1、The Pandemics Digital Shadow FREEDOM ON THE NET 2020 ON THE COVER A young woman wearing a protective mask looks at her smartphone while passing by graffiti representing two big watching eyes in Berlin, Germany on April 1, 2020. Illustrative Editorial (Photo by Emmanuele Contini/NurPhoto via Getty Im

2、ages) TABLE OF CONTENTS The Pandemics Digital Shadow. 1 Tracking the Global Decline . 5 Information Isolation: Censoring the COVID-19 Outbreak . 9 False Panacea: Abusive Surveillance in the Name of Public Health . 14 Recommendations . 26 Tables, Charts, and Graphs Rising Cyber Sovereignty Threatens

3、to Further Splinter the Internet . 2 Global Internet User Stats . 4 Global Internet Population by 2020 FOTN Status . 5 Largest One-Year and Five-Year Score Declines . 6 Where COVID-19 Information Is (and Isnt) Censored . 10 Some Apps Trace COVID-19, Others Track You . 15 Mapping Chinas Surveillance

4、State . 21 Key Internet Controls by Country. 23 FOTN World Map. 24 Global Rankings . 30 Regional Rankings . 32 This report was made possible by the generous support of the U.S. State Departments Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL), the Internet Society, and the New York Community Trus

5、t. The following people were instrumental in the research and writing of this report: Noah Buyon, Cathryn Grothe, Amy Slipowitz, and Kian Vesteinsson. Michael Abramowitz, Annie Boyajian, Arch Puddington, Sarah Repucci, Nate Schenkkan, Jennifer Stapleton, and Mai Truong provided valuable feedback on

6、the summary of findings. Elisha Aaron, David Meijer, Shannon OToole, and Tyler Roylance edited the report. Isabel Linzer and Sarah Cook served as advisers on Sub-Saharan Africa and China, respectively. Ever Bussey and Maddie Masinsin provided research assistance. This booklet is a summary of finding

7、s for the 2020 edition of Freedom on the Net. Narrative reports on the 65 countries assessed in this study and a full list of contributors can be found on our website at freedomonthenet.org. FREEDOM ON THE NET 2020 groups, extending and deepening existing digital divides. In short, governments aroun

8、d the world failed in their obligation to promote a vibrant and reliable online public sphere. Second, authorities cited COVID-19 to justify expanded surveillance powers and the deployment of new technologies that were once seen as too intrusive. The public health crisis has created an opening for t

9、he digitization, collection, and analysis of peoples most intimate data without adequate protections against abuses. Governments and private entities are ramping up their use of artificial intelligence (AI), biometric surveillance, and big-data tools to make decisions that affect individuals economi

10、c, social, and political rights. Crucially, the processes involved have often lacked transparency, T he coronavirus pandemic is accelerating a dramatic decline in global internet freedom. For the 10th consecutive year, users have experienced an overall deterioration in their rights, and the phenomen

11、on is contributing to a broader crisis for democracy worldwide. In the COVID-19 era, connectivity is not a convenience, but a necessity. Virtually all human activitiescommerce, education, health care, politics, socializingseem to have moved online. But the digital world presents distinct challenges

12、for human rights and democratic governance. State and nonstate actors in many countries are now exploiting opportunities created by the pandemic to shape online narratives, censor critical speech, and build new technological systems of social control. Three notable trends punctuated an especially di

13、smal year for internet freedom. First, political leaders used the pandemic as a pretext to limit access to information. Authorities often blocked independent news sites and arrested individuals on spurious charges of spreading false news. In many places, it was state officials and their zealous supp

14、orters who actually disseminated false and misleading information with the aim of drowning out accurate content, distracting the public from ineffective policy responses, and scapegoating certain ethnic and religious communities. Some states shut off connectivity for marginalized State and nonstate

15、actors are exploiting opportunities created by the pandemic to shape online narratives, censor critical speech, and build new technological systems of social control. The Pandemics Digital Shadow by Adrian Shahbaz and Allie Funk FREEDOM ON THE NET 2020 freedomhouse.org1freedomhouse independent overs

16、ight, and avenues for redress. These practices raise the prospect of a dystopian future in which private companies, security agencies, and cybercriminals enjoy easy access not only to sensitive information about the places we visit and the items we purchase, but also to our medical histories, facial

17、 and voice patterns, and even our genetic codes. The third trend has been the transformation of a slow-motion “splintering” of the internet into an all-out race toward “cyber sovereignty,” with each government imposing its own internet regulations in a manner that restricts the flow of information C

18、ountries across the democratic spectrum are erecting their own digital borders in a sign of fraying trust in the open internet. across national borders. For most of the period since the internets inception, business, civil society, and government stakeholders have participated in a consensus-driven

19、process to harmonize technical protocols, security standards, and commercial regulation around the world. This approach allowed for the connection of billions of people to a global network of information and services, with immeasurable benefits for human development, including new ways to hold power

20、ful actors to account. The allure of cyber sovereignty Rather than protecting users, the application of national sovereignty to cyberspace has given authorities free rein to crack down on human rights while ignoring objections from local civil society and the international community. Chinas regime,

21、a pioneer in this field and the worlds worst abuser of internet freedom for the sixth year in a row, has long blocked popular foreign services and centralized technical infrastructure to allow for the pervasive monitoring and filtering of all traffic coming into the country. Following this model, Ru

22、ssian RISING CYBER SOVEREIGNTY THREATENS TO FURTHER SPLINTER THE INTERNET More governments are imposing restrictions on the flow of information across national borders. This infographic is from the Freedom on the Net 2020 report, as seen on www.freedomhouse.org. Rising Cyber Sovereignty Threatens to

23、 Further Splinter the Internet More governments are imposing restrictions on the fl ow of information across national borders. EUROPEAN UNION In July 2020, the EUs highest court invalidated the blocs USdata-sharing agreement, jeopardizing one of the internets busiest border crossings. INDIA The worl

24、d leader in internet shutdowns, the government banned over 100 Chinese apps and may compel companies to store citizens personal data domestically. UNITED STATES The Trump administrations unprecedented move to ban TikTok and WeChat was a step toward cyber sovereignty. HONG KONG The Beijing-imposed Na

25、tional Security Law threatens to extend the Great Firewall into the region. RUSSIA The Sovereign Internet law could see the Russian web secede from the international internet. Foreign websites are already blocked en masse. TURKEY A new law coerces social media platforms to comply with censorship and

26、 surveillance, eff ectively extinguishing channels of free speech. VIETNAM Authorities slowed down connections to Facebook in an apparent push to force the company to cooperate with censorship demands. CHINA The Great Firewall is the worlds most heavily fortifi ed digital border and controls what in

27、formation enters and exits the country. IRAN A national “intranet” of government-approved content is being built to prevent Iranians from accessing the global internet. MORE CLOSED INTERNETMORE OPEN INTERNET 2freedomonthenet FREEDOM ON THE NET 2020The Pandemics Digital Shadow #FreedomOnTheNet author

28、ities have passed legislation to isolate the country from the international internet during national emergencies, and Irans government similarly cut off connections to hide the polices violent response to mass protests in late 2019. Recent events in Hong Kong illustrate in frightening detail the imp

29、lications of greater state control over the online civic space. The leadership in Beijing directly imposed a draconian National Security Law on the autonomous region, prescribing harsh punishments for broadly defined speech offenses that encompass any expressions of solidarity with prodemocracy prot

30、esters. To escape such penalties, political websites, online forums, personal social media accounts, and entire apps engaged in preemptive closures or deletions. At the same time, US technology companies announced that they would suspend data-sharing agreements with local law enforcement officials t

31、o avoid complicity in human rights abuses. Authorities could raise the cost of noncompliance by mandating that companies store user data within the jurisdiction or face blocking, large fines, or the arrest of company representatives. Alarmingly, these sorts of practices are not unique to the worlds

32、most repressive regimes. Countries across the democratic spectrum are erecting their own digital borders in a sign of fraying trust in the open internet. The United States and India banned many popular Chinese apps, citing national security concerns. Legislators in Brazil, Nigeria, and Turkey passed

33、 or considered regulations requiring companies to keep user data from leaving the country, meaning law enforcement agencies would have easier access to sensitive information. The European Unions highest court found that US national security programs violate Europeans privacy rights, invalidating one

34、 of the worlds largest data-sharing agreements. Even when aimed at curbing repressive practices, these actions serve to legitimize the push for each state to oversee its own “national internet,” which was previously championed only by autocratic governments in countries such as China, Iran, and Russ

35、ia. A stronger role for global civil society The best way to stave off the rise of cyber sovereignty is to restore confidence in the legitimacy and efficacy of the existing multistakeholder model. This means envisioning new systems of internet and platform governance that uphold democratic principle

36、s of popular representation and participation. Current self-regulatory mechanisms run into difficulties when the public interest contrasts with the self-interest of the tech industry. While the scale of the international discussionand of the leading platforms themselvesmakes it difficult to incorpor

37、ate input from all members of the public, global civil society organizations can provide the expertise and independent oversight required to tackle some of the problems surrounding the impact of technology on human rights. Future initiatives on platform governance and content moderation should go be

38、yond mere transparency. They will have to ensure that systemic human rights deficiencies flagged by various independent assessments are addressed and replaced with updated rights-respecting practices and policies for the entire internet and telecommunications industry. As COVID-19 has demonstrated,

39、addressing the challenges of an interconnected world requires effective coordination among policymakers and civil society from all countries. For matters related to competition, taxation, and cross-border data flows, for example, intergovernmental coordination is likely to prove more effective than

40、ad hoc state regulation, due to the internets Addressing the challenges of an interconnected world requires effective coordination among policymakers and civil society from all countries. A Kashmiri journalist holds a placard at the Kashmir Press Club during a protest against connectivity restrictio

41、ns imposed since August 2019. Photo credit: Muzamil Mattoo/NurPhoto via Getty Images. freedomhouse.org Freedom House 3freedomhouse global nature. New institutions built for the digital age can manage transnational problems that do not fall neatly under one governments jurisdiction, while ensuring th

42、at users in smaller or less powerful countries receive the same protections and care as their counterparts in large democracies. This international, multistakeholder approach will not halt the efforts of the Chinese and Russian governments to fortify themselves againstand impose their will onthe glo

43、bal network, but it may limit short-sighted regulatory initiatives by established and aspiring democracies, preventing a further splintering of the internet. An irreplaceable asset for democracy There is tremendous value to an internet that is open, free, and global. Even in settings that are otherw

44、ise highly oppressive, an unrestricted online space offers immeasurable possibilities for free expression, community engagement, and economic development. But when civic organizing and political dissent overflow from the realm of social media onto the streets of cities like Minsk, Khartoum, and Cara

45、cas, dictators shut down networks to choke off any calls for greater democracy and human rights. State and nonstate actors drown out political dissent by spreading fear and disinformation on online platforms, even resorting to arrests and physical intimidation in some cases. Protesters from Hong Kon

46、g to Minneapolisequipped with cameras and the courage of their convictionsrisk retribution from the worlds most technologically advanced security forces. If digital communication platforms are to advance the cause of human rights in the 21st century, the internet freedom movement must raise its ambi

47、tions from simply demanding policies that respect basic rights, to actually building robust governance structures that enshrine and enforce those protections. This report outlines concrete recommendations for governments, technology companies, and civil society on how to rekindle faith in a free internet and push back against digital authoritarianism and repressive cyber sovereignty. Reversing the antidemocratic transformation of todays internet is a vital step in preventing even worse outcomes that could arise from the digital technologies