two instances that prove the flexibility in terms of governance and

business models: in France, the internet had only become a human right after an abusive law

suffered backlash from citizens; however, in Estonia it was the increasing expectations and

development of education and workforce that pushed for the internet to be promoted as a futuristic

27

instrument of freedom and intellectual progress. Two different experiences led to a similar type of

measure, but the citizens’ and users’ reactions were the ones that truly made a difference. As the

legislative in this Montesquieu-esque separation of prerogatives on the internet, the users rely on

majorities, consensus and compromise. Consequently, other institutions cannot rule over them

unless there is a convention or agreement that is accepted by a majority. Yet the most fundamental

question in order to establish their role as national law-makers is “How can they accomplish their

role?”. First of all, even without this induction exercise, most democratic constitutions enable

citizens to make petitions, lobby for certain causes, participate important meetings of local or

national decision-makers, and even draft and support their own legislative bills (with various

requirements depending on the demographic numbers and the type of constitution). Secondly, even

if the users were given the chance to make their own rules as a legislative body and send their

drafts to the executive branch, then there would be more than enough means for them to

communicate, reach agreements, and finally vote for final proposals that are to be forwarded. And

unless the government is authoritarian and seeks to promote its own agenda through the internet,

then the users can and should claim their rights and make sure that their will is taken into

consideration to the point that it becomes law. With tools like Democracy 2.1, an online voting

tool which allows for registered users within a community to cast votes safely and anonymously38,

one can imagine situations in which citizens organize large-scale consultations and referenda in

order to establish a desired legislation which concerns them as internet users and consumers. In

terms of leverages, users should be able to revoke pieces of legislation, but also influence

businesses to adjust their model to their demands. But within the framework of a liberal

democracy, internet users who reside as citizens have political rights that allow them to promote

their will to the point it becomes law, just as well as they influence how businesses work according

to their choices as consumers. Once users and citizens decide that a certain business can and should

adjust its policies towards them as customers, they can agree to withdraw their support in large

numbers, via the same empowering digital tools. Furthermore, they can also coerce their

government to impose stricter demands on certain business models that might abuse their power.

As a very practical example, if users wanted to stop supporting Google due to the company’s

hypothetical repeated infringements of privacy rights, they could convince each other that they

38 Democracy 2.1 Project, “Democracy 2.1: Our Mission”, Available at: http://news.d21.me/en/inside-d21/our-

mision/, Consulted on June 15th 2016.

28

should try using the competition for a longer while. The technology giant will suffer losses due to

reduced number of users and will be pressured to compromise with the users’ demands. If the

company’s practices cannot be countered by consumer choice, a situation that is often found in

unbalanced economic oligopolies, then the users can petition to their government in order to defend

their rights and fulfill their expectations of the network. However, the cases described rely heavily

on well-informed and active citizens who also use the internet and make sure that all their rights

are respected. Furthermore, there is a need for objective, equidistant and unbiased reporting of

both governmental actions and corporate interests. Such an active civil society is rare and, in the

absence of proper consumer and citizen rights education, will not be accomplished. Just like the

proletarians who are very unlikely to start a true power-seizing revolution against the dissatisfying

establishment due to their ideological disagreement and tendency to accept and obey the sovereign

for some advantages it offers, internet users might always find advantages in the status-quo and

fear a radical change which empowers them to a higher extent. To some users, it might be more

convenient that they trade their private data and navigation behavior for some free services on the

internet, to the same extent that they don’t mind government surveillance as long as it undergone

in the name of security. Some might argue that what is intangible has less value – yet if currency

can be transformed in various electronic commodities, then the virtual space is something that

should be taken just as seriously by all citizens.

If they wouldn’t allow a police officer to follow them in their bedroom and watch for the many

instances in which they may attempt to break the law, to the same extent they wouldn’t allow a

store clerk to know all their personal information and preferences in exchange for a more

convenient way of purchasing, then they (citizens who become internet users throughout their day)

should not permit their government and big businesses turn them into quantifiable commodities or

potential security threats. In an idealistic approach to users’ rights, governments should only

surveil internet users who show a certain amount of suspicion and only after they have sent a notice

to the suspected user – this way, the suspect may stop using the internet altogether, thus leaving

space for classical real-life intelligence and police authorities to operate. Conversely, users should

be able to demand websites, regardless of their nature, to delete the data which they stored on their

behavior or even personal information. Once they bought furniture from an internet retailer, they

shouldn’t be a part of the database and receive offers permanently (and even if the users

unsubscribe from newsletters or demand for data deletion, they have no guarantee that the

29

information was indeed deleted forever). The real-life model should always be applied: only the

fiscal documents which justify the purchase (a bill and a receipt) should exist as evidence, while

other information given by the customer should be optional and bound to be removed from the

records at request. As a closing note, demanding for rights is much easier for users as the

Montesquieu-esque legislative body of the internet than starting a real revolution to change the

system. However, the consensus and powerful lobby of many citizens is much more important and

resonant than an organization of few citizens, which bears a questionable legitimacy. In such a

case, direct involvement is much more effective than doubtful representation. Just like the great

capitalism-overthrowing revolution Karl Marx predicted is very unlikely to happen in welfare

states, a true empowerment of internet users will not be achieved with governmental agencies that

pretend to represent the users’ benefits, nor will it happen under the circumstances that allow small

and illegitimate non-governmental organizations to speak in the name of the numerous users.

When it comes to rights and privacy, the situation is self-evident enough to have a Rousseaunian

volonté générale dimension that can be pushed forward solely by large numbers of users who make

a stand with their demands of privacy and fair data protection – and such principles and ideas are

clear and democratic enough to escape the criticism of tyrannical majorities or drifts towards

popular authoritarianism.

If the users are the legislative branch of the democratic Montesquieu-esque separation of powers,

then governments, as legitimately-elected sovereign entities, are entitled to be the executive – with

the mention that the term “government” does not denote just the executive branch within a political

establishment, but the sum of a polity’s legitimate sovereign institutions. Accordingly, our model

includes a situation in which governments take into account the proposals that come from the

internet users via petitions, lobby, or bill proposals, and decide if they abide the spirit of the

constitution and maintain a desirable economic equilibrium. Furthermore, they should draft their

own proposals for bills and put them up for consultations with the internet users, in order to reach

consensus. One paramount condition that must be fulfilled in order for such consultations to be

both legitimate and representative is to have a substantial number of answers or votes, so that the

decision cannot be contested on grounds of arbitrariness or preference towards a certain interest

group. In relation to the users, governments should be open and honest – it is in their interest to

possess data that is vital for security, but it is wiser to warn internet-using individuals about the

tracking mechanisms working against them. If individuals knew that they were under surveillance,

30

they would either hide their behavior from the network or stop using it altogether –and both cases

are more favorable, as reducing internet access guarantees a safer network, while also enabling

intelligence agencies, police agents and secret services to carry on with their activities in more

conventional real-life situations which might be more relevant than internet conversations. The

same type of advantage should also be given to companies, as they are usually mere profit-seeking

entities which consist of regular citizens. One more aspect over which the governments should be

sovereign is outsourced businesses undertaking their activities outside their jurisdiction – unless

certain fundamental democratic rules are respected, there is a legitimate reason for the enterprises

to receive filtering or other disadvantages in relation to their legitimate law-abiding competition.

Under any conditions, governmental surveillance should be justified by suspicions or proofs, and

the subjects to the tracking are better off knowing that they should avoid using the network. In

terms of validating law, ideal governments should be much more concerned about their citizens’

demands than about businesses. Businesses should be coerced to respect fundamental human rights

and have a behavior that echoes the spirit of the constitution regardless of the size, annual revenues

and tax contributions. If such principles were to be implemented within every state’s government,

then companies would provide their employees and customers a fairer and less authoritarian

treatment. Otherwise, the government’s leverages should be kept in check by laws that enable civil

or corporate overruling through a large number of signatures, while also preventing undesired

tyrannies of illegitimate and potentially harmful majorities. Accordingly, governments should

maintain their legitimacy, but adapt to the technological changes that bring about new expectations

in terms of openness and fairness. In the issue of data collection, the executive of the governments

should allow both users and businesses to remove more intimate information that is stored about

them.

Last but not least, the Montesquieu scheme includes internet companies as the judiciary on the

network. The companies’ role as judges can be understood through fundamental principle of

capitalism, through which measures undertaken by the other actor influence and shape the business

models. They decide if their services can and should be molded on the sum of governmental fiscal

policies, privacy laws, and users’ expectations. Based on their judgement and analysis, once they

develop their business in a certain country, they continuously make decisions in regard to their

activity and how profits are balanced with the rules and expectations they face. If the government

drifts too much towards authoritarianism or the users stop supporting a certain product, then such

31

companies can decide to change their way of conducting business or leave the respective state due

to unfulfilled expectations. As for small companies which are established and continuously

function within the territory of the same state, they should make extra efforts to develop a fair and

profitable activity under the sovereign government’s law and according to the users’ expectations

and needs. Additionally, when it comes to data collection, businesses should only keep the records

that justify their activity and is legally-required. As soon as they are requested by users, they should

eliminate the collected data from their collection structures and insure as much anonymity and

privacy as possible, according to real-life examples: the store clerk doesn’t know what the wish

list of the customer is, nor does he know the address of the customer. Such information, though it

is required for certain internet transactions, should not be stored for corporate interest. Ultimately,

businesses should have a certain extent of economic leverage since they satisfy certain needs – yet

they should make sure that their economic model is both legitimate and desirable. The model which

has been described during this section will henceforth bear the name of The Naturalistic Web, for

its direct and permanent parallels to real-life situations.

3. The Regime Classifications of Plato and Aristotle

3.1 Why Is the Inquiry Relevant for Political Science and Internet Regimes?

Plato and Aristotle are two of the most prominent political thinkers of their time, as well as the

founding fathers of the science of politics: Plato is considered to be the first writer of political

philosophy (with works like “The Republic”, “The Laws”, and “The Statesman”) whilst Aristotle

was the first to call politics a science and give it a comparative approach (especially in his

fundamental treaties on government, “Politics” and “Nicomachean Ethics”). Their efforts in

defining political regimes, comparing constitutions, and establishing patterns of governance, have

played a major role in inspiring modern political establishments and laying at the foundations of

further political thought. Correspondingly, the two are credited as pioneers of political science.

As a disciple and contemporary of Socrates, Plato is a close observer of the Athenian model of

direct democracy. During his lifetime, he noticed three important regime changes in Athens: the

collapse of the establishment in 404 as an aftermath of the Peloponnesian War, the tyrannical

32

regime of The Thirty Tyrants, and the reenactment of democracy.39 Accordingly, his empirical

experiences with government have allowed him to be a relevant political observer of his times,

while his dislike of democracy, alongside with his family bonds with some of the oligarchic tyrants

of The Thirty, have kept him away from public offices and have maintained him focused on

philosophy.40 In his opus “The Republic”, Plato focuses on the establishment of a perfect society

that is based on justice, knowledge and moral virtue. In order to achieve this goal, he envisions a

society that is founded on a clear separation between 3 social classes: guardians, auxiliaries, and

workers. His utopian type of human organization within the borders of a republic is meant to

establish the most prosperous and virtuous polity, which eliminates corruption and political

turmoil.41

On the other hand, Aristotle takes the writings of Plato and establishes the foundations of rational

philosophical thinking – an undertaking that is based on analytic trial, logical demonstration and

historical approach. The philosopher, whose two fundamental texts include “Politics” and

“Nicomachean Ethics”, gathers a resourceful documentation on the political regimes from various

Greek city-states, as well as communities around the Mediterranean Sea, Africa, and Asia (which

he refers to as “barbaric”), in order to create a regime taxonomy of his own.42 Unlike his teacher

Plato, whose works he frequently referenced, Aristotle’s political interest wasn’t that of creating

the theoretical framework for the ideal human society – rather, he was much more concerned about

the best existing type of government and how it can be improved. In “Politics”, he searches for the

best possible political system that can be attained.43 Furthermore, it is worth noting that the Greek

word for “political” is politikos, and the world the philosopher uses throughout his writings is

politikê – the short version of the politikê episteme idiom which can be translated political

science.44 Accordingly, Aristotle is the first author who establishes that politics is a science that

can be studied, and he ranks it as a practical science with good action.45 In “Nicomachean Ethics”,

39 Olivier NAY, “Istoria Ideilor Politice”, trans. from French by Vasile SAVIN, Polirom, Bucharest, 2008, p. 58-59. 40 Ibidem. 41 Andrew HACKER, “Political Theory: Philosophy, Ideology, Science”, Macmillan, New York, 1961, p.24-32. 42 Olivier NAY, op. cit., p. 69-70. 43 Andrew HACKER, op. cit., p. 71-72. 44 Fred MILLER, “Aristotle’s Political Theory”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition),

Edward N. ZALTA (ed.), Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/, Consulted on June 16th

2016. 45 ARISTOTLE, “Metaphysics”, trans. from Greek by Hugh LAWSON-TANCRED, Book VI, Penguin Books, New

York, p. 151-165.

33

the philosopher describes political science as the branch of science with most authority, which

should be studied in the city-states. Its authority is so extensive that it is described as having much

more authority than military science, household management, and rhetoric – which are presented

as mere sub-branches.46 Aristotle’s analysis of political regimes and constitutions draws

inspiration from Plato’s, but he has different opinions on various types of regimes and

constitutions, by establishing combinations that he considers to be practical for good governance.

Since both philosophers have political regime classifications of their own, and internet governance

can also be classified in their regime typologies, such an inquiry becomes very relevant for a

research that pursuits a better way of governing the internet. Therefore, the next sections will focus

on legitimizing the examination through the lens of Hegelian tradition (it shall be argued why the

piece is an inquiry of reflective and philosophical history), and adapting the regime taxonomies of

Plato and Aristotle on the internet.

3.2 The Hegelian Method

In “Lectures on the Philosophy of History”, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel makes a distinction

between three different ways of approaching history: original history (reports written about people,

deeds and events that are contemporary to the writers and are a part of their times and culture;

examples include the writings of Herodotus and Thucydides), reflective history (a reflection on

past events which puts the situations in a larger context but might suffer from the bias of

misunderstanding and misinterpretation, as the practitioner of history belongs to a different culture

and stage of social evolution), and philosophical history (the true and correct way of interpreting

past events, as biased assumptions and preconceptions are eliminated, and practitioners have to

discover the sense in events and use their intellect in order to identify and interpret the ideas that

matter)47.

Furthermore, the German philosopher advances yet another important theory about the study and

understanding of history, which is pivotal for the current research. It epitomizes the starting point

46 Fred MILLER, op. cit., pp. 2. 47 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich HEGEL, (op. cit.), p. 133-140.

34

of the argument on why we should seek arguments and ideas from political philosophy in order to

find a better way to govern the internet. More precisely, Hegel’s theory on how contemporary

ideas are strongly influenced by past events and lessons is a source of legitimation for the

integration of Plato and Aristotle in a research about something as modern as the internet. The

German philosopher has dismissed the idea that the present is the absolute apogee of human

civilization, as he suggested that there are lessons to be learned from every stage and era. He didn’t

agree that humans were more primitive in the past and argued that important teachings were lost

in the process of advancing towards other ideas which seemed to function better. Progress is never

linear and there is wisdom to be found in every stage of development.

Last but not least, Hegel stressed that the role of the historian is that of bringing to public attention

the long-forgotten knowledge and concepts that might fill blank spots and solve problems in the

contemporary society48. Even though the scenario is not applicable to all political philosophers

whose ideas are to be considered, the arguments provide a solid ground for the current research to

be undertaken, and they legitimize the method of looking into the past for the sake of improving

the status-quo. Accordingly, Plato’s and Aristotle’s views on political regimes and constitutions

will be transferred to the case of the internet.

3.3 The Classification of Political Regimes

3.3.1 Plato’s Classification

In “The Republic”, Plato establishes himself as much more than an inductive developer of the ideal

polity. As an observer of the decline of Greek city-states through a series of events that include the

defeat against Sparta, the trial of Socrates, the tensions between the rich and the poor, the

corruption among elites, and the legal instabilities, Plato has also criticized the ways in which

power is organized in different communities. Due to his pessimistic approach, he was convinced

that the city-states were in a state of perpetual degradation, so he pointed out the disadvantages of

every constitution he was aware of. Therefore, he created a criticism of imperfect models of human

48 Ludwig SIEP, “Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit”, Trans. by Daniel SMITH, Cambridge University Press, New

York, 2014, p. 1-12.

35

organization and tried to take the best out of each one in order to establish a perfect model.49 In

Books VIII, IX, and X of his opus, the philosopher identifies four main types of government that

ruled in a logical succession: timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny.

Timocracy is the first political regime the philosopher presents, and it is thought to borrow godly

characteristics from a time when humans were left alone by their creators. This polity is based on

honor, dignity, devotion, and morality, and draws inspiration from the ancient teachings of the

gods. Timocracy is also highly hierarchical, with 3 different social classes that are very well

distinguished: soldiers, priests, and producers. According to Plato, such an example of government

is very stable, just, and equitable due to the fact that each class is very well specialized and respects

both the delimitations and authority. The constitutions which were the closest to this model were

the Cretan and the Spartan – which Plato admired for their ability to remain stable while

maintaining essential moral values within their core group of citizen-soldiers. The philosopher was

really keen on the timocratic establishment and appreciated its focus on community, accompanied

with a lack of interest for material gains.50

Once the people within a state become greedy, Plato argued that the establishment becomes

oligarchic. As soon as virtue is replaced by financial wealth, the hierarchy system shifts. According

to Plato, oligarchy is dangerous for two reasons: first of all, it encourages material desires and lust,

since the establishment no longer relies on virtue and justice; the only way to measure power is

wealth. Secondly, the oligarchic regime creates an increasing gap between the increasingly-richer

elites, and the poor masses. Furthermore, such a constitution encourages excesses of the elites and

consequently, the masses have no other choice left but to start an uprising and demand for equality

within a constitutional framework they can control.51

This context of an oligarchic crisis in which the poor demand for equality gives birth to democratic

establishments. However, Plato is does not deem democracy to be a fair or equitable type of

regime. Firstly, democratic institutions rely on a large participation, which they rarely quite

accomplish, therefore leading to illegitimate situations in which tyrannical majorities start to pass

publically-undesirable legislation that favor them. Secondly, the philosopher is convinced that

49 Olivier NAY, (op. cit.), p. 64-65. 50Ibidem. 51Ibidem.

36

democracy only leads to inequality and injustice, as he considers that the equality of all and

individual freedom does not take into account the required specialization of groups and individuals

(which he considers to be paramount for every type of human organization). In his opinion, once

social hierarchies are no longer recognized, the community bonds get weaker and eventually

dissolve. Finally, Plato is very critical on the way public offices are attributed in a direct

democracy: lottery, as he clearly states, promotes incompetence and mediocrity. Therefore,

democratic regimes are decadent types of establishments for the philosopher, and they quickly

transition to tyrannies.52

After feeling disillusioned with the demagogy, the tyrannical majorities, as well as the incompetent

leaders who seldom live up to the expectations, the people will inevitably look for leaders who can

reestablish the order which was lost in the transition. Accordingly, the masses will look for a

protector who will subjugate them through his governance. The single leader will eventually forget

about virtues and wisdom, and lead according to his own caprices – and this step marks the

transition from the publically-embraced and popular tyranny, to an intransigent despotism which

uses violence as part of the norm. Thus, the city states will face a continuous degradation and an

endless cycle of illusions up until the point the citizens choose to live collectively according to the

long-lost virtue.53

His ideal polity, which contains 3 social classes under to rule of virtuous philosopher kings, seeks

to attain perfect justice, while negating democratic principles of equality. Governing is an art and

a science that can be performed only by the most virtuous and qualified, and all the other social

classes have to be very well-specialized in order to achieve the planned progress. This way, Plato

thought that communities would be achieved easier and governing could be more efficient and

prosperous in achieving its goals.54

Despite the fact that Plato would change his radical opinions and clear defense of authoritarian

governance in later works like “The Laws” and “The Statesman”, he remains a largely negative

and pessimistic political philosopher. Conversely, his disciple Aristotle would take his teachings

52 Olivier NAY, (op. cit.), p.64-65. 53 Ibidem. 54 Ibidem.

37

and adapt them according to a more pragmatic set of criteria, and instead of seeking the ideal

regime in a decaying society, he looked for the best political regime there is.

Table 2: Plato's Classification of Political Regimes55

Ideal Polity Timocracy Oligarchy Democracy Tyranny

Nature of

the Regime

Elitist and

Communitarian

Aristocratic Oligarchic Popular Despotic

Those Who

Govern

Philosopher Kings,

Guardians and their

knowledge

The most

dignified

individuals

The rich The many The despot

Accession

Principles

By virtue of the

science of governing

Honor Wealth Lottery Force

Moral

Values and

Principles of

the Political

Regime

The virtue of the ruler,

competence, hierarchy,

social class

specialization,

happiness and

universal well-being

Devotion,

morality,

competence,

hierarchy

Social and

material

success,

hierarchy

Freedom and universal

equality

The defense of civil

peace (or the fight

against traitors)

Main Social

Cleavages

Guardians (as rulers

and warriors)

Priests,

warriors,

producers

The rich and the

poor

The rich and the poor The tyrant and his

people

Main Evils

of the Polity

None The risk of

having

wealth-

seeking elites

Corruption, the

growth of

inequalities, the

development of

social tensions

The instability of the

laws, corruption, the

incompetence of the

rulers, the manipulation

of masses, disorder

The violent and

arbitrary nature of the

power

Degree of

Justice

Perfect justice Justice Injustice Injustice Injustice

55 Olivier NAY, (op. cit.), p. 66-67.

38

3.3.2 Aristotle’s Classification

In “Politics”, Aristotle distinguishes himself from his teacher Plato, by replacing the criterion of

justice and respect of law with the common interest. Correspondingly, the two dimensions which

delimitate his classification of constitutions are the number of rulers (from the governance of one

to the governance of the whole people) and the interest of the ruler or rulers (whether or not they

govern in the interest of one or in the interest of many). Therefore, Aristotle establishes a

fundamental difference between fair constitutions (in which power is exercised without interests

for the purpose of the common good) and the deviant constitutions (where power is exercised

selfishly in the interest of the rulers). This line of thinking generates 6 types of political regimes:

3 which are respectable and the ruler or rulers govern in the interest of the greatest good (monarchy,

aristocracy, and politeia), whilst the remaining 3 are degenerates for not focusing on the common

utility (tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy).56

Just like Plato, Aristotle acknowledges that there is no political regime that is good or bad in itself,

as every constitution can lead to the happiness or unhappiness of the city-state. They both agree

that the virtues and ends of the rulers are the deciding factors for the welfare of those who are

governed. However, unlike his master, Aristotle does much more than an abstract distinction of

just and unjust constitutions: he attempts to demonstrate the great diversity of existing polities, by

taking into account historical examples.57 Furthermore, Aristotle gives a chance to democracy

when he observes the different dynamics and equilibrium it can get in various city states. The

regime which he calls rural democracy can give birth to a stable and balanced governance, as long

as the authority is in the hands of the middle class – and this type of democracy is favorable to the

respect of law, thus creating a moderate political life.

Furthermore, unlike the approach that can be found in Plato’s “The Republic” (which defends the

idea of a radical transformation of society, aiming to achieve an ideal establishment), Aristotle

promotes a moderate realism which seeks to find the middle ground as an equilibrium between the

extremes involved. To him, philosophical virtue, as well as political virtue, require the pursuit of

56 Olivier NAY, (op. cit.), p. 72-73. 57 Ibidem.

39

moderation. This middle ground is neither an expression of mediocrity, nor a sign of weakness. It

doesn’t portray philosophical renouncement (understood as the refusal to make decisions), but

represents a real moral target, allowing for an opposition against excesses. Therefore,

systematically pursuing a middle way in all actions is a sign of wisdom.58

Aristotle, despite his relativist approach, chooses to define the principles of a good constitution.

First of all, he looks for the most feasible way of governing, in an attempt to identify the applicable

principles to the largest number of city states possible – and this is how the principle of a mixed

constitution is created. He believes that the best middle way between two types of regimes consists

of the blending between democracy and oligarchy: combining two decadent types of constitutions

create a right and virtuous system. The philosopher believes that such a combination contributes

to the neutralization of social rivalries, and establishes a political equilibrium between the rich and

the poor. Furthermore, Aristotle attempts to identify the social group that should be vested with

power inside the politeia. In the same spirit he created the blending of constitution, he rejects the

idea that either the rich or the poor should be the ones to get the power. However, both categories

pursue legitimate goals: the oligarchs seek to increase their wealth, while the democrats want

universal equality in public life. However, none of the parts is concerned with virtue: the rich

usually govern despotically, by excluding the majority of citizens; the poor have a strongly-rooted

sentiment of dishonoring which keeps them discontent and active in their pursuit of undermining

the rich. Aristotle concludes that the best way to mediate the situation is that of empowering those

who pursue the middle way between the rich and the poor (the middle class) with political power.

This middle class presents the double advantage of being numerous enough (in order to avoid the

monopolization of power on behalf of a minority) and have possessions (which prevents the

undesirable situation in which they seek power to acquire wealth). Supposedly, this middle class

is more balanced, less likely to govern solely in their own interest, and can exercise political power

more objectively, without opposing to the other social classes. Although Aristotle expresses his

preference for this type of middle-ground government, he doesn’t forget about the role of the

people or the importance of law. It wouldn’t be fair if the mass of citizens was deprived of the

privilege of acceding in office, as long as they are an important force in situations involving the

fight against possible dangerous behaviors of the leaders. At the same time, it would be

58 Olivier NAY, (op. cit.), p. 73-75.

40

irresponsible to entrust the masses with the responsibility of public offices. It is however possible

to give the masses deliberative prerogatives, as well as judicial functions, on the condition that the

attributions are rigorously-defined and can be placed within the sphere of public rules. Laws are

also a pivotal point of moderate constitutions. They can prevent the concentration of power in the

hands of oligarchs or tyrants, defend equality, and strengthen justice. For this reason, they

shouldn’t be easy to change by magistrates, who should respect the law in every circumstance.

Magistrates should only be allowed to make personal decisions in exceptional cases, when the

laws do not cover the presented situations and cannot offer general provisions.59

Table 3: Aristotle's Classification of Political Regimes60

Government of one Government of few Government of the people

Governing in the

common interest

Monarchy Aristocracy Politeia

(Democracy+Oligarchy)

Governing in the

interest of the

ruler/rulers

Tyranny Oligarchy Democracy

3.4 The Methods of Projecting the Ideas of Plato and Aristotle on the Internet

There are two ways of projecting Plato’s and Aristotle’s ideas of governing on the internet: in the

spirit of the philosophers and in the letter of the philosophers. The first way involves coming to

terms with the idea that it is better to look for, recommend and attempt to establish the regimes

that Plato and Aristotle praise in their treaties – that is, Plato’s utopian communal regime which is

based on virtue, and the regime Aristotle regards as being best, politeia. The latter way involves

taking the taxonomies according to the established classifications of political regimes and

constitutions, then adapting them to the contemporary internet governance. In order to determine

the correspondence between the contemporary examples of internet governance and the

59 Olivier NAY, (op. cit.), p. 72-77. 60 Ibidem.

41

philosophers’ classifications of political regimes and constitutions, a set of criteria have to be set.

First of all, Plato is very concerned with virtue, as a relationship between wealth and power.

Correspondingly, in order to determine the internet regimes, the questions “Which internet

stakeholder is most powerful?” and “Where is the wealth most concentrated?” will be addressed.

Accordingly, the wealth-power situation will determine whether an internet regime can be called

a timocracy, an oligarchy, a democracy, or a tyranny.

Secondly, Aristotle requires a different approach: since his main concern is the relationship

between the number of those who govern (one, few, or many) in relation to the interests laying at

the foundation of the governance (in the common or in the interest of the ruling elite). Therefore,

the fundamental questions that will be asked when classifying the internet regimes of the 9 states

with his criteria will be “Who governs the internet?” and “Is internet governance conducted in the

interest of the rulers or in the interest of the larger number?”. The answers can be monarchy,

tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, politeia, or democracy.

However, before moving to the analysis and classification of internet regimes, a short presentation

of the United Nations model for internet governance will be made. Accordingly, the next section

of the paper will deal specifically with internet regimes and how various policies of internet

governance generate the characteristics of some of the constitutions Plato and Aristotle have

described. Also, the ideal type of each philosopher will become a subject of debate, as a part of an

attempt to construct such an establishment from real and existing elements.

4. The United Nations’ Model for Internet Governance

Even though it was previously established in the introductory part of the research (according to

the arguments of Goldsmith and Wu, as well as the selected research approach) that the internet

is mostly a subject of national governance whose universal dimension can be questioned, the

next part will present a slightly different perspective which belongs to the United Nations. The

UN Resolutions themselves recognize a series of rights that can and should be applied on the

internet, and they make a series of recommendations to member states. Their nature is not

legally-binding and does not coerce states to comply with the rules: however, their ideas can be

taken into account in order to create corresponding domestic law, as well as establish an ideal

42

type of governance (as according to the political philosophy of Plato and Aristotle in the

previously-presented works).

Under the considerations and concerns regarding human behavior and freedom, the United

Nation’s “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” mentions at Article 12 that “No one shall be

subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks

upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such

interference or attacks.”61. Additionally, Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant

on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) articulates some of the provisions of the UDHR to make

sure that nobody should be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family,

home or correspondence, or to unlawful acts on his honor and reputation.62

Additionally, the United Nations Human Rights Council has issued Resolution L13 from 2012,

which transposes fundamental human rights on the internet, thus recognizing that that the virtual

world is a mere extension of day to day life:

[The UN Human Rights Council] “1. Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must

also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of

frontiers and through any media of one's choice, in accordance with articles 19 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; [and]

2. Recognizes the global and open nature of the Internet as a driving force in accelerating

progress towards development in its various forms; …. (20/L13... The Promotion, Protection and

Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet, supra.)”63

In other words, the UN Human Rights Council admits that there is a mirroring principle between

what goes on online and what occurs in the real world, thus suggesting that online privacy is just

as valuable as real life intimacy. Moreover, in a 2013 report by Frank De La Rue, the former United

Nations Special Rapporteur, it is clearly stipulated that there is an inter-linkage between privacy

61 The United Nations, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, Article 12, 1948, Available at:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, Consulted on June 18th 2016. 62 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations Human Rights – Office of the High

Commissioner of Human Rights, Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx, 63 United Nations Human Rights Council: First Resolution on Internet Free Speech, Resolution A/HRC/20, Available

at: http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403231_text, Consulted on June 18th 2016.

43

and freedom of expression.64 In the same report, governments are advised to better protect privacy

and freedom rights on the internet, and censorship is presented as a serious threat that towards

freedom of thought and freedom of expression.65

Additionally, in December 2013, during the 68th session of the General Assembly, resolution 167

on the right to privacy in the digital age had been adopted without a vote. The resolution, which

was sponsored by 57 member states, has reaffirmed privacy’s definition as a fundamental human

right according the UDHR and the ICCPR, has recognized the advancements in information and

telecommunication technologies whose pinnacle is the global and open internet and, most

importantly, and has declared that “the same rights that people have offline must also be protected

online, including the right to privacy”.66 Within the same document, states are advised to “respect

and protect the right to privacy, including in the context of digital communication; to take

measures to put an end to violations of those rights and to create the conditions to prevent such

violations, including by ensuring that proper national legislation complies with their obligations

under international human rights law; To review their procedures, practices and legislation

regarding the surveillance of communications, their interception and the collection of personal

data, including mass surveillance, interception and collection, with a view to upholding the right

to privacy by ensuring the full and effective implementation of all their obligations under

international human rights law; to establish or maintain existing independent, effective domestic

oversight mechanisms capable of ensuring transparency, as appropriate, and accountability for

State surveillance of communications, their interception and the collection of personal data”.67

On June 30th 2014, during the Twenty-Seventh Session of the Human Rights Council, High

Commissioner for Human Rights of the time, Navi Pillay, has presented her annual report, which

is entitled “The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age”. The report was a direct demand of Resolution

167 of the Sixty-Eighth session of the General Assembly, and tackled the contemporary issues

64 Electronic Frontier Foundation, “Internet Surveillance and Free Speech”: The United Nations Makes the

Connection”, Available at: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/internet-and-surveillance-UN-makes-the-

connection, Consulted on June 18th 2016. 65 Ibidem. 66 United Nations General Assembly, Sixty-Eighth Session, Agenda Item 69(b), “Resolution Adopted by the General

Assembly of 18 December 2013 [on the report of the Third Committee (A/68/456/Add.2)] – 68/167. The Right to

Privacy in the Digital Age”, Available at: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/167. 67 United Nations General Assembly, Sixty-Eighth Session, (op. cit).

44

relating to privacy, while also providing a series of recommendations. Within the introduction, the

High Commissioner reiterates the principle that was previously established in the General

Assembly, in relation to real and virtual life: “the internet has become both ubiquitous and

increasingly intimate”68 Furthermore, the report is also a response to the increasing concerns that

have emerged after the revelations of 2013 and 2014 about the United States’ National Security

Agency and United Kingdom’s General Communications Headquarters, which pointed to a

transnational network comprising governmental strategic intelligence relationships that granted

them access to a very large percentage of the global internet traffic.69 Navi Pillay’s report is the

result of an open consultation that OHCHR has conducted through a questionnaire which was sent

to member states, national human rights institutions, NGOs, and businesses, and correspondingly,

29 member states, 5 international and/or regional organizations, 3 human rights institutions, 16

NGOs, and two businesses have provided their response. Accordingly, some of the

recommendations included encouragement for the Human Rights Committee to adapt Article 17

of the ICCPR to clearly state the privacy of internet and telecommunications technology, but also

the establishment by the Human Rights Committee of a special procedures mandate on the right

to privacy.70

One of the most significant provisions made Navi Pillay’s report involves a clarifying argument

on the interpretation of Article 17 of the ICCPR, and specifically the meaning of the word

“unlawful” – it is said that legitimacy of intervention is granted to the states’ national law, which

correspondingly has to comply with “the provisions, aims, and objectives of the Covenant”71.

Therefore, it is clearly asserted that the Covenant is the pillar of international human rights law,

and by default the most important document that defines and protects privacy - to which the signing

states must conform when drafting legislation.

In the conclusion of the report, some of the most important arguments include the suggestion for

a multi-stakeholder approach that would enable all the parties (governments of member states,

68 United Nations Human Right Council, Twenty-Seventh Session, Annual Report of the United Nations High

Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and Secretary General, “The

Right to Privacy in the Digital Age”, A/HRC/27/37, Available at:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session27/Documents/A.HRC.27.37_en.pdf, Consulted

on June 18th 2016. 69 Ibidem. 70 United Nations Human Right Council, Twenty-Seventh Session, (op.cit.). 71 Ibidem, General Comment No. 16, p. 7.

45

civil society, scientific and technical communities, businesses, academics, and human rights

experts) present their point of view and find a middle ground on the basis of ICCPR’s provisions,

a recommendation for states to review their national laws to “ensure full conformity with

international human rights law”, and a demand for increased governmental transparency in

association with surveillance laws and policies.72

From the arguments presented, it is worth mentioning that the models which are established at the

UN level are most favorable to users, and to a certain extent reach the Platonic ideal type of regime.

The only characteristic is that, once states decide to conform to the recommendations and establish

national legislation accordingly, they will accept to be bound to international bodies that watch

over the respect of fundamental human rights. The idea that privacy is insured and users benefit

from advantages that draw inspiration from real-life situations is similar from some perspectives

with the model presented in the second part of the research, when Montesquieu’s principles on

separation of powers and checks and balances were applied. The ideal internet regime, according

to the examples already established, empowers users with rights, but prevents them from reaching

a tyrannical or oligarchic state. Furthermore, for the sake of reaching these ideal types, the same

users must be protected from governmental and commercial interests, while every action that is

conducted with their data and use of internet is transparent and accountable. These principles might

seem utopian in many cases, and they certainly wouldn’t be presented by theorists of realpolitik

from the field, who associate internet governance with the political regime within the national

borders. In order to make a clearer classification and be able to have the right framework for a

comparison, a study will be conducted on the internet regimes of 9 states around the world, with

various types of constitutions, cultures, and customs. As established, the scale will be national and

the analysis will take into account national practices as law, according to the arguments prevented

72 United Nations Human Right Council, Twenty-Seventh Session, (op.cit.), Conclusions and Recommendations,

p.16.

46

5. Internet Regimes in Nine States

The centerpiece of the current research is given by the comparative study of the internet regimes

from 9 states and 5 different continents, followed by a correspondence with the Platonic and

Aristotelian taxonomies. The examples were chosen not only to provide geographical diversity for

the analysis of a seemingly-universal global network’s policies, but also to show how various

constitutions and regime types deal with the network’s challenges. Accordingly, as presented in

the introductory part, the states are the United States of America, China, India, Turkey, Estonia,

Russia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba. The elements that will be sought in order to establish the

taxonomy are meant to display the relationship between users, governments, and businesses.

Correspondingly, the variables include the political regime (as an indicator for potential

authoritarianism or excessive government intervention), limits on content, violations of user rights

and obstacles to access (as indicators for excessive intervention from either governments or

businesses), status (as a way to measure the degree of internet freedom), and score (as a type of

ranking, according to the source of the reports). The data will be presented according to the latest

edition of Freedom House’s “Freedom on the Net Report”, as the source contains an expansive

and comprehensive study on every case in which the network became unfree. However, it is worth

noting that the time frame is short, and the values attributed to every one of the presented variables

is determined for only one year – thus, the results are the most recent and don’t take into account

historical cases that might have happened.

As the structure suggests, freedom will become a very important factor in determining and

classifying political regimes, as well as determining which stakeholder has most leverage. In the

section that follows this comparative study, an adaptation will be made according to the political

regimes of Plato and Aristotle, as well as Montesquieu’s separation of powers.

5.1 The United States of America

With a federal democratic constitution that dates to 1787 that enables a presidential regime with

very developed checks and balances, The United States usually serve as a prime example of

democratization, freedom, and respect of human rights. Furthermore, as the country where the

internet was developed and the epicenter of internet business, the state bears a high responsibility

in providing a good example of conduct to other states which are either consolidating their

47

democratic system, or embracing the advantages of internet technologies (which bring along

political issues). With a population of 318 million, out of which 87% have accessed the internet in

2014, the United States champions freedom with no restrictions between June 2014 and May 2015:

no social media content, political and social commentary website, or blog was blocked, and there

were no arrests for content.73

However, the fact that content is not blocked and users aren’t arrested in just an indicator of

freedom of speech and freedom of expression – and the data does not tell much about the relations

between internet users, government, and businesses. In the United States, the regulation of the

internet is entrusted to the FCC (Federal Communication Commission), an independent agency

established in 1934 to deal with issues coming from interstate and international communications.74

Therefore, the governmental intervention in terms of content is minimal, and the only exceptions

are given by national security considerations. If the government intervention is kept at minimum,

then the internet is mostly governed by an oligopoly of cable companies that provide

telecommunication services. One of their most famous situations in which the businesses have

attempted to shift the paradigm of the internet is the Net Neutrality bill, which sought rebalance

content on the internet and prioritize certain websites. However, the FCC has protected neutrality,

therefore strengthening equality on the market and preventing content manipulation. On the other

hand, privacy and user empowerment have been contested by members of government, since

encrypted communications were considered to obstruct national security. Correspondingly, some

legislators have adjusted the law in order to eliminate the agreement of private companies in

surveillance operations.75 Additionally, the number of cases in which authorities have intervened

against the exercise of freedom of speech have been very few, and they have been regarded as

abuses.

According to the classification of the Freedom House report, the United States have a free internet,

with a score of 19 out of 100 – representing the sum of infringements that took place throughout

the year. There is an increasing interest of governmental officials to collect data and use tracking

73 Freedom House, “Freedom on the Net Report 2015”, United States, p. 872-873, Available at:

https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTN%202015%20Full%20Report.pdf, Consulted on June 19th 2016. 74 Federal Communications Commission, “About the FCC”, Available at: https://www.fcc.gov/about/overview,

Consulted on June 19th 2016. 75 Freedom House, (op. cit.), United States, p. 872-893.

48

mechanisms in order to surveil users, but the FCC, the strong community of internet users, as well

as some members of Congress, keep the surveillance in check and always make sure that the

political issue at stake is worthy for the infringement of human rights. However, one can observe

a very powerful emphasis that is put on internet companies, with corporations lobbying in their

advantage and having bills such as Net Neutrality threaten the equality status. Additionally, the

cable companies have much more autonomy when they are asked to collaborate with government

agencies, being able to keep their data away from any unwanted third party. Ultimately, users are

free to express themselves and benefit from a digital environment without filters, blockages, or

limits to access.76

5.2 China

The People’s Republic of China is a very conservative and authoritarian political regime which

seeks to transform the internet into a political tool of the ruling elites. With a population of

approximately 1.36 billion and a 2014 internet penetration of about 49%, China features an unfree

online environment, with blocked social media content, filtered and punished social and political

posts, and even bloggers who were put under arrest for their anti-establishment ideas. Additionally,

the Chinese authorities have established a national firewall in order to block a number of networks,

thus creating a state of “cyberspace sovereignty”.77

Moreover, the government has introduced a draft for a law on counter-terrorism that would enable

officials to have access to all the content that is stored by telecommunication companies. This

includes having “backdoor access” (which involves bypassing security measures through special

protocols) and copies of encryption keys (for instant access to the content at any moment). The

restrictions extend to more commercial cases: Google has had its services blocked for a long while,

and several individuals were imprisoned for speaking their minds on the internet. Among the most

notable cases of arbitrary use of power against the free speech of users one can find the situation

of renowned human rights lawyer Pu Zhiqiang (who was charged with inciting ethnic hatred and

picking quarrels on social media), and 70-year-old journalist Gao Yu (jailed for seven years for

76 Freedom House, (op. cit.), United States, p. 872-893. 77 Freedom House, (op. cit.), China, p.190-248.

49

leaking “state secrets” on the internet).78 It is also worth noting that China features the largest

number of internet users in any state in the world, and most companies in the telecommunications

industry are owned by the state (only 10% are private, but they have to comply with the rules)–

which eases surveillance and all the cases of filtering. The access to content outside the border is,

consequently, arbitrarily censored and limited. Additionally, situations of local unrests are usually

resolved with temporary shut-downs of the network.79

The future doesn’t look any brighter for Chinese internet users, either: The Chinese government is

building a social network that provides an individual score for being an obedient citizen. The

system will display the trustworthiness of every user according to a score that increases perpetually

as the user pays taxes, doesn’t break the law, praises the activity of the Party, and has a group of

like-minded friends and family members (the algorithm also takes into account the user’s peers,

thus adjusting their trustworthiness accordingly; one delinquent friend may cause lower scores for

his peers, therefore pressuring everybody to have a positive social environment).80 Due to the

presented facts, China was ranked as the world’s worst abuser of internet freedom in the year of

2015.

5.3 India

The Constitution of India is molded on a federal parliamentary republic with democratic features

– and the resulting internet regime is only partly free. It is worth noting that the population is of

1.29 billion, and only 18% have access to the internet – a very low proportion of

telecommunication technology penetration, as compared to the slightly more populous China. In

spite of the low number of internet users (as compared to the total population), India is ranked

third worldwide for number of internet subscribers (after China and the United States).

Accordingly, the internet gets a lot of attention from the governmental officials and is sometimes

regarded as a threat to the establishment: an IT Act from 2015 allows the Supreme Court to arrest

social media users and bloggers for speech against the government, while it also enables filtering

78 Freedom House, (op. cit.), China, p. 191-192. 79 Ibidem. 80 Celia HATTON, “China Social Credit: Beijing Sets Up Huge System”, BBC News, Beijing, October 26th 2015,

Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34592186, Consulted on June 19th 2016.

50

and blocking activities (websites such as Vimeo and Google Docs have suffered temporary

shutdowns due to the interventions).81 The blocking and filtering is done when it is “necessary or

expedient to do so” in order to protect “the sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India,

security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing

incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above”.82

From the commercial and technical point of view, India has 129 internet providers, but the system

displays the tendencies of an oligopoly: the largest 10 companies control 98% of the market.

However, these companies are entirely private and aren’t directly liable for the content that is

published through their services – unlike the case of China, where the system is much more

centralized and authoritarian. However, India has its own sources of authoritarianism in terms of

eliminating intermediaries in content removal: taking down content on the basis of user

complaints, court orders, or governmental requests no longer require additional acts or

intermediaries.83

However, regardless of the authoritarian tendencies, the Indian internet users have displayed a

large degree of involvement and cohesion whenever such acts were required: in 2015, nearly 1.1

million citizens have sent e-mails to support net neutrality (in a case that is similar to the one in

the United States). Their mobilization resulted in a success that made corporations withdraw from

the Internet.org project, and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology

agreed with the users’ initiative.84

In conclusion, India’s internet regime is slightly authoritarian from the government’s part (with

occasional censorship whenever such actions are considered necessary to maintain order), with

few internet businesses that control the largest percentage of the market, and users who get

81 Freedom House, (op. cit.), India, p. 386-411. 82 India’s Ministry of Law and Justice, “The Information Technology (Amendment( Act”, Section 69A(1), p. 13,

Available at: http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/downloads/itact2000/it_amendment_act2008.pdf,

Consulted on June 19th 2016. 83 The Supreme Court of India, “The Case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 167 of

2012”, Available at: http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-24_1427183283.pdf, Consulted on June

19th 2016. 84 DNA India, “Parliamentary Committee to Discuss Net Neutrality Issue on Thursday”, New Delhi, May 20th 2015,

Available at: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-parliamentary-committee-to-discuss-net-neutrality-issue-on-

thursday-2087575, Consulted on June 19th 2016.

51

involved in activism and take advantage of the rule of law which enables them to change decisions

according to their interest.

5.4 Turkey

Constitutionally, Turkey is a secular parliamentary republic, wish a clear separation of powers.

However, the actions undergone by head of state Tayyip Erdogan have put a threat on the secular

nature (with frequent discourses and policies pointing out to the promotion of Islamic teachings),

while also undermining the rule of law.85 With a population of 77.2 million and an estimated

internet penetration of 51%, the Turkish internet regime features all types of blocking and filtering

in a similar way with the Indian example: social media is occasionally blocked, political and social

commentary against the establishment is punished, and anti-governmental bloggers are arrested.

The verdict on the situation of Turkish internet is that it’s only partly free.86

Content can be blocked and authorities can access personal user data without warrant, due to law

no. 5651 on regulating the internet – which was passed in spite of an initial rejection from the

Constitutional Court, and resulted in a possibility to ban content to secure the protection of life and

private property, protection of national security and public order, as well as crime prevention and

protection of public health.87

However, the intentions are not always as noble as they seem, as Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook

have all been banned in 2015 in order to restrict access to content on governmental abuses, but

also stop users from spreading the information. Since August 2014, 67 people have received

criminal complaints for insulting President Erdogan through the internet, and many others have

faced other charges for criticizing government officials via social networks The punishments are

also applicable for members of the elite, as the senior staff of Turkey’s telecommunications regular

has been arrested for alleged illegal wiretaps, after compromising conversations have been

85 Eric MAURICE, “MEPs Say Turkish President Undermines Democracy”, EU Observer, June 9 th 2016, Available

at: https://euobserver.com/foreign/133757, Consulted on June 19th 2016. 86 Freedom House, (op. cit.), Turkey, p. 797-815. 87 Ibidem.

52

leaked.88 Additionally, the Homeland Security Act enables investigators to conduct wiretaps and

surveillance operations for 48 hours without court order.89

In terms of market competition for internet services, Turkey features 672 operators and 411

providers – but most of them are resellers of the national telecommunication company, Turk

Telekom. The largest company is owned by the state and dominates the market, with 74.3% of the

subscribers.90 Therefore, there is little power that companies have against the governmental will

and opposition is nearly impossible – especially in an environment whose legislative framework

is tailored to bypass intermediaries in the surveillance process.

The Turkish internet users can be very involved in projects they believe in and causes that involve

activism, and the Gezi park protests from 2013 are a prime example of civil involvement through

the internet. Additionally, actions that sought volunteers that would ensure the equity of the 2014

and 2015 elections proved successful, as more than 55.000 volunteers have offered to monitor

ballot boxes and raise awareness.91

In conclusion, Turkey’s internet is authoritarian from the governmental perspective, with a very

weak economic opposition. On the other hand, users are involved in social and political causes

even when they risk arrest, and display solidarity for causes they believe in.

5.5 Estonia

As previously presented throughout the research, Estonia proves to be a champion of internet

governance. The Baltic state functions on the framework of a parliamentary representative

democratic republic, and has a rather short history of democratization which dates from the 1991

dismantlement of the USSR. With a population of 1.3 million, Estonia has a very large percentage

of internet penetration, with 84%.92

88 Vlad COSTEA, “Turkey and the Right to Free Speech”, The Political Science Club, April 2nd 2014, Available at: http://thepoliticalscienceclub.com/2014/04/02/turkey-and-the-right-to-free-speech/, Consulted on June 19th 2016. 89 Freedom House, (op. cit.), Turkey, p. 797-798. 90 Ibidem. 91 Ibidem. 92 Freedom House, (op. cit.), Estonia, p. 282-290.

53

Not only that Estonia is one of the most connected countries in the world, but it also promotes

internet access in order to ease processes such as tax paying, voting, and healthcare provision.93 94

Correspondingly, the Baltic state features the second best score from Freedom House’s report, has

no cases of social media or blog activity blocked, and no arbitrary imprisonments for government

criticism. The number of companies which provide internet access exceeds 200, as part of the

attempt to promote and encourage a free market with fair competition.95

Due to the high percentage of internet penetration, there is also a very large participation in public

discussions and political debates on social media and other platforms. When the government

showed support for the ACTA bill (Anti-Counterfeiting Treaty Agreement) in 2012, activists have

expressed their discontent, open debates have been organized, and rallies that protested the

principles of the treaty took place in Tallinn and Tartu. The situation has influenced the Estonian

Parliament, which rephrased the government’s initial support and established a framework for

suture consultations and analysis.96

Estonia is one of the states with most internet freedom, and the relations between government,

businesses, and users are nearly ideal due to the well-enforced rule of law principles and efficient

democratization.

5.6 Russia

As a federal semi-presidential republic, Russia has one of the most peculiar internet regimes, which

displays signs of authoritarianism, while also allowing a special degree of freedom. Out of 143.7

million inhabitants, approximately 71 percent have internet access. The social media is not

blocked, but liberty of expression in political terms is limited and punished by law (with fines, shut

93 Oana LUNGESCU, (op. cit.). 94 Estonian National Electoral Committee, (op. cit.). 95 Freedom House, (op. cit.), Estonia, p. 285-286. 96 Ibidem, p. 287-288.

54

down of the website or content removal, and jail for multiple infringements)97. Accordingly, the

rating that Russia has received for the last year is “Not Free”, a transition from “Partly Free”.98

It is worth noting that the government undertakes efforts to fine and imprison members of non-

governmental organizations and independent media outlets that express divergent views to those

promoted through the polity’s agenda. The criminal code is continuously updated with new cases

of infringement, starting from anti-governmental bloggers and ending with materials related to

extremism or religious hatred. Furthermore, during the armed conflict in Ukraine, the Russian

government has censored much of the coverage and even resorted to threats towards platforms that

host content that opposes the point of view from Kremlin. 99 Additionally, internet private

companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, and Microsoft were obliged by legal

amendments to collaborate with internet providers, so that the data doesn’t get stored in North

American servers, but in local computers that are located within the Russian territories.100

The internet companies from Russia are few and very concentrated, thus laying at the foundation

of an oligopoly: the five largest companies control 67% of the market share for broadband internet.

Additionally, the state-owned company, Rostelecom, controls 36% of the market – and the others

are bound by law to collaborate with the government in surveillance, filtering, and blocking

activities.101

However, in spite of the complicity of the private sector with the government agenda, the internet

activism in Russia remains versatile and effective. Petitions on social networking websites have

successfully influenced the outcome of a popular trial (the final decision was for probation, after

an initial imprisonment), and Russian crowdfunding websites have collected approximately 7

million dollars in the last 2 years, in order to fund various independent projects.102 One peculiarity

of the Russian internet is that it contrasts other regime models: if, for example, Germany punishes

97 Masha GESSEN, “How Putin Controls the Internet and Popular Opinion in Russia”, The Intercept, September 8th

2015, Available at: https://theintercept.com/2015/09/08/how-putin-controls-the-russian-internet/, Consulted on June

19th 2016. 98 Freedom House, (op. cit.), Russia, p. 647-662. 99 Ibidem. 100 Vlad COSTEA, “Freedom of the Internet in Russia – Putin vs The CIA Project”, The Political Science Club,

April 25th 2014, Available at: http://thepoliticalscienceclub.com/2014/04/25/freedom-of-the-internet-in-russia-putin-

vs-the-cia-project/, Consulted on June 19th 2016. 101 Freedom House, (op. cit), p. 650-651. 102 Freedom House, (op. cit.), Russia, p. 657-658.

55

theft of intellectual property through the GEMA bill, but allows free speech against the

government, the rules in Russia are in reverse. The Russian internet regime allows users to

distribute copyrighted materials without any type of prohibition (and many piracy websites have

servers in Russia), but speech against the government is punished by the law.

5.7 Egypt

In the aftermath of the Arab Spring, Egypt has established itself as a democratic and pluralist semi-

presidential republic. The regime change and the fall of the Mubarak regime was also helped by

the so-called Twitter Revolution, where protests and large gatherings would be organized

online.103

Out of 87.9 Egyptian citizens, 32% have accessed the internet in 2014. The internet, however, as

an instrument which enabled the regime-changing events from 2011, is labeled by the Freedom

House Report as “Not Free”. Though there are no recorded cases of blocked social media activities

and political commentary that gets blocked, there are cases of bloggers and journalists who get

arrested. As a consequence, it is noted that a rising trend in professional journalism is that of self-

censorship.104 In April 2015, two online journalists were sentence to prison for the rest of their

lifetime for supporting Mohamed Morsi. Additionally, there are two more cases in which other

types of free speech were punished with imprisonment: at least two users were punished for

insulting religion through the internet, whilst LGBT online activists have been arrested for

“inciting debauchery”.105 The content is blocked for reasons of both political speech and ideas that

defy religious or traditional customs.

In terms of internet providing companies, the tendency towards oligopoly is also strong. The state-

owned cable provider, Telecom Egypt, controls about 63% of the market, but many other foreign

companies like Vodafone and Orange are major stakeholders which create a more diverse and open

103 Nikolas GVOSDEV, “The Realist Prism: Politics vs. Social Media in the Arab Uprising”, World Politics Review, March 4th 2011, Available at: http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8089/the-realist-prism-politics-vs-social-media-in-the-arab-uprising, Consulted on June 19th 2016. 104 Freedom House, (op. cit.), Egypt, p. 268-281. 105 Ibidem.

56

competition. The private companies lease transmission antennas and lines from TE Data (the state-

owned company) and resell it through 200 small companies.106

When it comes to users’ activities, digital political activism is declining due to fears of arrest,

abusive jail sentences, and even murder by police officers during protests. In 2013, a law has

banned protests while also empowering police officers with cracking-down attributions.107

Furthermore, a mass disillusionment in the aftermath of the 2011 events has led to a decrease in

online political engagement, both in writing and on the streets. The website WikiThawra, which

used to be very active in providing tracking numbers of imprisoned protesters, has ceased its

operations in 2014 due to the organizers’ disappointment with the political situation.108

5.8 Saudi Arabia

Among the cases chosen and presented in this section, Saudi Arabia is the only one in which the

polity is an absolute monarchy under a king who serves as both head of state and head of

government. More precisely, the legitimation of the regime is made under Shari’a (Islamic Law)

which serves as constitution, and the senior princes of the royal family, along with the clerics,

serve as consultants in the decision-making process. Given these circumstances, it is no surprise

that the Freedom House report has classified the internet regime as “Not Free”, and there is a

considerable record of infringements of free speech and access. Out of 30.8 million citizens, 64%

have internet access, and they are all subjected to social media blockages, censorship of political

comments, and arrests based on activism and speech against the establishment.109

Human rights activists Waleed Abu al-Khair and Fowzan al-Harbi have had their prison sentences

extended to 15 and 20 years respectively, after the public prosecutor appealed against them – they

have previously been arrested for their online activity, and the extension came as an arbitrary

106 Freedom House, (op. cit.), Egypt, p. 271-272. 107 David D. KIRKPATRICK, “New Law in Egypt Effectively Bans Street Protests”, New York Times, November 25th 2013, Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/world/middleeast/egypt-law-street-protests.html?_r=1, Consulted on June 19th 2016. 108 Thomas HUGHES, Edmad MUBARAK, “Censorship in Egypt: Online and Offline”, Mada Masr, November 30th 2014, Available at: http://www.madamasr.com/opinion/politics/censorship-egypt-online-and-offline, Consulted on June 19th 2016. 109 Freedom House, (op. cit.), Saudi Arabia, p. 673-687.

57

exercise of legitimate power. Another case involves Raif Badawi, co-founder of the Saudi Arabia

Liberals website, whose initial punishment (given for allegedly insulting Islam) included a 10-year

imprisonment. The new punishment of the Supreme Court upheld imprisonment and added 1000

lashes to be carried in public.110

The content is also bound to be filtered and blocked according to the religious and political views

of the state, as all the internet communications are intercepted by government-owned servers,

regardless of the internet providers. However, the state has offered private licenses for internet

distribution to private companies and there are more than 36 such providers undergoing operations.

These third-parties have to comply with the non-secular laws and collaborate with the ecclesiastic

authorities whenever asked, thus leading to situations in which certain YouTube videos are

blocked, Wikipedia articles are censored, and anything against the government is harshly-punished

by virtue of Islamic Law.111

In spite of the framework, a larger distribution of internet use has helped citizens hold the elites

accountable to a larger degree: in April 2015, the Minister of Health was recorded while he was

shouting at another citizen, and the distribution of the footage led to the official’s dismissal. Cases

in which dignity of citizens is undermined have become important arguments against

governmental officials – and the measures are taken according to Shari’a law, which promotes and

guarantees respect among citizens. However, success cases are only applicable when men are

involved – a campaign which promoted women’s rights (and their entitlement to drive cars) has

stirred a radical argument on traditionalism from the part of the officials, and the police has ensured

extended checks in order to make sure that no violations occur.112

5.9 Cuba

Since 1959’s socialist revolution, Cuba has been a democratic centralist political establishment

with a Marxist-Leninist core. From amongst the case presented, the data on internet penetration is

the least clear: out of 11.2 million citizens, 5 to 30 percent have used the internet throughout 2014.

110 Freedom House, (op. cit.), Saudi Arabia, p. 674-675. 111 Ibidem, p. 676-677. 112 Ibidem, p. 681-682.

58

In spite of the low numbers, the internet regime is labeled as being “Not Free” and all types of

interferences and violations of fundamental rights can be identified: social media blocking and

filtering, censorship of political content, and arrests for online activity.113

Since the economic and political undertakings are nationalized, the government has taken several

steps in promoting internet technology: the opening of public Wi-Fi networks, the reduction of

internet fees, and the increase of internet speed are all measures that are meant to generate a larger

extent of access. In spite of the described events, Cuba has one of the most restrictive internet

policies in the world. Most users cannot browse the internet as they wish, but have a restricted

government-controlled intranet interface which costs about 10% of the monthly income for just

one hour of access (the cost is approximately 2 USD per hour).114 Accordingly, public servants

and high officials who have internet access in their offices are usually restricted to only certain

services such as e-mail and applications which are connected to their jobs – the Cuban government

controls who has internet connectivity and how much content one can access.

The two Cuban internet service providers are entirely state-owned and they deal with cable and

mobile connections, respectively. There is a hope that the newly-resumed diplomatic relations with

the United States of America will help develop the market and bring about cheaper technology.

Conversely, digital activism is non-existent and social media is so restricted that there is no way

for Cubans to organize large-scale political movements. The launch of an independent online news

website has tested the level of tolerance of the authorities, and was outlawed.115

113 Freedom House, (op. cit.), Cuba, p. 233-248. 114 Ibidem, p. 233-234. 115 Ibidem, p. 244-245.

59

Table 4: Internet Governance in the 9 States116

(Lower scores indicate more internet freedom and a more developed private sector.)

Political Regime Obstacles to

Access

Limits on

Content

Violations of

User Rights

Status Score*

The United

States of

America

Federal Constitutional

Republic (Presidential)

3 2 14 Free 19

China Socialist Single-Party

Republic

18 30 40 Not Free 88

India Federal Parliamentary

Democratic Republic

12 10 18 Partly Free 40

Turkey Secular Democratic

Parliamentary Republic

13 20 25 Partly Free 58

Estonia Parliamentary

Representative

Democratic Republic

1 3 3 Free 7

Russia Federal Semi-

Presidential Republic

10 23 29 Not Free 62

Egypt Military Dictatorship 14 13 34 Not Free 61

Saudi

Arabia

Absolute Monarchy 15 24 34 Not Free 73

Cuba Democaratic Centralist

(Authoritarian)

22 27 32 Not Free 81

116 Freedom House, “Freedom on the Net 2015: Table of Country Scores”, 2015, Available at:

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net-2015/table-country-scores, Consulted on June 19th 2016.

60

6. The Classification of the Nine Internet Regimes, according to

Plato and Aristotle

As previously established in the chapter regarding methods of projecting the results, there are two

ways of projecting the political thought and political regime taxonomy of Plato and Aristotle: the

first involves looking for the essence of their ideas and operating in the spirit of their writings

(therefore looking for the utopian regime in the case of Plato, and the best regime available for the

case of Aristotle), whilst the second is based on comparing the regime classifications with the data

obtained from the study of contemporary internet regimes. If the Platonic induction on internet

regimes can be assigned with two examples which have previously been presented (the

Naturalistic Web which takes into account parallels with real life situations, as well as the United

Nations model which results from a set of resolutions that aren’t legally-binding, but serve as

models), then the more practical Aristotelian politeia has yet to be discovered from existing

internet regimes. Additionally, the regime classification is necessary in its entirety in order to fulfill

the “letter of the philosophers” criterion and provide a wider range of answers for the research

question.

Correspondingly, every state from the 9 whose internet regimes have been described and presented

will have a Platonic and an Aristotelian regime classification, accompanied by a description based

on the respective case. For Plato’s classification, the two fundamental questions are “Which

internet stakeholder is most powerful?” and “Where is the wealth most concentrated?” – and the

answer can be one of the 4 main regime types (timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, tyranny), as well

as combinations of them for the more ambiguous cases. The questions for Aristotle’s taxonomy of

regimes are “Who governs the internet?” and “Is internet governance conducted in the interest of

the rulers or in the interest of the larger number?” – correspondingly, the answers can be monarchy,

tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, politeia, or democracy.

On the basis of the data which was established throughout the analysis of the previous sections,

the nine internet regimes will be examined according to three criteria, each corresponding to one

of the main stakeholders on the internet: government intervention, private sector development, and

users’ empowerment. For a more precise quantification of the data, each criterion will be assigned

61

with an evaluative term which includes “very low”, “low”, “moderate”, “high”, and “very high”.

Respectively, in order to give an example - when the government intervention from Cuba will be

analyzed, due to the intensive censorship and filtering on behalf of the Havana officials, the

attributed mark will be “very high”.

First of all, the United States of America feature a very particular model: the government

intervention is minimum, and all the communications are handled by an independent agency

named the Federal Communication Commission. In such a situation, internet users, as well as

companies which operate on the internet have to lobby or petition to the Commission in order to

forward their requests. The issue of internet governance is successfully depoliticized, as the

individual and commercial beneficiaries of the network have equal chances of adjusting

regulations117. According to Plato’s classification of regimes, the United States are oligarchic, due

to the fact that the private sector is most powerful, and has a high concentration of wealth through

internet companies. However, Aristotle would appreciate the balance between user empowerment

(democracy) and private sector (oligarchy) much more, by classifying it as politeia – the best

regime that can be. Accordingly, the United States can be called an oligarchy and politeia,

representing a very good example of balancing powers for the benefit of both the few and wealthy,

as well as the large majority.

Secondly, China has a very strict internet regime: there is a strong tendency towards nationalizing

the network and maintaining internet access only within proprietary websites, through an advanced

system of blocking and filtering foreign content. The business sector’s development is very low

and has to abide to governmental regulations, and the users have very little leverage and

possibilities to rebel against the establishment.118 Correspondently, the government is very

powerful and cannot be countered by any of the domestic parties involved. According to Plato’s

classification, China is an oligarchy, due to the gap between the party elites and the masses – which

are also prominent on the internet. Conversely, Aristotle would also characterize the internet

regime as an oligarchy, since the governing of the network is made by a few elites, in the interest

of the establishment.

117 Freedom House, (op. cit.), The United States of America, p.872-893. 118 Ibidem, China, p. 190-213.

62

India’s internet regime has a moderate government which only intervenes to censor content that

might be deemed offensive, obscene, or immoral. Furthermore, even though there are legislative

incentives for surveillance without the acceptance of a third party, the reported cases are too scarce

to classify to associate the regime with authoritarianism. Internet businesses are mostly private and

very few are state-owned, thus prompting to a higher degree of independence. What gives them

the moderate power is the fact that government owns the legal incentives to override any private

decisions and intervene whenever deemed necessary. Conversely, users are plentiful, well-

organized and the fact that they have managed to defend the neutrality of their internet proves their

strength.119 Due to the presented facts, the government intervention is moderate, the private sector

development is moderate as well (featuring oligopolies with little power), yet the users are

empowered enough to defend their rights. According to Plato’s classification, India is a

combination between tyranny (as blocking and filtering is legitimate, even if it isn’t used

exhaustively) and democracy. In Aristotle’s taxonomy, however, the fact that the many (internet

users) rule in the interest of the rulers

Turkey features a rather authoritarian internet regime, with plenty of reported cases of censorship,

filtering, blocking, and complete shutdowns of websites in order to protect governmental interests.

Correspondingly, the government is very powerful and has most leverage. Conversely, the private

sector is weak, with approximately 74% of the internet operators running through the state-owned

communication company. The internet users, however, have managed to mobilize themselves and

organize protests whenever they felt unhappy with their government’s decisions: The Gezi park

protests from 2013 and the volunteering during the elections of 2014 and 2015 serve as prime

examples of internet users’ involvement and capacity to mobilize through the internet.120

According to the authoritarian tendencies, Turkey has a high degree of government intervention,

a low development of private sector, and a moderate (but occasionally restricted and blocked) user

empowerment. Plato would categorize the Turkish internet regime as a tyranny (due to the use of

force and very weak private sector with little leverage), whilst Aristotle would deem it as an

oligarchy (rule of the few and wealthy).

119 Freedom House, (op. cit.), India, p. 386-411. 120 Ibidem, Turkey, p. 797-815.

63

Of all the examples, Estonia has the least infringements of internet users’ rights and the largest

degree of empowerment. The fact that the government doesn’t interfere with the content and

provides incentives to access medical services and exercise political rights through the network is

admirable and demonstrates, to the highest degree in this debate, Aristotle’s concept of the best

regime that exists. The very low government intervention is balanced by a moderate but developing

private sector, as well as the highest degree of users’ empowerment.121 Accordingly, Plato would

classify the internet regime as being a democracy (since the masses are the most empowered),

whilst the fact that the largest number governs for the happiness of the largest majority would

make Aristotle classify the regime as being politeia – and the degree of success seems to be higher

than the one from the United States, thus establishing Estonia as the prime example for the latter

philosopher’s ideal type.

Conversely, Russia’s seemingly-democratic constitution generates censorship and many practices

that suggest a well-established degree of authoritarianism in internet governance. Liberty of

expression is drastically limited (especially in social and political themes), and the private sector

shows signs of weakness (the state-owned company has a market share of about 36%). Not

surprisingly, the amount of internet users’ petitions and initiatives is low, since the regime allows

a very limited leverage. The private sector has further suffered losses due to a nationalization

initiative which obliged foreign companies to open headquarters and operate within the Russian

territories. Accordingly, the government intervention can be deemed as being high, the private

sector is moderately developed (with a tendency to decrease), and the users have a moderate degree

of empowerment.122 Due to the concentration of power, as well as the unjust nature of the situation,

Plato would classify Russia’s internet regime as being oligarchic. Correspondingly, Aristotle

would identify an oligarchic regime, with small nuances of aristocracy (mostly due to the degree

of user empowerment that can be found in terms of access, content, and petition-making that

doesn’t regard political matters).

From all the cases selected, Egypt has the most successful story in terms of users’ political

activism, due to the regime-changing events from 2011, which were fueled by internet events and

social media interaction. However, the situation seems to have drastically changed, and the internet

121 Freedom House, (op. cit.), Estonia, p. 282-290. 122 Ibidem, Russia, p. 649-662.

64

regime displays strong tendencies towards authoritarianism, with nearly as many arbitrary

interferences on users’ liberty as in Russia. Content and internet activity are restricted on grounds

of both anti-governmental action and defying of religious customs. Correspondingly, the

government intervention is present at a high degree, and in terms of privatization of provision to

internet access, the situation is unfavorable for users: 63% of the market share is controlled by the

state-owned company. 123 Conversely, digital activism is steadily declining, and many of the users

who were enthusiastic about the changes they could bring in 2011 have become disillusioned.124

Egypt’s government intervention is high, and both private sector development and the users’

empowerment are at a low level (the first is increasing, whilst the latter is declining). Accordingly,

Plato would deem the internet regime as being tyrannical for the concentration of power and its

arbitrary use, whilst Aristotle would declare the regime as being oligarchic (concentration of power

in the hands of few who rule in their own interest).

The Shari’a law-governed kingdom of Saudi Arabia is probably the most oppressive of those

presented in the study. The absolute monarch, along with his oligarchs, insure that censorship of

political comments, social media blockages, and human rights infringements are part of the norm.

Furthermore, the private sector can make no difference and cannot stand for its own or the users’

rights, due to very restrictive laws which ensure that all the digital content is stored on

governmental facilities. The punishments also tend to be brutal, as political activists are punished

to imprisonment, as well as physical abuse in public. However, the bright side of internet

technology is that corruption can be recorded, so officials have to become more careful or

accountable unless they want to be removed from office and dishonored according to the

ecclesiastic legal system125. With a high degree of government intervention, a low development of

the private sector, and a law degree of user’s empowerment, Saudi Arabia would be considered by

Plato to be a tyranny. On the other hand, Aristotle would declare it a middle ground between

tyranny and oligarchy, as there is a tyrant with absolute powers, but he is also advised and

supported by an oligarch elite.

123 Freedom House, (op. cit.), Egypt, p.268-281. 124 Ibidem. 125 Ibidem, Saudi Arabia, p. 673-687.

65

The last case in the analysis is Cuba, a state with very little internet development and low

penetration of the network. From many perspectives, starting with the access price (an hour costs

about 10% of the monthly income), and continuing with the limited number of Wi-Fi connections

which were made available, it can be stated that the internet in Cuba is under a development phase.

However, the interferences with content and the fact that users mostly access a pre-established

intranet with little possibilities establishes the framework for an authoritarian internet regime.

Internet services are completely controlled by the state, , and there is no social media activism or

sign of any online anti-establishment movements.126 Accordingly, Plato would label the internet

regime as a tyranny. According to the Aristotelian classification, the regime is a mix between

tyranny (for arbitrary interferences of the monolithic government) and oligarchy (for the political

elites who get involved in the process of governing the internet).

Table 5: Classification of the Nine Internet Regimes

Government

Intervention

Private Sector

Development

Users’

Empowerment

Corresponding

Regime (Plato)

[Power/Wealth

Relationship]

Corresponding

Regime (Aristotle)

[Number of

Rulers/Interests

Relationship]

United States of

America

Low Very High High Oligarchy Politeia

China Very High Low Very Low Oligarchy Oligarchy

India Moderate Moderate High Tyranny + Democracy Democracy

Turkey High Low Moderate Tyranny Oligarchy

Estonia Very Low Moderate Very High Democracy Politeia

Russia High Moderate Moderate Oligarchy Oligarchy +

Aristocracy

Egypt High Low Low Tyranny Oligarchy

Saudi Arabia Very High Low Low Tyranny Tyranny/Oligarchy

Cuba Very High Low Low Tyranny Tyranny/Oligarchy

126 Freedom House, (op. cit.), Cuba, p. 233-248.

66

7. Conclusion

After previously establishing the methods for identifying the best of regimes, the following section

will be dedicated to presenting the results. As it was iterated throughout the research, the focus

point revolves around the approaches to the political works of Plato and Aristotle. Henceforth,

there are two major approaches in order to reach the sought outcome: first of all, there is the

interpretation in the spirit of the philosophers. It involves assuming that the regime typologies are

obsolete and one should look into the intentions that Plato and Aristotle had in their time – that of

identifying the ideal utopian regime (in the case of the former), and finding ways to pinpoint the

best existing regime in order to better it (in the case of the latter). From this perspective, the ideal

internet regimes for Plato would be the Naturalistic Web (an approach which starts from the

assumption that the line between the real and the virtual life is increasingly thinner, and

consequently makes parallels between real-life situations and online activity internet users go

through; an extended explanation has been previously offered in chapter 2.4), as well as the United

Nations model (as recommended through the resolutions from chapter 4). However, the

assumption to eliminate regime classifications excludes the possibility to identify a correspondent

best regime for Aristotle’s theories on political regimes and constitutions – as the practical

philosopher, inquiring “in his spirit” involves looking for what exists and finding ways to improve

it.

Accordingly, the pursuit of existing regimes becomes useful, and the framework provided by the

inductive-deductive dichotomy of Plato and Aristotle proves to be efficient. The terms used for

regime classifications are identical to those utilized today (though the vocabulary for descriptions

of sub-branches has continuously expanded), with three exceptions: Plato’s timocracy (whose

emphasis on virtue and descriptions of developments have no correspondents in today’s

government), and regime of philosopher kings (which was the result of his own utopia and doesn’t

have any modern correspondent), as well as Aristotle’s politeia (which was his ideal regime type,

as a combination between oligarchy and democracy in which the middle ground between political

power and finances would always be found). The first two couldn’t be identified for reasons

already described, but the latter is vital in answering the question about Aristotle’s best regime.

Politeia, as a middle ground between the wealthy few and the empowered majority, exists to this

day in our day-to-day life under the more generic terminology of the middle class, and was

67

identified twice during the regime comparison. The United States of America and Estonia have

obtained the regime as a result of low state intervention which generates a balance between the

private sector and internet users. Using the regime-identification methods of Aristotle’s politeia

has successfully identified the best of the selected internet regimes, a task which was accomplished

by the Freedom House Report through more rigorous and expansive research methods. The politeia

regime type proves itself to provide the best balance between internet users’ rights, free market

economy, and efficient governance. The pattern for the regime is easy and comprehensive, yet it

requires a tradition of rule of law, and the framework of a secular liberal democracy. Ideally, this

model should be emulated by most states which fulfill the institutional and constitutional criteria,

as it insures just checks and balances, and a fair amount of leverage on behalf of every internet

stakeholder. Out of the nine models examined, two of them were identified to have such a regime

– therefore proving that Aristotle’s taxonomy and methods are still very efficient and provide a

relevant output.

Within the whole scheme, it can be observed that Plato’s framework and methods of identifying

political regimes are dated and just as pessimistic as they were intended to be when they were first

iterated – contemporary democratic states with developed markets become oligarchies, while

states with more authoritarian frameworks become tyrannies. Additionally, Plato’s ideal regime of

philosopher kings has no correspondent or contemporary application.

Conversely, Aristotle’s classification stands the test of time much better and identifies democratic

regimes and ideal typologies more accurately. However, the drawbacks appear in establishing

nuances between parallel regimes which seek the governance in the same interests – like, for

example, in the case of the tyranny-oligarchy association.

The study of internet regimes and their classification is a sub-branch of political science that is still

under development, as literature on the subject is published every year in order to make additions

to what was previously covered. However, the approach tends to remain within the boundaries of

modernism, with an emphasis on the latest events. By virtue of Hegelian tradition of undertaking

intellectual exercises in the field of reflective and philosophical history, the current research has

managed to establish an unprecedented parallel between contemporary events in internet

governance, and the lenses of ancient political theory. The legitimation for such a pursuit is

likewise Hegelian, with an emphasis on the idea that the various stages of human history are faced

68

with advancements, but sometimes leave behind precious teachings and virtues. Accordingly, the

following research has identified internet regime typologies through a filter which some might

consider to be antiquated, as compared to modern classification of political regimes. However, the

fact that similar results have been reached through older-than-2000-years criteria prove the

timelessness of the ancient framework, as well as the efficiency of the Hegelian method. While the

demand for such inquiries is momentarily low, the situation might change in the future, as the

classics should be given more credit for developing methods and theories that are still very relevant

today.

69

Bibliography

Primary Sources

ARISTOTLE, Metaphysics, trans. from Greek by Hugh LAWSON-TANCRED, Book VI, Penguin

Books, New York.

ARISTOTLE, Politics, trans. from Greek by JOWETT, Benjamin, Dover Publications, New York,

2000.

BARLOW, John Perry, A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, Electronic Frontier

Foundation, 1996, Available at: https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence, Consulted on June

11th 2016.

Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, Article 9, Available at:

http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/declaration.html, Consulted on June 15th 2016.

Estonian National Electoral Committee, Reports About Internet Voting in Estonia, Available at:

http://www.vvk.ee/voting-methods-in-estonia/engindex/reports-about-internet-voting-in-estonia/,

Consulted on June 15th 2016.

HEGEL, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, Lectures on the Philosophy of World History: Volume 1,

Manuscripts of the Introduction and Lectures of 1822-3, ed. & trans. by BROWN, Robert F.,

HODGSON, Peter C., with the assistance of GEUSS, William G., Oxford University Press, New

York, 2013.

India’s Ministry of Law and Justice, The Information Technology Amendment Act, Section

69A(1), p. 13, Available at:

http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/downloads/itact2000/it_amendment_act2008.pdf,

Consulted on June 19th 2016.

Internet Society, Brief History of the Internet, Available at:

http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-internet/history-internet/brief-history-

internet#Origins, Consulted on June 11th 2016.

70

MONTESQUIEU, Spirit of the Laws, trans. from French and ed. by COHLER, Anne M.,

MILLER, Basia C. & STONE, Harold S., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989.

ORWELL, George, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Signet Classics, New York, 1977.

PLATO, The Republic, trans. by JOWETT, Benjamin, Anchor Books, New York, 1973.

SIEP, Ludwig, Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, Trans. from German by SMITH, Daniel,

Cambridge University Press, New York, 2014.

SOFSKY, Wolfgang, Privacy: A Manifesto, trans. from German by Steven Rendall, Princeton

University Press, Princeton, 2008.

The Constitution of Greece, Greece, As Published in April 18th 2001, trans. from Greek by

Refworld.org, Available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/4c52794f2.html, Consulted on June

15th 2016.

The Supreme Court of India, The Case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, Writ Petition

(Criminal) No. 167 of 2012, Available at: http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/FileServer/2015-03-

24_1427183283.pdf, Consulted on June 19th 2016.

United Nations, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12, 1948, Available at:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/, Consulted on June 18th 2016.

United Nations General Assembly, Sixty-Eighth Session, Agenda Item 69(b), Resolution Adopted

by the General Assembly of 18 December 2013 [on the report of the Third Committee

(A/68/456/Add.2)] – 68/167. The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age, Available at:

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/68/167.

United Nations Human Rights Council: First Resolution on Internet Free Speech, Resolution

A/HRC/20, Available at: http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403231_text,

Consulted on June 18th 2016.

United Nations Human Right Council, Twenty-Seventh Session, Annual Report of the United

Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High

Commissioner and Secretary General, The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age, A/HRC/27/37,

71

Available at:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session27/Documents/A.HRC.27.37

_en.pdf, Consulted on June 18th 2016.

Secondary Sources

Aljazeera, Putin Says Internet Is a CIA Project, April 25th 2014, Available at:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/04/putin-says-internet-cia-project-

201442563249711810.html, Consulted on June 13th 2016.

BERNAL, Paul, Internet Privacy Rights – Rights to Protect Autonomy, Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, 2014.

Democracy 2.1 Project, Democracy 2.1: Our Mission, Available at: http://news.d21.me/en/inside-

d21/our-mision/, Consulted on June 15th 2016.

DNA India, Parliamentary Committee to Discuss Net Neutrality Issue on Thursday, New Delhi,

May 20th 2015, Available at: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-parliamentary-committee-to-

discuss-net-neutrality-issue-on-thursday-2087575, Consulted on June 19th 2016.

DRAKE, William J., WILSON, Ernest J. III (ed.), Access Denied – The Practice and Policy of

Global Internet Filtering, MIT Press, Cambridge, 2008.

Electronic Frontier Foundation, Internet Surveillance and Free Speech: The United Nations Makes

the Connection, Available at: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/internet-and-surveillance-

UN-makes-the-connection, Consulted on June 18th 2016.

Freedom House, Freedom on the Net Report 2015, Available at:

https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTN%202015%20Full%20Report.pdf, Consulted

on June 19th 2016.

Freedom House, Freedom on the Net 2015: Table of Country Scores, 2015, Available at:

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net-2015/table-country-scores, Consulted on June 19th

2016.

72

GESSEN, Masha, How Putin Controls the Internet and Popular Opinion in Russia, The Intercept,

September 8th 2015, Available at: https://theintercept.com/2015/09/08/how-putin-controls-the-

russian-internet/, Consulted on June 19th 2016.

GOLDSMITH, Jack, WU, Tim, Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of Borderless World, Oxford

University Press, New York, 2006.

GVOSDEV, Nikolas, The Realist Prism: Politics vs. Social Media in the Arab Uprising, World

Politics Review, March 4th 2011, Available at:

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8089/the-realist-prism-politics-vs-social-media-in-

the-arab-uprising, Consulted on June 19th 2016.

HATTON, Celia, China Social Credit: Beijing Sets Up Huge System, BBC News, Beijing, October

26th 2015, Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-34592186, Consulted on June

19th 2016.

HUGHES, Thomas, MUBARAK, Edmad, Censorship in Egypt: Online and Offline, Mada Masr,

November 30th 2014, Available at: http://www.madamasr.com/opinion/politics/censorship-egypt-

online-and-offline, Consulted on June 19th 2016.

KIRKPATRICK, David D., New Law in Egypt Effectively Bans Street Protests, New York Times,

November 25th 2013, Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/world/middleeast/egypt-

law-street-protests.html?_r=1, Consulted on June 19th 2016.

KHARPAL, Arjun, Apple vs FBI: All You Need to Know, CNBC, March 29th 2016, Available at:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/, Consulted on June 12th 2016.

LANE, Melissa, Comparing Greek and Chinese Political Thought: The Case of Plato’s Republic,

Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 36:4, December 2009.

LUNGESCU, Oana, Tiny Estonia Leads Internet Revolution, BBC News, April 7th 2004, Available

at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3603943.stm, Consulted on June 15th 2016.

MAURICE, Eric, MEPs Say Turkish President Undermines Democracy, EU Observer, June 9th

2016, Available at: https://euobserver.com/foreign/133757, Consulted on June 19th 2016.

73

MIESSLER, Daniel, The Internet, the Deep Web, and the Dark Web, Available at:

https://danielmiessler.com/study/internet-deep-dark-web/, Consulted on June 12th 2016.

MIHR, Anja, Public Privacy – Human Rights in Cyberspace, The Netherlands Institute of Human

Rights (SIM), Utrecht University, Utrecht, 2013.

NICHOLS, Mary P., Socrates and the Political Community: An Ancient Debate, State University

of New York Press, Albany, 1987.

OBEROI, Ankit, The History of Online Advertising, AdPushup, 2013, Available at:

http://www.adpushup.com/blog/the-history-of-online-advertising/, Consulted on June 11th 2016.

Ian SPARKS, Internet Access Is a Fundamental Human Right, Rules French Court, Daily Mail,

June 12th 2009, Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1192359/Internet-access-

fundamental-human-right-rules-French-court.html, Consulted on June 15th 2016.

STEFANONE, Michael A., Reality Television as a Model for Online Behavior: Blogging, Photo,

and Video Sharing, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 14, Issue 4, 2009.

ZITTRAIN, Jonathan, PALFREY, John, Reluctant Gatekeepers: Corporate Ethics on a Filtered

Internet, in Access Denied – The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering, DRAKE,

William J., WILSON, Ernest J. III (ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, 2008.

Tertiary Sources

COSTEA, Vlad, Freedom of the Internet in Russia – Putin vs The CIA Project, The Political

Science Club, April 25th 2014, Available at:

http://thepoliticalscienceclub.com/2014/04/25/freedom-of-the-internet-in-russia-putin-vs-the-cia-

project/, Consulted on June 19th 2016.

COSTEA, Vlad, Turkey and the Right to Free Speech, The Political Science Club, April 2nd 2014,

Available at: http://thepoliticalscienceclub.com/2014/04/02/turkey-and-the-right-to-free-speech/,

Consulted on June 19th 2016.

74

HACKER, Andrew, Political Theory: Philosophy, Ideology, Science, Macmillan, New York,

1961.

KHOSROW-POUR, Mehdi, Encyclopedia of E-Commerce, E-Government, and Mobile

Commerce, Idea Group, London, 2006.

MILLER, Fred, Aristotle’s Political Theory, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012

Edition), ZALTA, Edward N., (ed.), Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-

politics/, Consulted on June 16th 2016.

NAY, Olivier, Istoria Ideilor Politice, trans. from French by SAVIN, Vasile, Polirom, Bucharest,

2008.