Fences and Walls 3 - Closing the Digital Commons

A small window of opportunity still exists to protect access to information, freedom of speech and the democratic processes of the World Wide Web.

(Redacted Edition) see note at end
Congratulations to Google, Facebook, and other major tech companies that refused to co‑operate with authoritarian regimes seeking to install surveillance systems capable of tracking dissidents — systems that, in some countries, have led to arrests, torture, and even death. Thanks also to Facebook for taking a stand against employers demanding access to users’ private passwords, helping to preserve the right to individual privacy.
Legislation such as ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA — framed as copyright protection but enabling mass tracking of online activity — has been defeated for now, but it is far too early to celebrate.
In the space left by companies that declined to participate in such surveillance, other multinational firms stepped in, supplying monitoring technologies to governments with troubling human‑rights records. This is deeply concerning, and it is reasonable to hope that organisations engaging with such suppliers reconsider their partnerships until meaningful reforms occur.
Similar technologies have been deployed in various countries to suppress journalism, silence criticism, and conceal environmental or political wrongdoing. Independent investigations have documented cases where large mining, energy, and resource‑extraction corporations, as well as state‑aligned entities, were linked to intimidation, censorship, or pressure on journalists and activists.
In some regions, online speech remains technically “open,” yet critics still face harassment, threats, or violence from unidentified actors. Elsewhere, governments have arrested bloggers, blocked hundreds of thousands of websites, and restricted online expression under the banner of national stability.
These issues are not confined to distant places.
In Western democracies, the methods are more subtle. While public pressure has temporarily halted some legislative attempts at mass surveillance, similar measures are being pursued through trade agreements negotiated behind closed doors. In some countries, even the list of attendees is withheld from public scrutiny. Meanwhile, authorities increasingly rely on opaque takedown notices and liability threats to pressure internet providers into policing content — a form of censorship that bypasses courts and public accountability.
Justifications for these intrusions often invoke national security, crime prevention, or child protection. Yet existing legal mechanisms already allow targeted monitoring when criminal activity is suspected, without subjecting the entire population to blanket surveillance. Tools intended to protect children can also inadvertently block legitimate information, and there are far more effective ways to address fraud, abuse, and online harassment.
At the same time, powerful private interests have demonstrated their ability to obtain sensitive information through means unrelated to public safety. Numerous documented cases — including blacklisting, takedown abuse, and denial‑of‑service attacks — illustrate how both governments and corporations can misuse digital power. History reminds us that institutions do not always act in the public interest, and the digital sphere is no exception.
It is neither fair nor sustainable to rely on private companies to defend fundamental rights, especially when they can be compelled by law to comply with government demands. As scholars of digital governance have argued, the world needs an international framework protecting internet freedom and the digital commons, much like the Magna Carta once sought to protect citizens from abuses of sovereign power.
Courts in the European Union have affirmed that generalised internet filtering violates fundamental rights, including privacy and freedom of information. They have ruled that national authorities cannot require internet service providers to conduct blanket monitoring of user activity.
Yet large‑scale data‑collection facilities continue to expand globally, capable of storing vast quantities of personal information — every keystroke, upload, message, search, purchase, and connection. The scope of this surveillance infrastructure underscores the urgency of defending digital rights while it is still possible.


Update 2026
None of the petitions or campaigns of the early 2010s ultimately changed the trajectory. Over the past fifteen years, global internet freedom has steadily declined, with rising surveillance, censorship, and corporate consolidation. Even companies that once took principled stands — including Google, Facebook, and others — have since made significant concessions to government demands, market pressures, or internal strategic shifts.  The result is a landscape where the ideals of the early web — openness, decentralisation, and user autonomy — have been steadily eroded, replaced by systems optimised for surveillance, data extraction, and centralised power. 

Author’s Note on Redaction: 

This article was originally written in 2012, during a period of intense global debate about surveillance, censorship, and the future of the open web. At that time, I referred to specific companies and governments involved in these issues. Some of those references have now been removed or generalised.

The reasons for these changes are straightforward:
•     Circumstances evolve. Practices, leadership, and political conditions shift over time, and statements that were accurate in 2012 may no longer reflect the present day.
•     The core concerns are systemic. This piece is about patterns of surveillance, censorship, and corporate influence — not about singling out individual actors.
The heart of the argument remains unchanged:
the digital commons requires vigilance, transparency, and international protections if it is to f it is to regain any of its early promise, vibrancy and potential.

As I updated this piece, I discussed with Copilot about how to keep the spirit of the original while steering clear of anything that might cause legal issues or might no longer be relevant