Compensation has the potential to reverse damaged caused by Cultural Appropriation.  Compensation is necessary in the case of cultural appropriation as it helps to provide victims with the resources they need or deserve as compensation for exploitative behaviour. Often it can be easily quantified as would be the case with the Navajo Urban Outfitters case. With stronger legislation and rulings on the provision for compensation for cultural appropriation, minority communities would be significantly better off. This would be a major step towards reversing the damage of said appropriation as it would allow the community to develop and gain recognition for traditional designs and ideas.  Compensation can bring back some justice to small, minority communities as they can gain the appropriate recognition they deserve as well as the benefits that come along with it. It was estimated in 2005 that nearly half of the US $1billion market from native American Arts and Crafts come from the sale of counterfeit goods [1]. Compensation would help protect sales from native American businesses as well as their culture.  [1] Padilla, Helen B., ‘Padilla: Combating fake Indian Arts and Crafts: a proposal for action’, Indian Country Today, 14 October 2008,


Reparations and the use of the term 'cultural appropriation' is a mask for more deep-rooted issues of racism in society.  The use of compensation as a means of redress for cultural appropriation doesn’t tackle the root problems that are expressed. The problems given as examples of cultural appropriation, like a Caucasian person wearing their hair in dreadlocks- a style that has meaning and historic prejudice to the afro-Caribbean community is redirecting attention and division. The individuals wearing their hair in this fashion however are not the problem. Demanding compensation from them 'does not challenge racism in any meaningful way' [1]. Instead targeting and punishing those who actively discriminate against those with the dreadlock style of hair is more effective and encourages equality.  [1] Malik, Kenan, ‘The Bane of Cultural Appropriation’, AlJazeera, 14th April 2016,


No feasible system of which grounds of compensation can occur because of the fluidity of culture and cultural identity  How a person identifies themselves aligns with the culture they are a part of. Szewczak and Snodgrass argue this is as the values of an individual “are influenced and modified by membership of other professional, organisational, ethnic, religious, and various other social groups, each of which has its own specialized culture and value set. Thus, individuals vary greatly in the degree in which they espouse, if at all, values by a single cultural group, such as their national culture” [1]. As a result, people can identify with several different cultures often at one time. This creates difficulties in allowing one person to seek compensation from another purely on the basis of identity politics – individuals at least partially define their own culture and it may only be one among multiple cultures they identify with.  Culture itself has a complex nature; it adapts, borrows and evolves. It also influences lives in different ways and to different extents. No culture is fully homogenous. Because of this, any model for the extent of compensation would almost be impossible. Somebody with a long distant relative of which they haven't met, could potentially gain compensation for something that doesn’t directly affect them. They may even identify with the majority culture that is doing the compensating. Conversely some who identify with the culture being compensated may not be eligible for compensation even if they are directly affected.  [1] Snodgrass, Coral R., & Szweczak, Edward J. "The Substitutability of Strategic Control Choices: An Empirical Study". The Journal of Management Studies. Vol. 25. 1990.


globalisation and multiculturalism.  Cultural appropriation prevents assimilation between members of society and creates further divisions based on arbitrary features of one’s ancestry or appearance. If reparations (through the use of compensation) were to occur in addition to this, it would create a more polarised and divided society as an 'us and them' culture is created.  A consequence of globalisation is the movement of people and the diffusion of knowledge [1]. This happens on a mass scale where it is possible for a person from India to travel across the globe to the United Kingdom (UK) and get there within 24 hours of booking their flight. With this, the spread of technology and knowledge it is inevitable that culture and identity does not remain fixed either. It also means that an increasing amount of people have more than one culture. A direct consequence of increased migration is that migrants are likely to bring with them their cultural customs. An example of this can be seen in the UK. As the UK faced more migrants from the Sub-continent of India, the popularity of different curries increased, and not just among those of Indian decent. In such circumstances cultures begin to merge as the traditional 'Chicken Tikka' recipe was adapted into a localised version called 'Chicken Tikka Masala' and was, in 2001, declared the UK's national dish.  Without globalisation, Britain's £3.6bn Indian restaurant industry would not exist and it would fail to employ approximately 100,000 people [2]. Any reparations would be paltry compared to the jobs that this industry has created over decades.  This is a positive thing; it brings cultures together, encourages understanding, innovation and cooperation. Forcing people to compensate for the appropriation of a culture may mean that there is less social harmony as divisions are forced between cultures. For the following generations of migrants will be forced to choose a culture as cultural appropriation encourages division between the two.  [1] Stief, Colin, ‘Globalization’, ThoughtCo., 3rd March 2017,   [2] Wintor, Patrick, ‘Chicken tikka Britain is new Cook recipe’, The Guardian, 19 April 2001,


Consumers tend to feel alienated by spreading of their personal information for profit  People experiencing the use of their personal details by companies have largely been found to see the process as extremely invasive and unsettling. Many have felt violated by the exploitation of their personal lives to market them products, often from people to whom they never consented to hand over information. This feeling has been demonstrated through significant public outcry and backlash, as well as empirical results showing these attitudes becoming more and more widespread, particularly in the case of online targeted advertising, which is the most well-known use of personal information. The best example of such backlash is the result of Amazon.com’s “dynamic pricing” system, in which the company varied its offerings and pricings to customers based on information gathered about them from prior uses. The result was a severe backlash that cost Amazon business until it ended the policy. [1] This has led to a blunting of the desired outcome of such marketers who experience declines in uptake rather than increased and more efficient reach of marketing. Furthermore, the targeted marketing that arises from these forms of information storage and sale can tend toward stereotypes, using programmes that favour broad brushstrokes in their marketing, resulting in stereotyped services on the basis of apparent race and gender. When this happens it is all the more alienating.  [1] Taylor, C., “Private Demands and Demands For Privacy: Dynamic Pricing and the Market for Customer Information”, Duke University, September 2002,  p.1


Collecting and selling personal information is a major violation of privacy  The gathering of personal data that companies undertake is done in a fashion that is fundamentally invasive of individuals’ privacy.  When individuals go online they act as private parties, often enjoying anonymity in their personal activities. Companies, particular online services, collate information and seek to use it to market products and services that are specifically tailored to those individuals. In the context of the internet, this means that individuals’ activities online are in fact susceptible to someone else’s interference and oversight, stealing from them the privacy and security the internet has striven to provide since its inception. At the most basic level, the invasion of privacy that collating and using private data gleaned from customers is unacceptable. [1] There is a very real risk of the information being misused, as the data can be held, and even resold to third parties that the customers never consented to giving their data and might well not want to come into possession of their personal details. This can lead to serious abuses of individuals’ private information by corporations, or indeed other agents that might have less savoury uses for the information, most obviously the more places your personal information is the more likely it is to be lost in a data breach with 267million records exposed in 2012. [2] Even when the information is not exposed it may be used in ways that have a real impact on the individual such as determining credit scores. [3] People as a matter of principle should have control over who gets access to their private information. Giving companies that are driven by profit motive to sell on their customers’ data to anyone that might offer a suitable price stands as an absolute theft of personal information and privacy.  [1] The Canadian Press. “Academics Want Watchdog to Probe Online Profiling”. CTV News. 28 July 2008.   [2] Risk Based Security, “2012 Sets New Record for Reported Data Breaches”, PR Newswire, 14 February 2013,   [3] Morris, J., and Lacandera, E., “Why big companies buy, sell your data”, CNN, 23 August 2012,


Data breaches can result in huge amounts of personal data falling into unscrupulous hands  The data collected and sold by companies is not safe. Servers with even the most sophisticated security systems are susceptible to hackers and other miscreants seeking to exploit the personal data of unsuspecting customers. Identity theft is a ubiquitous threat in the Information Age, one that increases every year as the arms race between data protection designers and invaders rages on. Data breaches have been rapidly increasing [1] and although the total number declined from 412 million exposed records in 2011 to 267 million in 2012 this has increasingly been due to hacking rather than simple negligence. [2] The result of these breaches is huge costs to individuals who have their identities and also to firms that appear to be unsafe. As individuals see companies as being uncaring of their information they tend to punish them in the market. [3] There is no opt-in because the individual has no means of seeing to whom the data is sold, and how secure their servers might be, putting them doubly at risk. Firms are better off not playing with fire and keeping data that could have huge potential costs to them if it is lost, and individuals are better off not having their information disseminated across cyberspace without any guarantee of its safety.  [1] Federal Trade Commission. “Privacy online: Fair information practices in the electronic marketplace: A report to Congress. Technical report, Federal Trade Commission”. May 2000.   [2] Risk Based Security, “Historically, Over 1.2 Billion Records Exposed According to Risk Based Security, Inc.” Risk Based Security, 22 February 2012,   Risk Based Security, “2012 Sets New Record for Reported Data Breaches”, PR Newswire, 14 February 2013,   [3] Acquisti, A. “The Economics of Personal Data and the Economics of Privacy”. OECD. 2010,


The sort of information being kept and sold is legitimate for firms to utilize in this fashion  Personal information given to companies is dispersed into the public sphere in a limited fashion. Once placed into the hands of a firm it ceases to be any sort of absolutely protected private right (if it ever was), and is instead now within the sphere of the company with which the individual has opted to interact. It is the natural evolution of how people’s information informs the economic sphere. [1] With regard to selling that information on, it is clearly information the individual is willing to disclose in the realm of commerce so it should make little difference what commercial entity is in possession of the data, especially considering that the information is then only utilized to make their experience online more efficient and valuable. It is also important to consider the exact kinds of information conventionally revealed through the personal data mining efforts of firms. They rarely even access the true identity of the user, but rather make use of second-hand information gathered from search histories, cookies, etc. to generate a consumer profile the firm hopes reflects the preference map of the user. The individual's identity is not revealed in these most frequent cases and the information is usable through the impermeable intermediary of security settings, etc. Thus firms get information about users without ever being able to ascertain the actual identity of those individuals, protecting their individual privacy, if such is a concern. [2] For this reason it cannot be said that there is any true violation of privacy. All of these data-gathering efforts of companies reflect the continuation of firms’ age-old effort to better understand their clients in order to best cater to their desires.  [1] Acquisti, A. “The Economics of Personal Data and the Economics of Privacy”. OECD. 2010,   [2] Story, L. “AOL Brings Out the Penguins to Explain Ad Targeting”. New York Times. 3 September 2008,


The storing and sale of personal data aids companies by making marketing more efficient and allows niche markets to thrive  Businesses have been able to use consumers’ personal information to produce far better, more efficient, and more targeted advertising. Traditionally advertisement has been used to reach mass markets and has thus been used mostly as a blunt instrument, targeting the largest and wealthiest demographics in order to get the most efficient use of scarce advertising budgets. The focus on large markets has often left smaller, more niche, markets by the wayside. [1] Yet with the advent of the internet, targeted marketing, and data collection services, firms have been able to create whole new markets that cater to less homogenous needs and wants. The result has been a Renaissance of specialty manufacturers and service providers that could never arise if it were not for the collection of personal consumer data. By targeting their advertising, firms have been able to scale back on the broader advertising, making the whole endeavour less costly and more efficient. On the broader level, companies are able to utilize the vast amounts of individual data compiled to allow them to determine broader changes in society’s consumer desires, to establish aggregate trends. [2] E-commerce accounts for more than $300 billion in the US. This information gathering makes all businesses more responsive to consumer demands and to cause them to change their offered services and products far more swiftly, to the benefit of all consumers. Businesses have thus been able to flourish that might once have languished without access to a means of accessing their market or been unable to change with changing tastes. Because of the proliferation of personal information aggregation we can enjoy a far more efficient business world, with lots of producers that can compete with the larger mainstream on a more even footing, and a mainstream that is more able to meet the ever-changing demand structure of consumers.  [1] Columbus Metropolitan Library. “Using Demographics to Target Your Market”. 2012.


The sale of personal data makes for better advertising that benefits consumers  By targeting demographics and personal profiles by way of acquiring and utilizing personal data, businesses are able to put forward their services in a more targeted fashion in order to reach their target markets and to more effectively understand the broader market more generally. The limited budgets that constrain all companies has traditionally forced producers in the mass market to advertise to broad demographics and majority markets, resulting in a relative dearth of niche markets and breadth of services available in the mass market. Utilizing personal data effectively allows firms to enrich the lives of all consumers by expanding the range of marketable products and the furnishing of services to more eclectic tastes. [1] The vast numbers of websites and services proliferating online makes it much harder for people to find what they are looking for, but more importantly what they are not looking for but would want if they knew it existed. Data-mining allows for the channels of information to flow more effectively to consumers (Columbus, 2012). On the individual level companies are able to create individual profiles from information, so they can target them directly with things that might interest them. This strategy is used on Facebook, for example, users are shown ads that most fit their profiles giving them access to services they might not have ever found without the service.  [1] Deighton, J. and J. Quelch, “Economic Value of the Advertising-Supported Internet Ecosystem”. IAB Report. 2009,


Government contracts can change the software industry for the better.  Even when governments do not ultimately select an open source program, by simply including them in the competitive bidding process, they have been able to radically change the approach that Microsoft and other closed source companies take to producing IT solutions.  Under threat from Linux, Microsoft has launched the Open Source Initiative through which it shares elements of some of its programs’ source code with key partners to enable the development of software for platforms like Windows Mobile [i] . More dramatically, in 2002, Real Networks opened up the source code for its world renowned RealPlayer media and music software package and, in 2005, IBM offered 500 key patents (out of 40,000) to the open source community. Sun Microsystems released its Solaris server operating system to the open source community under the Common Development and Distribution licence in 2005. If you accept that the open source software industry is a positive force, then simply by considering open source software, governments are doing well.  [i] Ed Hansberry. “Open Source WebOS: A Win For Windows Phone?” Information Week. 12 December 2011.


Open source software is more adaptable to government needs.  Open source software starts from a completely different viewpoint of how products should be created. Rather than resembling a traditional hierarchical organisation (such as an early twentieth century business, an army or a monastic order) where everyone has their own clearly defined role and are told how to proceed by a top-down central authority, open-source software development is more like an open market where everyone is engaged in the same activity but come at it from different directions. [i]  Out of this cacophonous market, a more fluid product emerges. The basic advantage of open source software is that, as users can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, it evolves. This means that users and programmers can improve, adapt and fix the software at a much faster pace than Microsoft or another closed source developer can match. The highly collegiate culture in which contemporary approaches to coding evolved continues to create programmers who are naturally curious about the functions and features of new software. Open source software harnesses the wide range of ideas and methodologies that different coders use to writer software to refine and improve existing programmes. Open source software solicits a wide variety of solutions to particular coding problems; the more solutions that coders generate, the more likely it is that an optimal solution will be discovered.  Not only does the approach described above result in the creation of higher quality programmes, it also allows businesses and individual coders to easily adapt existing programmes to their needs. Monopolistic producers like Microsoft have an incentive to slow the pace of change, whereas the open source community will simply choose the best solution. In this way, open source software is more robust and more responsive to governments’ changing needs than closed source alternatives.  [i] Raymond, Eric. “The Cathedral and the Bazaar.” Cunningham & Cunningham. 18 February 2010.


Governments can re-define industry standards by choosing open source software.  Economists use the term ‘network effect’ to describe the phenomenon whereby, as several people use the same communication platform (be it a specific device, such as a telephone, or a complicated service, such as Facebook), it becomes more valuable for others to use because they can share and collaborate on work with a wider range of individuals.  Network effects explain why Microsoft’s monopoly of around 90% of the desktop market with its Windows and Office software has been so hard to challenge [i] .  Governments are one of the few organisations which can define industry standards because citizens and businesses increasingly have to interact with governments electronically. Brazil’s Digital Inclusion Program, for example, has selected open source software for 58 government units rather than Windows or Microsoft Office [ii] . The result is that businesses and Brazilian citizens can use the same open source software at home, knowing they will be able to interact with their government. As open source software is often either free or cheaper than closed source alternatives, this approach enables local authorities, private businesses and individual citizens to interact more easily with the state, removing many of the obstacles and objections to the wider adoption of information technology.  [i] Lie, Hakon Wium. “Microsoft’s forgotten monopoly.” CNET News. 19 June 2006.  [ii] Fried, Ina. “Brazil: Digital inclusion, but how?” CNET News. 27 August 2008.


Open source software undermines national security.  Even if closed source software firms are ultimately answerable to their shareholders, their shareholders want them to produce software which meets the needs of their customers so that they can sell their products. That is why Microsoft has offered a cheap version of Windows Vista to developing nations, and has been willing to cut the price of its software in negotiations with governments around the world.  More worrying than the burden that closed source software places on a government’s coffers is the threat that open source software presents to a state’s security.  By definition, the code for open source software is freely available. However, the continual attempts to hack into government computer systems demonstrate that many of the same hackers are now moving beyond mere targets of opportunity. Hackers could well take advantage of the increasing ubiquity of open source code to attack national computer systems.  The additional security that open source software claims to benefit from is an illusion. Rather, it is the lack of ubiquitous open source platforms that has kept OSs such as Linux and BSD safe from attack. The possibility that an might yield some form of a reward is reduced when a hacker is presented with fewer viable targets.  Although open source code may give ethical and honest coders more opportunities to spot the flaws in programmes, it also incentivises hackers to invest their efforts in spotting such flaws first.


Closed source software is better at meeting consumer needs.  Closed source software companies are more than capable of segmenting their products to reach each part of the market, as Microsoft has shown by producing its new Windows 7 operating system in a record six different versions.  Microsoft’s monopoly of desktop computers ensures that if a programmer produces a niche software package or software translation for a specialized purpose, that programmer knows that potential clients will almost certainly be able to run the program if it is designed for Windows. If this monopoly is broken up and governments start to push Linux or other open source alternatives, the programmer will either have to develop for two or more platforms, thereby increasing the cost of the final product, or they will have to gamble on a single platform; both options would reduce the likelihood of the niche solution reaching the clients that need it.  While open source software does allow anyone to spot a potential market and customize software to sell to that market, that access is also its great undoing. The type of accessibility that many open source products pride themselves on providing leaves projects open to abuse, either by well-meaning amateurs or intentional wreckers. Constant self-policing by the open source community is required, in order to guarantee the stability of the software it creates. An analogy can be drawn with Wikipedia, where the freedom of the mob led to defamatory statements being written about the former editor of USA Today [i] . Governments should be wary of relying on an anarchic, self-organising community to serve their IT needs, no matter how smart and well intentioned the members of that community may be.  [i] Seigenthaler, John. .”A false Wikipedia “biography”.” USA Today. 29 November 2005


Open source software is more expensive for governments in the long run.  Open source software is often confused with free software; in fact, it is usually provided at some cost to the user. More importantly, if a Microsoft product fails, a government IT department knows that it can rely on a patch or technical support. Whereas, with open source software, they are left waiting on a community to get round to tackling the problem. This has meant that governments which choose open source software have had to pay for expensive support packages, which makes the total cost of the IT solution similar to that of the closed source software. This has been to the advantage of major consultancy firms, which are often chosen to put together IT solutions and who can make more money from pushing expensive support contracts than on upfront costs for software.  In the rush to find the software with the cheapest sticker price, there is a risk that governments will end up paying more overall for open software that lacks the accessibility and features of the closed source alternatives.


Non violent methods of disrupting riots must be tried before using force  When riots are on-going then the police needs to act but the safety of everyone involved should be considered to be paramount. If a riot will not disperse peacefully then the police often find they need to use batons, water cannon, or even in extremis tear gas or rubber bullets. It is the police’s duty to bring back public order by stopping riots through these methods. However this should not be at the expense of a much more preventative approach that shutting down social media networks would allow. If during instances of rioting the police are able to prevent those rioters from encouraging their friends to join them so expanding the riots then this is the right course of action to take. Rioters used social media like activists, to outmanoeuvre the police targeting areas where there was little police presence. Cutting off their means of communication would make this much harder and less effective. [1] This has been used effectively in the past; the San Francisco BART, shut down mobile phones on its network to prevent protests which it feared could lead to clashes with commuters, it may well have been the reason why there were no such protests, but it did spark outrage over violations of freedom of speech. [2]  [1] O’Rourke, Simon, “Empowering protest through social media”, Edith Cowan University Research Online, 2011,  P.51  [2] Cabanatuan, M., “BART admits halting cell service to stop protests”, SFGate,


Free speech is not useful in this context, as riot is never legitimate in a free society  Riots should not be tolerated in a free society as there are already legal and peaceful methods of dissenting such as through demonstrations, petitions, and contacting your representative in Parliament. It demonstrates a fundamental unwillingness to engage with not only the apparatus of the state, but society more generally. Rioters have no regard for the public, and the violence and damage they cause harms everyone. Riots tend to do little to actually challenge the state, but rather they tend to harm the most disadvantaged, those who happen to be in the vicinity of the mobs. The freedom of speech social media provides to its users is being fundamentally misused in the context of riots. [1] When speech is used to organize violence, it must be curtailed for the sake of society as individuals security and safety is more important that freedom of speech that is briefly curtailed. Violence damages long after the event whereas those who have their freedom of speech curtailed for a few hours can swiftly voice their opinions once the riot has ended and the block lifted.  [1] Thomson, A. and Hutton, R., “UK May Block Twitter, Blackberry Messaging Services in Future Riots”. Bloomberg. 11 August 2011.


Would stop riots from spreading  The police must try to stop riots from spreading and stop copycat rioting elsewhere. Knowledge of rioting happening elsewhere is often the Oxygen of riots; the riots in Manchester and elsewhere outside of London in 2011 were mostly as a result of media exposure. According to Greater Manchester Police chief Peter Fahy "A certain group of people saw what was happening in London and decided they seemed to be getting away with it. We knew what was absolutely critical was that there needed to be control of London. Because that was just creating more and more copycat violence up here." [1] Cutting off social media would have helped prevent the riots from spreading so ensuring that they remain small and a localised problem.  [1] Pilkington, D., “Rioting in London sparked 'copycat' behaviour”, The Independent, 14 November 2011.


Social networks serve as a powerful signalling device for the expansion of violent behaviour  By using Twitter to signal the start of riots it attracts people to join the mob. People in riots generally look to those around them in order to see what is considered acceptable behaviour. As boundaries are crossed, such as the change from indiscriminate vandalism to looting, and reported on Twitter, the same behaviour echoes elsewhere. The lens through which rioters determine acceptable behaviour is expanded, so the chance of behaviours like looting rippling across the various mob groups within a locale increases. One escalation of violence becomes multiple escalations. Twitter is thus a serious danger to society during periods of social unrest and rioting, because it acts as a catalyst for further mayhem. By blocking Twitter governments are able to manage flashpoints and prevent them from expanding violence to other locations. This makes riot situations both less likely to escalate, and easier to break up.


Blocking social networks denies people the ability to mobilize on genuine social issues  The state may not be the best placed to gauge the legitimacy of riots. Oftentimes riots are the result of massive social pressures, like poverty or limited integration of immigrant communities. When these issues are not properly addressed, or outright ignored by the ruling elites, they boil over. Positive things can come from riots. They can put the issues on the table and bring them screaming into the public consciousness. This is the difference between the Arab Spring that was considered legitimate and the London riots that were not, apart from the initial peaceful protests the riots did not have an agenda to create change. [1] The government suppressing legitimate demonstrations, whether they do it with physical force or internet repression, ultimately serves only to push away the problem, to continue to ignore it. [2] Blocking social networks therefore only seeks to muzzle the expression of outrage that is sometimes entirely justified. The media attention and organizing power of social networks serves to get people engaged, motivated, and visible. The government should not seek to stop that. They should seek to prevent protest and demonstration from spilling into violence. Blocking access to social networks will not aid in that endeavour.  [1] Stylianou, A., “Cyber Regulation and the Riots”, Legal matters, Autumn 2011.   [2] Dugan, L. “Blocking Twitter During Riots a Bad Idea, Study Proves”. Media Bistro. 2011.


It is better to monitor riots through the social media rioters are using  It is wrong to suggest that social networks only provide advantages to the rioters in a riot. Many of the networks that can be used are open to the public and even where they are not as with blackberry messenger the police and intelligence services can likely gain access. This means that the police can also benefit from rioters use of social networks. Allowing the rioters to communicate can help the police to track what the rioters are doing and potentially to intercept any plans before they can be put into action. The same logic is used with websites that promote extremist ideologies; it is often better to monitor them for the intelligence they provide. The police already monitor protest groups in this way during demonstrations and even use it to help police impromptu raves so will surely apply it to riots. [1] Yet the social media is useful in other ways, particularly after the rioting it can be used to work out who was involved and to provide evidence against them so making the police much more efficient at catching and charging rioters.  [1] Rawlinson, K., “Activists warned to watch what they say as social media monitoring becomes 'next big thing in law enforcement”, The Independent, 1 October 2012,


The state can use blocking Twitter and its ilk as precedent to censor the internet in the “public interest”  The state always likes to expand its powers over speech, particularly when that speech is damaging to the government’s credibility. The freedom of speech is a critical right in all free societies precisely because it is the ultimate check ordinary citizens have to challenge the powers that be, to express dissent, and to organize with like-minded people dissatisfied with the way government is running. The internet has been the most powerful and valuable tool in the expansion of individuals’ power of their governments. [1] The state quakes at the raw people power services like Twitter provides. It is the last frontier largely free of the state’s power, and the state has sought to expand its influence. By blocking Twitter the government would be able to get its first foothold in blocking free speech online. [2] The power of that beachhead would serve to give it further credibility in censoring other services online in the public interest. It is much better that the government be kept entirely out of these services, than let them begin the slow creep of intervention that would be a serious threat to the freedom of individuals on the internet.  [1] Anti-Defamation League. “Combating Extremism in Cyberspace”. 2000.   [2] Temperton, J. “Blocking Facebook and Twitter During Riots Threatens Freedom”. Computer Active. 15 August 2011.


Police should not block the communications and freedom of expression of law-abiding citizens  The blocking of social networks, of the internet, or of mobile phone networks in times of riot would be an illegitimate curtailment of a private company’s right to do business and serve its customers. Social networks are business and have many users. Even more important is the impact on everyone who is not associated with the rioting. When these actions are taken it harms everyone, perhaps even millions of people at a given time. [1] The action taken by the state to seek to prevent the spreading of the riots is not only ineffective it is also a massive imposition on the rights of the citizens of the polity. Their freedom of speech is curtailed, business is harmed, and the riots continue. Studies of the use of Twitter during the riots in London showed that during rioting it was mostly used to react to the riots to send warnings to avoid trouble rather than incite violence. [2] Blocking access or cutting off communications would therefore mean putting at risk those people who otherwise would have been warned not to go near areas with rioting.  [1] Temperton, J. “Blocking Facebook and Twitter During Riots Threatens Freedom”. Computer Active. 15 August 2011.   [2] Ball, J., and Lewis, P., “Riots database of 2.5m tweets reveals complex picture of interaction”, The Guardian, 24 August 2011.


Blocking social networks will not work  How are the police to block social networks when riots are ongoing? The idea that blocking an individual network like Twitter would stop online networking and reporting during riots is laughable and misunderstands the rapidity with which the internet community adapts to changed circumstances and attempts at censorship. Blocking Twitter might work once, but never again. This is why there have been suggestions that the police would go further and either cut off the internet or phone networks as they would effectively need to impose a communications blackout in order for it to be successful, much as the Chinese does in Tibet when there is unrest. [1] Even then the action may not work, rioters will likely simply post pictures and encouragement for the next night’s rioting once the internet and mobile connections are restored as governments would have to do if they did not want to affect the law abiding majority during the day.  [1] Branigan, T., “China cut off internet in area of Tibetan unrest”, The Guardian, 3 February 2012.


Internet regjulation is a euphemism for censorship  Governments are trying to control what citizens can and can’t say online and what they can and can’t access. This can vary from France and Germany requiring Google to suppress Nazism in search results [1] to the Great Firewall of China, where the Chinese government almost fully controls what’s said and seen on the internet and has an army of censors. [2]  This type of internet censorship is bad because citizens should have freedom of speech and uninhibited access to information, [3] a right so fundamental that we have enshrined it in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [4] and reaffirmed by the participants of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2003. [5]  [1] Zittrain and Edelman, Localized Google search result exclusions, 2005  [2] Internet censorship in China, 2010  [3] Free Speech Debate, 2012  [4] article 19, Universal Declaration of Human Rights  [5] Declaration of Principles, article 4, 2003


Regulating the Internet is a means for governments to spy on their citizens  Governments around the world are tracking their citizens’ activities online. [1] They can use all sorts of techniques, like automated data-mining (i.e. via trawling your Facebook and Twitter accounts) and deep packet inspection of each electronic message sent (i.e. intercepting and reading your email). All these methods are violations of important principles.  The automated data-mining violates the principle that people shouldn’t be investigated by their governments unless there is warrant for it (so there is reasonable suspicion that they have been involved in a crime). Also, data mining creates many false positives, leading to citizens being thoroughly investigated without probable cause. [2] Deep packet inspection violates people’s fundamental right to secrecy of correspondence, which is a violation of privacy.  The problem with these government policies is that they’re hard to control – even in democracies: much of the spying is done by intelligence agencies, which are often able to evade democratic control on account of the need for secrecy rather than transparency. [3]  [1] Reporters Without Borders, Enemies of the internet, 2012 and Kingsley, Britain won’t be the only country snooping on people’s internet use, 2012  [2] US Researchers Decide Spying On Citizens Is Bad, 2008  [3] Electronic Frontier Foundation, ‘NSA Spying’.


Internet regulation is an attempt by big interest groups to regulate the internet in their favour  Large companies have an active interest in shaping the structure of the internet. One example of this is the Stop Online Piracy-Act (SOPA), [1] wherein U.S.-based music and movie companies proposed that they themselves would be able to police copyright infringements against websites that are hosted outside of the United States. [2]  The phenomenon whereby companies succeed in shaping government policies according to their own wishes is called ‘regulatory capture’. Another example from the telecommunications industry is the lobby effort by several large corporations, who have succeeded in eroding consumer protection in their favour. [3] If the government wouldn’t have been involved in regulating the internet in the first place, big companies wouldn’t have had any incentive to attempt regulatory capture.  [1] 112th Congress, ‘H.R.3261 – Stop Online Piracy Act’  [2] Post, ‘SOPA and the Future of Internet Governance’, 2012  [3] Kushnick, ‘ALEC, Tech and the Telecom Wars: Killing America's Telecom Utilities’, 2012


Internet governance is necessary to combat heinous crimes committed via the internet  The internet is a means of communication – therefore also a means of communication between criminals. And because it is global it creates global crime problems that need coordinated responses. One type of crime that has particularly become a problem on the internet is child sexual abuse material: the internet allows for an easy and anonymous distribution method which can even be secured by modern encryption methods. [1]  Governments can help fight this by requiring ISPs and mobile companies to track people’s internet histories, hand over data when requested, and allow police to get information from them without a search warrant, something which has been proposed by the Canadian government. [2] In Australia, the government even proposed mandatory filtering of all internet traffic by ISPs to automatically filter out all child sexual abuse material. [3]  Admittedly, these measures seem drastic – but in cases like these, or similar cases like terrorism, the harm prevented is more important.  [1] ‘Child Pornography on the Rise, Justice Department Reports’. 2010.  [2] ‘Current laws not focused enough to combat child porn online’. 2012.  [3] Mcmenamin, Bernadette, ‘Filters needed to battle child porn’. 2008.


Internet regulation is necessary to ensure a working economy on the internet  As seen above, the internet has enabled many types of criminal behavior. But it has also enabled normal citizens to share files. Music, movie and game producers have difficulty operating in a market where their products get pirated immediately after release and spread for free instantaneously on a massive scale. The internet enables violation of their right of ownership, gained through providing the hard work of creating a work of art, on a massive scale. Since it’s impractical to sue and fine each and every downloader, a more effective and less invasive policy would be government requiring Internet Service Providers to implement a graduated response policy, which has ISPs automatically monitor all internet traffic and fine their users when they engage in copyright violation. Something along these lines has already been tried in France, called HADOPI, which has succeeded in decreasing the downloading of unauthorized content. [1]  Apart from this, governments also need to think about how to translate everyday offline activities onto the internet. For example, when you file your tax report offline, you would sign it with your handwritten signature. The online variant would be a digital signature. [2] Developing and deploying a digital signature would enable citizens and corporations to do business, file their tax reports and pay their taxes online.  [1] Crumley, ‘Why France’s Socialists Won’t Kill Sarkozy’s Internet Piracy Law’, 2012  [2] Wikipedia, ‘Digital Signatures’, 2012.


Internet regulation is necessary to ensure a safe internet  Citizens, corporations, and public organizations face several security threats when online: critical infrastructure systems can be hacked, like the energy transport system, [1] citizens can fall victim to identity theft, [2] and phishing, [3] whereby hackers gain access to bank accounts or other sensitive information. Specifically, it seems that the public sector is attacked the most. [4]  In response to cyber-threats like these, many governments have set up Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs), Incident Response and Security Teams (IRTs), or Computer Security and Incident Response Teams (CSIRT; the fact that we haven’t settled on a fitting acronym yet shows how much it is still a novel phenomenon): agencies that warn citizens and organizations alike when a new threat emerges and provides a platform for (the exchange of) expertise in methods of preventing cyber-threats and exchanging information on possible perpetrators of such threats. Oftentimes, these (inter)governmental agencies provide a place where private CSIRTs can also cooperate and exchange information. [5]  These agencies provide a similar function online as the regular police provides offline: by sharing information and warnings against threats, they create a safer world.  [1] ‘At Risk: Hacking Critical Infrastructure’. 2012.  [2] ‘Identity theft on the rise’. 2010.  [3] ‘Phishing websites reach all-time high’. 2012.  [4] ‘Public sector most targeted by cyber attacks’. 2012.  [5] see for example the About Us page of the US-CERT or the About the NCSC page of the Dutch CERT


Not censoring helps Google’s business proposition and corporate identity  Google’s corporate motto is ‘don’t be evil’. This is partly an issue of corporate identity, and partly a clever business proposition. In both cases, complying with Chinese censorship rules damages Google as a company.  The key to Google’s dominance in the search market is that users know Google will always deliver the search results most relevant to them. By adhering to censorship laws, users will trust the relevance of Google’s search results less, which hence erodes Google’s business position as users will be more likely to try alternative search engines. [1]  [1] Rebecca Blood, ‘Google's China decision is pragmatic, not idealistic’, January 2010. URL:


Not censoring its search results is a victory for human rights  The problem with Google censoring its results, is that in doing so, it is complicit in China’s repression of free speech: it adapts its own search engine to display only the results the Chinese government wants, thereby limiting its citizens’ basic human right to free access to information (a corollary to free speech). By avoiding this complicity, Google is taking a bold, praiseworthy step towards enhancing respect for human rights in China and with it, Google can set an important example for other businesses with dealings in China. [1]  [1] Human Rights Watch, ‘China: Google Challenges Censorship’, January 12, 2010. URL:


Not censoring puts global pressure on China to change its free speech policies  Google’s decision to stop censoring was world news, and has put internet freedom on everyone’s agenda – even so much so, that U.S. Secretary of State mentioned internet companies ganging up to censor the Chinese corner of the internet specifically as a threat to freedom worldwide in a recent speech. [1] This helps to inform ordinary citizens of other countries who may not know about the ‘great firewall’ what the Chinese government is doing. By making a high-profile decision like this, and by engaging and informing the governments and publics of free and democratic countries like this, Google increases the public and political pressure on China to change its ways.  [1] Hillary Clinton, ‘Conference on Internet Freedom’, December 8, 2011. URL:


Google will help Chinese internet freedom more by staying  As Google itself argued in 2006 when it first entered the Chinese domestic market; when Google is fully present in China, it can at least do its very best to allow its Chinese users as much access to all the information that Chinese users are allowed to look up. By expanding their access, Google can at least contribute to a broadening of the amount of information Chinese internet users can gather. The alternative is them relying on an even more censored Chinese search engine called Baidu, or having them try to access a heavily blocked, slowed down, restricted and monitored version of Google outside of China, for example google.com or the Hong Kong-based Google.com.hk. Having a locally accessible version of Google that is censored might not be optimal, but it’s better than nothing. [1]  [1] Karen Wickre, ‘Testimony: The Internet in China’, February 15, 2006. URL:  Last consulted: December 22, 2011


As a business, Google shouldn’t interfere with domestic politics  Business is business and politics is politics – and the two shouldn’t mingle. When a company wants to operate in a foreign country, it should respect the government and its regulations. We require the same when a company wants to operate within our territory: suppose a big Chinese company came to our home country and suddenly started criticizing our domestic policies – these are the policies of the sovereign state whose territory it is, and outsiders have no place to tell it how to run itself. [1]  [1] Nicholas Deleon, TechChrunch, ‘China has every right to be upset with Google right now’, March 23, 2010. URL:  Last consulted: December 22, 2011


Google can’t afford to abandon the Chinese market  In 2010, the search market in China was valued at $1.7 billion and was expected to grow at an average of 50% per year for the coming few years. [1] After the 2010 incident, Google has been losing market share in China rapidly. [2] From a business perspective, Google just can’t afford to miss out on such a business opportunity: not only will it miss entering this market when it is growing, it will also forfeit a comfortable position in the search market from which it can build its other businesses, like gmail and android, the way it does in other countries. [3]  [1] Melanie Lee, ‘Analysis: A year after China retreat, Google plots new growth’, Reuters, January 13, 2011. URL:   [2] Reuters, ‘Google search share slips as Baidu gains report’, July 26, 2010, URL:   [3] Kyle Baxter, ‘Android isn’t about building a mobile platform’, January 4, 2011. URL:  Last consulted: December 22, 2011


A graduated response will be an effective deterrent  Research has shown that consumers are likely to stop downloading from unauthorized sources when warned by their ISP. For example: Seven out of ten (72%) UK music consumers would stop illegally downloading if told to do so by their ISP, and 90 per cent of consumers would stop illegally file-sharing after two warnings from their ISP. [1]  This shows that the threat of a possible disconnection together with a friendly warning is enough to stop most consumers from downloading from illegal source. The reasoning behind it is simple: consumers can now download without a cost, a graduated response mechanism first raises awareness scaring off those who are only casually downloading out of convenience and then heightens the expected cost of infringement and thus makes it more likely consumers will use legal sources. [2] [1] IFPI, Digital Music Report 2009. 2009. URL for PDF:   [2] Olivier Bomsel and Heritania Ranaivoson, ‘Decreasing copyright enforcement costs: the scope of a graduated response’. 2009. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, Volume 6(2), p. 13 – 29. URL for PDF:


The unauthorised downloading of copyrighted material should be addressed and prevented by the state  Copyrighted material is intellectual property: someone worked hard for it to produce it. Downloading this content without paying the proper rights holder for it amounts to theft.  Furthermore, downloading copyrighted material from an unauthorized source creates an impossible market for producers of copyrighted content, because they have to ‘compete with free’. Why would the average consumer want to pay for a download from an authorized website, when she can get the same movie from a pirate-site for free? To build a commercially viable content industry online, we need to protect this industry from the unfair competition of the parallel market. [1]  [1] Piotr Stryszowski , Danny Scorpecci, Piracy of Digital Content. 2009, OECD Publishing. URL for purchase:


A graduated response is the fairest way to enforce copyright legislation  First, the sanction after three warnings can be tailored to fit general notions of justice, the punishment need not be severe and could fit the crime: maybe a consumer would be cut off of the internet for only two weeks, or only cut off from accessing download sites but still be allowed to access government and banking sites, or receive a small fine.  Secondly, the consumer has ample time to change his or her behaviour: a consumer can insist on infringing copyright at least two times before the sanction takes place. The consumer can easily avoid being cut off (even temporarily), meaning the punishment likely doesn’t even have to take place. [1]  [1] Barry Sookman, ‘Graduated response and copyright: an idea that is right for the times’, January 10th, 2010. URL:


ISP will not cooperate with a graduated response policy  The graduated response model requires cooperation from all Internet Service Providers. If just one ISP refuses, users will flock towards that ISP to be able to keep on downloading. Therefore there will always be an incentive to be the ISP that refuses so as to gain custom from others who have agreed to cooperate. ISPs will also have an incentive to not cooperate because the cost of monitoring and identifying is large, and significantly more so for smaller ISPs: initial estimates of the cost of graduated response for ISPs were around 500 million pounds over a period of ten years. [1]  [1] Michael Geist, ‘Estimating the cost of a three strikes and you’re out system’, January 26, 2010. URL:


The graduated response is a violation of the basic right to due process  Detection of copyright infringement isn’t usually done by a detective sitting behind a computer. It relies on software like automated crawlers and fingerprinting, often created by commercial vendors and hired by the copyright holders. This software automatically sends detected infringements to the ISP, without someone actually checking if this allegation is correct. This means many consumers can be unjustly accused of copyright infringement.  Moreover, most graduated response policies proposed require no judicial intervention at all for the sanction to be invoked. This means private organisations get to decide who has committed a crime and deserves the punishment. The ISPs and copyright holders therefore act as accuser, prosecution, judge and executioner. On top of this if a consumer would go to court, he would also face a reversal of the burden of proof: since he is suing against being fined, he has to prove that he is not guilty, a reversal of the presumption of innocence. [1]  [1] Peter K. Yu, ‘The Graduated Response’. 2010. Florida Law Review, Volume 62. Available for download (PDF) at:


The graduate response policy constitutes an invasion of privacy by the state  Graduated response would require huge amounts of monitoring and logging of all internet traffic using technical systems called ‘deep packet inspection’ (DPI) equipment. This means that a computer program will look in close detail at all of the information someone sends over the internet in order to check whether it violates some protocol, for example a ‘fingerprint’ of copyrighted data that the content creator put in.  This means a copyright holder, or a third party paid by the copyright holder to monitor internet traffic, suddenly has access to everything every consumer sends over the internet. This is a massive violation of privacy. Given the fact that advertising companies are already using DPI illegitimately for targeted advertising, it is obvious that content companies will also feel tempted to ‘do more’ with all that data they suddenly have access to. [1]  [1] Angela Daly, ‘The Legality of Deep Packet Inspection’, 2010. Presented at the First Interdisciplinary Workshop on Communications Policy and Regulation 'Communications and Competition Law and Policy – Challenges of the New Decade', University of Glasgow 17 June 2010. URL for download:


The right to internet access fills a gap in traditional human rights.  In our traditional human rights there is a hole when it comes to a right to receive and be able to seek out information. Almost everyone would consider freedom of speech and freedom of expression to be human rights but these rights are not very effective if there is not a way for those who wish to access that information. Michael L Best contends that Article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights on freedom of expression implies some symmetry but that freedom of authorship is privileged over freedom of readership. [1] In short governments could allow freedom of expression while ensuring that those expressing dissenting views have a very minimal audience without breaking human rights.  A right to the internet is the perfect human right to fill this gap. The internet is estimated to have over 35 billion web pages, [2] and the most recent digital universe study estimates that 1.8 trillion gigabytes would be created in 2011. [3] The sheer size of the internet means that it is the ideal medium for providing this right to access information. [4] The internet is also increasingly accessible to everyone making it possible to be considered universal; it is no longer something that the poor cannot hope to have access to. There are already over 2.1 billion people using the internet worldwide including 118 million in Africa. [5]  [1] Best, Michael L., ‘Can the Internet be a Human Right?’ Human Rights and Human Welfare, Vol.4 2004, p.23 (n.b. this link comes up with a warning when opened, dont worry it is safe - ahelling)  [2] World Wide Web Size.com, ‘The size of the World Wide Web (The Internet)’, 17 April 2012 .  [3] McGaughey, Katryn, ‘World’s Data More Than Doubling Every Two Years – Driving Big Data Opportunity, EMC2, 28 June 2011.  [4] Best, Michael L., ‘Can the Internet be a Human Right?’ Human Rights and Human Welfare, Vol.4 2004, p.23  [5] Clayton, Nick, ‘Internet has More Than 2 Billion Users’, TechEurope The Wall Street Journal, 19 January 2012.


Internet access as a new human right.  Access to the internet can be considered a separate human right in and of itself. The UN special rapporteur in June 2011 published a report that implied that access to the internet is a human right “The Special Rapporteur remains concerned that legitimate online expression is being criminalized in contravention of States' international human rights obligations.” [1]  The right to internet access can meet the necessary conditions to be a human right; as a right is should be universal, everyone should have access not just a few. The internet is becoming much more than just a tool but is becoming a fundamental part of society creating a new sphere of interaction that everyone has a right to have access to.  Creating a right to internet access would be addressing a specific contemporary problem as with other human rights that are specific such as a right to basic schooling, enshrined in article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Not having access to the internet is similar to not having basic schooling; it considerably narrows people’s options and their horizons. As Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the world wide web, argues "Given the many ways the web is crucial to our lives and our work, disconnection is a form of deprivation of liberty." [2]  [1] La Rue, Frank, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Human Rights Council, Seventeenth session, A/HRC/17/27, 16 May 2011, p.10 .  [2] Burkeman, Oliver, ‘Inside Washington’s high risk mission to beat web censors’, guardian.co.uk, 15 April 2012.


Internet access is a necessary part of the right to freedom of information and expression.  Freedom of expression and speech and freedom of information is a fundamental freedom and is article 19 in the universal declaration of human rights. This is usually taken to have three parts for governments to uphold: a duty to respect, for the government not to interfere with the freedom to impart information, a duty to protect, preventing interference with lawful communications and, a duty to fulfil, a duty to provide government held information. [1] Access to the internet falls within this. The duty to respect means that governments cannot block access for people wishing to use the internet to express themselves. The duty to protect means government should prevent others from interfering with internet users and the duty to fulfil could easily be taken just a little bit further to having to provide access to the internet. Freedom of expression therefore covers a freedom to access the internet as it already provides for a freedom to access mediums to express ones’ self.  [1] Callamard, Agnes, ‘Towards a Third Generation of Activism for the Right to Freedom of Information’, in Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and Empowerment of People, UNESCO, 2009 pp.43-57. p.44


Internet access is a commodity not a human right.  If a human right is inherent and inalienable then if something is to be a human right it has to be freely available for all rather than being much more available to those who are rich. The internet however is a commodity. We are charged for access to it and can be cut off for not paying our bills. We are charged more to be able to download more, in effect to have greater access to this human right. There has never been any suggestion that the equally great media advances of TV and telephones are technologies worthy of being considered a human right. As with the internet these increased the ability to express opinions to a wide audience, they helped democratise news and making it much more international. They meant that human rights violations could be much more easily told to the world in much the same way the internet does.


Internet access cannot be a human right when it is not available to all.  If human rights are inalienable and inherent in humans then no technology can be a human right as not everyone can ever expect access all of the time. Certainly at the moment huge swathes of the world have no internet access and this does not mean that their governments are violating their human rights.  The analogy might be given to freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is a human right however we don’t need the aid of a car to be able to exercise this right the technology itself is unnecessary as we have an inherent ability to move just as we do to communicate.


Internet access is an enabler of rights not a right in itself.  The internet is an enabler and so has little value on its own. [1] No one would consider the internet a human right if there was no content or information on the internet, what good would be a right to stare at a screen? It is not therefore access to the internet that is the human right it is access to information. The internet is obviously useful for this but it is not essential. If someone was denied access to the internet while being locked in a library would he or she really have had any right to information infringed? In such a case the only argument for a right to the internet is that it faster to access the information through the internet than it would be to look it up in the books that are all around. There cannot therefore be considered to be a right to the internet even as part of any right to information because the right to information would simply require that a government provides access to this information not that it has to be via the internet. Moreover as an enabling technology it is quite possible that the internet may at some point be out of date and replaces by some new method of storing information. As something that is transitory it does not make sense to consider there to be any kind of inalienable right to the internet.  [1] Cerf, Vinton G., ‘Internet Access Is Not a Human Right’, The New York Times, 4 January 2012.


Human rights are dependent upon the state  There is clearly not universal or even widespread acceptance of the idea that internet access should be a human right. Human rights are dependent upon the state, the desires of the community, and that depends upon the state’s socio economic context. [1] The internet cannot therefore be considered a universal human right because not all states are advanced enough to take responsibility for this right.  International law is based upon several sources; state practice, customary law, treaties and judicial decisions. [2] None of these sources yet recognise internet access as a human right, indeed if state practice is taken as deciding if human rights exist then the whole concept of human rights is open to question. [3]  [1] Turkin, G., Theory of International Law, 1974, p.81  [2] Shaw, Malcolm N., International Law 4th ed., Cambridge University press, 1997, Chapter 3.  [3] Watson, J.S., Legal theory, efficacy and validity in the development of human rights norms in international law, University of Illinois law forum, 1979, p.609


You are not going to be arrested because the government has access to your communications  Clearly much of the time you really do have nothing to worry about when it comes to intelligence agencies having information about you. People are not regularly arrested without just cause and we have little evidence that democratic governments use this information to put pressure on their citizens. There have been no known cases of this happening since the start of the war on terror. [1] When it comes to foreign governments this is even less of a cause for concern; while your own government might be interested in various aspects of your life to help it with the services it provides foreign governments only have one motivation; their own national security. If you are not a threat to that national security the chances of them ever taking any action against you are essentially nonexistent.  [1] Posner, Eric, ‘I Don’t See a Problem Here’, The New York Times Room for Debate, 10 June 2013,


There is no physical risk  In terms of physical risk it is almost certainly true that you have nothing to fear from government having loads of information. With the exception perhaps of the Russian FSB and despite the James Bond films intelligence agencies in democracies are not in the habit of bumping people off this mortal coil. In this sense it does not matter at all what information the intelligence services have on you; no matter how naughty you may have been it is not going to be worth some kind of physical retaliation. Essentially the argument here is that it does no harm, and even does some good, so why should it not continue?


There are safeguards to prevent misuse  In democracies there are numerous safeguards and levels of oversight to prevent abuse. In the UK for example there is a “strong framework of democratic accountability and oversight”. Agencies are required “to seek authorisation for their operations from a Secretary of State, normally the Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary.” The Secretary is given legal advice and comments from civil servants. Once the Secretary has given assent they are “subject to independent review by an Intelligence Services Commissioner and an Interception of Communications Commissioner… to ensure that they are fully compliant with the law”. [1]  [1] Hague, William, ‘Prism statement in full’, politics.co.uk, 10 June 2013,


No one will ever actually look at the information  If the concern is privacy then there really should be little concern at all because there is safety in numbers. The NSA and other intelligence services don’t have the time or motivation to be tracking down all of our foibles. [1] If the intelligence agencies are watching everyone then they clearly do not have the personnel to be watching the actual communications. Instead certain things or patterns will raise alarm bells and a tiny number will be investigated more closely.  [1] Walt, Stephen M., ‘The real threat behind the NSA surveillance programs’, Foreign Policy, 10 June 2013,


Lack of trust  The problem is that when it comes to privacy it is not really our personal physical security that we are worried about. Part of the problem is that we value our right to a private life and that we should have control over that to the extent of being able to decide how much information others know about us. To a large extent this is an issue of trust; we (sometimes wrongly) trust our friends and others with information about us. We often trust faceless entities; companies and governments too though usually to less of an extent. But a lot of that trust is as a result of their willingness to tell us what they know about us, to provide information in return, or to provide methods for us to restrict what they know. In cases like this that trust has not been earned; we were not asked, and not obviously given anything back, and there seems little change of us changing the terms of the relationship.


Loss of Privacy  It is wrong to state that we only have anything to ‘fear’ if we have done something wrong; a great many people want to keep things private where what they have done is morally perfectly right and justifiable. It is perfectly justified for a married couple to want to keep a video of them having sex private – even if it is sent from one partner to the other by email, or for someone to keep his/her sexual orientation secret even if they have told someone about it. [1] If we want such information to be kept private does the state have any business picking that information up from our emails? It may not go any further than the intelligence agency, it is possible no one there will look at it but it is still an invasion of privacy.  [1] Phillipson, Gavin, ‘Q&A: The right to privacy’, BBC Religion, 14 June 2013,


The use of meta data causes unintentional harm  The other possible harm is unintentional. The amount of data involved is huge and too much even for a vast organization like the NSA to actually physically look at. Instead it uses data mining. This is why the NSA wants data that may seem useless to others. The records of which phone numbers are phoning who, as the NSA was obtaining of Verizon, might seem useless but can tell them who you are contacting, and how much contact time they have. In turn they could look at who your contacts have been talking to and if it turns out that several of them talk regularly to suspected terrorists then even if you are innocent a finger of suspicion might be pointed. There has even been a study showing that individuals can be identified from just the time of call and nearest cell phone tower after just four calls. [1] PRISM gives the NSA even more ‘useless’ data to play with. The results of this data mining may usually be accurate but will not always be so and the result of being flagged like this can be problematic for individuals. It may mean additional airport security, having problems getting a visa, [2] or in the worst case finding its way onto a no fly list.  [1] De Montjoye, Yves-Alexandre, et al., ‘Unique in the Crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility’, Scientific Reports, 3, 25 March 2013,   [2] Brown, Ian, ‘Yes, NSA surveillance should worry the law-abiding’, guardian.co.uk, 10 June 2013,


Abuse of information and power by intelligence agencies  Even when the government does not intend harm there are still cases where direct harms can occur as a result of surveillance. The most worrying are where the state abuses the information it holds. Abuse of power and of the information held by government is perhaps the main reason why it is difficult to trust in intelligence agencies. In one historical example from the 1950s FBI agents interviewed a Brooklyn liquor importer for repeating a rumor that the FBI Director J Edgar Hoover might be a “queer”. This clearly necessitated a reminder through questioning that Hoover’s “personal conduct is beyond reproach,” leading to the man quickly agreeing that “he thinks Mr. Hoover has done a wonderful job.” [1] Did this have anything to do with national security? No. Was it an abuse of power and surveillance? Yes. So far as we are aware the intelligence agencies don’t do things quite like this anymore but the revelations like PRISM, or the waterboarding a decade ago, show they are still happy to abuse their position from time to time. This is hardly a good way to build trust.  [1] Gage, Beverly, ‘It’s Not About Your Cat Photos’, Slate, 10 June 2013,


A threat to democracy  Yes the NSA is unlikely to look at individual’s personal information if the person in question is nobody of interest yet there are people who may be of interest to the state who are essentially innocent of anything except annoying the state. The ability for almost anyone in the intelligence apparatus to look up personal information has to worry anyone who might otherwise dissent, investigate the government, or turn whistleblower. Intelligence officials can hold the information as a weapon to ensure compliance and ruin careers if they don’t get their way. [1] This has happened before. In the US when diplomat Joseph C. Wilson published about the manipulation of intelligence on uranium from Niger being used as part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq his wife had her cover blown and career destroyed by people within the Department of Defense. [2] When we know that the Obama administration has been more determined than ever to prevent leaks and prosecute perpetrators can it really be said there is no damage to democracy if these courageous people are not coming forward?  [1] Walt, Stephen M., ‘The real threat behind the NSA surveillance programs’, Foreign Policy, 10 June 2013,   [2] Wilson, Joseph C., ‘What I Didn’t Find in Africa’, The New York Times, 6 July 2003,   Lewis, Neil A., ‘Source of C.I.A. Leak Said to Admit Role’, The New York Times, 30 August 2006,


Risk of a two-tier Internet  As things stand there are relatively flat rate services. The concern is that ISP would charge higher rates for full Internet access or act to ensure that their own content arrived seamlessly and smoothly, while that of competitors was delayed or poorer quality or that higher bandwidth applications end up with a higher price-tag [i] .  This is of concern both to end users and to the producers of content. There are very real concerns here, as a result, about the impact this has on freedom of expression. The best way to avoid censorship – either commercial or political – is to ensure that it remains impossible to achieve in the first place.  Once it becomes possible to give preference to some forms of content or points of origin, then commercial censorship at least becomes a great deal easier.  [i] BBC News Website. “BT Content Connect service faces ‘two-tier net’ claims. 4 January 2011.


Privacy  This was the clinching argument in the Dutch example. Labour MP Martijn van Dam, one of the bill’s co-authors said that Dutch ISP KPN was similar to “a postal worker who delivers a letter, looks to see what’s in it and then claims he hasn’t read it. It is simply a basic principle of the Internet that for it to continue working as it does now, all data needs to be treated the same otherwise judgements will be formed on ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ data [i] .  The principle here is that the data being used is simply none of the ISPs business. Their job is simply to provide an agreed bandwidth, at an agreed price to the end user. How the end user makes use of that band width is up to them. If, for example, they’re choosing to Skype from a mobile device – one of the points of contention – it’s hard to see what that has to do with the ISP.  [i] PCWorld. Matthew Honan, MacWorld. “Inside Net Neutrality: Privacy and BitTorrent. 14 February 2008.


Threats to Freeware, Shareware and Objectivity  There are very real concerns that ISPs have a commercial interest in guiding people away from certain sites – especially when those sites provide services or products for nothing when the ISP or a related company charges for a competing product. File sharing more generally is an obvious target. The example of Comcast against NetFlix and other file sharing sites is simply the most obvious [i] .  There are also concerns about the impact on objectivity more generally; the Internet works most effectively as a tool because it is, by definition cross-referencing. Although there are many mistakes on many sources as a whole it is possible to reach something resembling the truth. Essentially, “We need freeware, we need shareware, and we need open access. People need to be able to trust sources that they can find on the internet, rather than have them controlled in a small number of hands or by the government.” [ii] Making some sites more accessible than others reduces users’ choice and their ability to check multiple sites so preventing this cross-referencing.  [i] A useful overview of some of the more notorious examples can be found here .  [ii] Bob Gibson, Executive Director of the University of Virginia’s Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership, on the Charlottesville, VA, politics interview program Politics Matters with host and producer Jan Madeleine Paynter discussing journalism


Allow ISPs to monitor and remove illegal or unwanted data  Many ISPs are responding to user interests when cutting out particular types of data. At the request of the user why shouldn’t they be able to monitor what is delivered to a certain IP address. Most ‘net nanny’ software is not that difficult to get around [i] .  Why not let parents who bought their kids a computer to help with their homework not be able to block them from making calls or watching movies?  If you compel net neutrality then, say, the ISP who caters for religious customers can no longer deliver the service that they have requested. Denying freedom of choice seems a high price to pay so that someone can get movies without paying for them.  Equally, if ISPs themselves want to stay within the law and prevent people from accessing illegal or otherwise unpleasant sites, why shouldn’t they?  [i] Foss Force: Keeping Tech Free. Caesar Tjalbo. “Top 10 Reasons ISPs are against net neutrality”.


Realistic costs for users and providers of bandwidth and phones  The example of mobile devices is, perhaps the most clear-cut. Manufacturers of mobile devices expect to make their money back and make a profit. They need to do this to pay salaries, invest in the next project and keep their shareholders happy. To do that they make a calculation based on the price of the original product and what additional revenue they are likely to make over the lifetime of that product’s use.  Phone companies in particular have complained that major content providers are simply not paying a fair share of the costs with the VP of Verizon, for example, accusing Google of getting “a free lunch” at the expense of network providers [i] .  Net neutrality compels some companies to ignore basic financial realities [ii] . For all that Proposition – and others such as politicians in Amsterdam and Santiago – may think that changing the basic rules of economics is a good idea, they have yet to explain how this Socialist utopia will work.  [i] Washington Post. Ashad Mohammed. “Verizon Executive Calls for End to Google’s ‘Free Lunch”. 7 February 2006.  [ii] The Economist. “The Difference Engine: Download Dilemma”. 6 May 2011.


Incentivise ISPs to provide more data capacity  If the ISPs were actually making their money on the basis of data provision rather than bandwidth then it’s in their interest to provide it. If they can’t, they don’t make money.  If they want to sell more data, they have to provide more bandwidth, otherwise they can’t do it. This way both the data gluttons and the dieters get what they want. The gluttons get a fast provision of the resources they want or the capacity to share those resources at a reasonable speed and the dieters get cheaper provision.  Measures being pursued by the European Commission aim to do exactly this. They will allow ISPs to control the passage of data across their networks but must, at the same time, make it clear what they are doing and offer low data use price plans accordingly [i] .  This is more so with mobile devices than with ‘plumbed in’ ones. For many people, it wouldn’t occur to them to use Skype for a call and a phone – even a smart one – is primarily just that, a phone. Why should they pay for a capacity they will never use because others can’t take a bus journey without watching a movie?  [i] Out-Law.com: Legal news and guidance from Pinsent Masons. European Commission to propose net neutrality measures. 30 May 2012 .


The problem of suffering  The world is full of suffering and pain among innocent people. If God is good and all-powerful then why is this the case? Either God does not exist or he is not worth believing in since he does not care about human suffering.


The Null Hypothesis  With regards to any proposition the only consistent and rational view is to assume that it is not true unless sufficient evidence is put forward to nullify that assumption.  The proposition need also be falsifiable, that is to say, there must be some potential fact that could be proven in order to disprove it. God is unfalsifiable because there is nothing.


Religious belief is completely irrational  There is no evidence that God exists. Reported miracles, healings etc. are never reliably proved actually to have happened, and in any case everyone’s religious experiences are different and point to the psychological differences between human beings not to any objective divine reality. Belief in God is simply wish-fulfilment. It would be nice if there was a loving all powerful being watching over us, but there isn’t.


The God hypothesis is unnecessary  Science provides us with the tools to form a comprehensive view of the Universe which does not include a supernatural being. From Galileo to Darwin to the modern day, scientists have continually uncovered the true natural mechanisms behind the creation and evolution of the universe. There are no gaps left for God to act in [1] - science has revealed a closed natural order governed by natural laws. Brain science has shown that there is not a ‘soul’ but that all our mental states are simply caused by brain activity. There is, therefore, no reason to believe in life after death - one of the main tenets of religious belief.  [1] Bube, Richard H, ‘Man Come of Age: Bonhoeffer’s Response to the God-of-the-gaps’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society,  , p.207


Religions have no true claim to special moral knowledge  Religions through the ages, and still today, have been agents of repression, sexism, elitism, homophobia, and - most of all - conflict, war, and racial hatred. The very nature of belief in received wisdom means that it must be, at its core, a conservative and regressive force. Moreover the positive moral rules that religions claim to promote tend to have existed independently of those religions – the world did not have to wait for the ten commandments to learn that murder and theft was wrong, but it waited until the 19th Century to reach a consensus that Slavery was wrong.  Whatever small amount of psychological comfort religious belief may give, the evils it is responsible for in the social and political worlds easily outweigh it.


The Prime Mover  The universe follows rules of causality – cause precedes effect. But it cannot be the case that cause and effect regress infinitely into the past – there must be a ‘prime cause’. There is an identifiable point for this – the Universe was formed about 14 billion years ago with the Big Bang, before which we cannot detect any chain of causality. What was the prime mover? It had by definition to be a being existing outside of our conception of reality – the natural answer being ‘God’.


The rareness of Life  Life requires an extremely fine set of conditions in order to exist. The right distance from the Sun, a magnetic field to deflect solar radiation, the right atmospheric composition and conditions etc. These conditions are extremely rare; indeed only on Earth have we observed that they are just right for life to have evolved. [1] This is so unlikely that it leads to the conclusion that God must have intervened.  [1] McAlpine, Kate, ‘Extraterrestrial life could be extremely rare’, physicsworld.com, 1 August 2011,


Revealed wisdom  Godly wisdom is not the same as human wisdom and cannot be subject to the same criticism. The nature of humanity means that our ability to understand God’s wisdom is fundamentally limited; and thus arguments based on morality or science are irrelevant – what matters is that God has revealed Himself.


If there is a benevolent deity, then there should not be the kinds of evil observable in the world and He would likely show more interest in His creation than He appears to have done so far:  If God, or the gods, were good there would be no evil in the world. Disasters would not kill millions of innocents, disease and hunger would not claim the lives of children every day, war and genocide would not slaughter people indiscriminately as they have done for countless bloody millennia. The world is awash with blood, pain, and suffering. No loving God would make a world so imperfect and troubled. [1] The world’s ills are perfectly explained by the natural, amoral development of the Universe, of life, and of humanity. The reality of the Universe, however, is incompatible with a God of goodness, as He is conventionally described by today’s predominant religions, which stem from the Abrahamic tradition.  [1] Tooley, Michael. 2009. “The Problem of Evil”. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Available:


entirely natural theories can adequately explain belief in God and the development of religions, so an existent God is superfluous to the understanding of the phenomenon:  The reason people believe in God and why religions have formed can be explained perfectly well by natural processes and psychology. Religion is an outgrowth of humans’ brain architecture developed through the process of evolution; it developed as a by-product of other useful cognitive processes. [1] For example, survival capability is promoted by an ability to infer the presence of potentially hostile organisms, the ability to establish causal narratives for natural occurrences, and the ability to recognize that other people are independent agents, with their own minds, desires, and intentions. [2] These cognitive mechanisms, while invaluable to human survival and communal development, have the effect of causing humans to imagine supernatural purposefulness behind natural phenomena that could not be explained by other means. No gods are required to explain religious belief, so the existence of such belief is no reason to believe in such beings. Religion was a cradle during mankind’s childhood and adolescence. The time has come to grow up as a species and accept that there are no gods.  [1] Henig, Robin. 2007. “Darwin’s God”. The New York Times. Available:   [2] Pinker, Steven. 2004. “The Evolutionary Psychology of Evolution”. Annual Meeting of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Available:


In reality there are only two theological positions, atheism and theism; agnosticism is nothing but timid atheism:  God, like unicorns, has never been shown to exist, and thus it is logical to accept that He, just like unicorns, does not exist. That is why a position like agnosticism makes no sense. There are no agnostics on the subject of unicorns; there are only agnostics on the subject of God because people tend to be reticent to say they are atheists due to the prevalence of belief of God even in the most secular societies. But fantasy is fantasy, and an agnostic is really just an atheist by another name. Were someone to claim that dragons exist, the person he told it to would not be justified responding saying he did not know whether they exist and that it must be an open question until evidence is presented to corroborate the claim. [1] Rather, he would likely respond with disbelief in the absence of evidence. That is how reasoning works. Thus agnosticism is a philosophically meaningless position. There is either belief or lack of belief, atheism or theism. Opponents of atheism seeking to hide in the nebulous realm of agnosticism, or who claim that because one cannot know there is no God one must be agnostic, hold a position that is philosophically bankrupt.  [1] Dawkins, Richard. 2006. The God Delusion. Ealing: Transworld Publishers.


Entirely natural theories can adequately explain the existence and development of the Universe and all it contains, making God irrelevant to the discussion of reality:  Physics and cosmology explain the development and evolution of the Universe and the bodies within it. Chemistry explains the interactions of substances and the origin of life. Biology explains the development of life’s complexity through the long process of evolution. God, or gods, is a superfluous entity in the discussion of existence; He is entirely unnecessary to human scientific understanding. [1] At best, believers can point to various missing links in science’s explanation, using God to fill the gaps. The God of the Gaps is a weak God whose domain grows smaller each day as science progresses. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the supernatural existing at all, if that is what God is meant to be. The burden of proof in a debate concerning the existence of something is on the individual making the positive claim. In a debate over the existence of God, it is up to the believer to provide evidence for that belief. [2] The rational position in the absence of evidence is atheism. It is not a positive claim about anything, but is merely the absence of belief in God, which makes sense in the light of there being no positive evidence of God’s existence. If believers claim God lives outside the Universe, or that He cannot be empirically identified due to His ethereal nature, then in truth they are saying nothing. Only the natural world exists insofar as humans can demonstrate. The supernatural is pure fantasy.  [1] Boyer, Pascal. 2001. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York: Basic Books.  [2] Russell, Bertrand. 1952. “Is There a God?” Campaign for Philosophical Freedom. Available:


Even if atheism was wrong and God did exist His seeming lack of interest and interaction with the Universe as far as humans can perceive means his existence is irrelevant:  It seems as if life goes on whether God exists or not. Theologians, philosophers, and laypeople have been fighting both in academia and on the actual battlefield over the question of God’s existence, yet in all the centuries no definitive answer one way or the other has been given by either side. [1] It seems there is little value to belief one way or the other, so arguing for God’s existence seems simply to be a waste of time. If God were proved to exist, or not to exist, little in life would change at all. Thus a position of atheism serves to relieve the hassle of pointless debate.  [1] Borne, Étienne. 1961. Atheism. New York: Hawthorn Books.


If there were a God there would be irrefutable evidence of His existence and people would feel compelled to belief by the fact of it:  Many people do not believe in God, and the ranks of atheists are growing every day, particularly in the developed world. It seems that as human knowledge of the Universe expands and as social institutions develop and improve, people feel less dependent upon the crutch of religious faith, and place greater store in reason. [1] If God existed He would make His existence clear to all humanity, not just to a chosen few. In so doing His wisdom would naturally drown out an earthly knowledge, which would obviously be inferior to any that might be furnished by an omniscient being. [2] God has clearly never imparted His wisdom to people since no such divine wisdom exists in any holy book. Were there a correct holy book currently in use, it would necessarily be the only one, because everyone would acknowledge its superiority at once. Reality shows all holy books to be flawed works of flawed men. There is no glimmer of divine spark in any of them, and the only thing that separates most of them from the ravings of madmen is that large groups of people have chosen to believe them. The more reasonable conclusion is one of atheism, and that people believe in God out of ignorance, not revelation.  [1] Drange, Theodore. 1998. "Nonbelief as Support for Atheism". Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy.  [2] Schellenberg, John. 2005. "The Hiddenness Argument Revisited". Religious Studies 41.


The nature of God as it is conventionally described is logically contradictory:  A creator god is a logical absurdity, as demonstrated by empirical fact and rational reflection. Certainly God cannot exist outside of the Universe, as such a concept is effectively meaningless. In fact, physics explains that when the Universe expanded as an inflating field of space and time as the result of a quantum fluctuation, causality itself arose from the process, making a causative agent “prior” to the Universe not only unnecessary, but also impossible. Furthermore, the idea of an omnipotent God is logically contradictory because if God were omnipotent He would be able to create an entity greater than Himself, yet that is impossible. [1] The very attribute is logically unfounded, making the conventional explanation of God invalid. Thus atheism, the absence of belief in gods, is the only logically justified theological position.  [1] Savage, C. 1967. "The Paradox of the Stone". Philosophical Review 76(1).


The complexity of the universe and of life cannot be explained by atheism:  Atheism suggests that the Universe came about by chance and the interaction of natural properties. Yet nature is marked by clear design that atheism cannot explain. The complexity of the human body, of planets, stars, and galaxies, and even of bacteria attests to the existence of creative agency. It is impossible that such things as interdependent species could come to exist without the guidance of a higher power. [1] Likewise, certain organisms can be shown to be irreducibly complex, meaning that if one were to remove any part of it, it could not function. This refutes the gradualist argument of evolution, since there is no selective pressure on the organism to change when it is functionless. For example, the bacterial flagellum, the “motor” that powers bacterial cells, loses all functionality if a single component is removed. [2] Besides design, the only explanation of its development is blind chance, which seems less sensible. Atheism cannot account for these facts and thus collapses into nonsense.  [1] Ratzsch, Del. 2009. "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence" The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.   [2] Davis, Percival and Dean Kenyon. 1989. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins. Richardson: Foundation for Thought and Ethics.


Everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Since the Universe began to exist it must be caused:  Every human, every being, every object in the Universe is a finite and contingent being. These all have causes, yet a causal chain cannot be infinitely long. Humans are born, stars form from gases, even the Universe had a beginning 4.3 billion years ago. Nothing in the Universe causes itself. In order to escape the logical impossibility of the infinite causality loop it is necessary to posit the existence of an uncaused cause. This cause exists outside of the Universe, as it is cause of the Universe. [1] Without a creator, the Universe is a logical absurdity. Atheism cannot provide an alternative explanation to a creator, and thus fails quite literally from the beginning.  [1] Craig, William Lane. 1979. The Kalam Cosmological Argument. London: MacMillan.


In the absence of positive evidence for the existence of God the rational position is agnosticism, not atheism:  In a situation where there is an absence of either positive evidence for a claim or definite negative evidence for it, the natural response is not rejection of the claim, but rather skepticism and admission of lack of knowledge one way or the other. [1] In the case of religion and God, this position is agnosticism. Humans are fallible organisms, and thus all statements about truth and about the Universe must be qualified by some degree of doubt. Positively rejecting the existence of God, as atheism does, ignores this requisite doubt even though it cannot prove that there is no God. Rather, in the absence of evidence for or against the existence of God, the most the atheist can say honestly is that he does not know. The claims of atheism are positive ones and thus require evidence; an atheist position is thus faith-based in the same way a theist one is.  [1] Hume, David. 1748. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Oxford University Press (2008).


There is always a risk associated with surgery and taking such a risk for no particular reason is irresponsible  A report by the Royal Dutch Medical Association noted that there was not a single medical body in the world that could point, categorically to a medical need for circumcision of infants. It further concluded that “The fact that this practice is not medically necessary and entails a genuine risk of complications means that extra-stringent requirements must be established with regard to this type of information and advice.” Yet this is a practice that is performed around the world by people with little or no medical training and accepted by parents as an instruction from God.  Studies from the US suggest that around 230 baby boys die in America every year as a direct result of hemorrhaging following circumcision [i] .  [i]