In the post-colonial era, national powers were often keen to limit economic and financial information flows. These communications and data movements were often seen by newly independent countries as a type of “trojan horse,” bypassing national boundaries without administrative scrutiny. Before the leverage of petro-dollar debt opened up the networked flows of data and capital that characterized neo-liberal global financialization, nations around the world were known to police information borders, both technologically and politically. Technological innovations like Deep Pack Inspection (DPI) would continue to supply nation-states with tools to monitor populations, and even provide a “kill switch” to shut down a nation’s Internet access.

Post, Telephone, and Telegraph (PTTs) monopolies operated as a type of electronic moat that restricted data communications. Other ministries also restricted capital and sometimes news flows. The push to deregulate and privatize the telecommmunications environment initially liberalized the transnational information flows. Those unrestricted flows would not go uncontested for long though.

Digital Governance and Administrative Power

Anthony Giddens in Nation-State and Violence (1985) described nation-states as “power containers” whose effective functioning relies on the interplay between administrative power and surveillance within a “territorial delimitation.”[1] The nation-state is a quintessentially modern institution that is characterized by a centralized bureaucratic authority, defined territory, and the ability to mobilize resources and populations. They collect power from two major sources:

Administrative (Allocative) Power I: Communication and information storage giving control over space and time and, with it, material resources;

Administrative (Authoritative) Power II: Internal pacification of populations through ideology, surveillance, and the monopoly over violence, incarceration, and physical force.

Administrative power provides the framework for governance and has gotten increasingly more sophisticated. This power involves overt monitoring, such as policing and public surveillance systems with CCTV and smart recognition systems. It increasingly uses what he called “dataveillance,” collecting and analyzing data about individuals and groups. Targeted surveillance that is precise and aims to gather intelligence on specific people with methods can include wiretapping, geo-locational and GPS tracking, online monitoring, and physical observation.

Also, big data techniques that gather knowledge from sources such as census information, social security data, and digital footprints are powerful individual and group tracking techniques. Both enables the state to respond to internal and external challenges. Both can be used to ensure compliance and help construct narratives of legitimation.

Giddens noted that administrative power is not inherently authoritarian. In democratic contexts, it can be used to manage society effectively and uphold the rule of law. Census information is often important for allocating political representation in democratic societies. However, authoritarian regimes can co-opt the same structures to consolidate power and suppress dissent.

Authoritarianism is mostly characterized by a concentration of power in a single authority or a small group of individuals who can exercise significant control over various aspects of life, including political, social, and economic spheres.

Authoritarian nation-states usually emerge when a crisis leads to a domestic group taking power and capturing the state apparatus. Then, they use the power of the state to perpetuate themselves through the pacification of the domestic population. This control is achieved through various combinations ideological persuasion (usually grievance-based), economic dominance, and violence. Xenophobic appeals are quite effective, such as fears about immigration and foreign religions. Sanctions by the global community are another tool to play the population against a foreign threat. Then, oppressive control comes down to how many people can be fooled or manipulated, and the strength of their policing resources.

Digital borders refer to the territorial limitations and controls imposed on the flow of digital information across national boundaries. This digital control has often resulted in isolation from global information, suppression of free speech, separation from the global economy and supply chains, and the erosion of trust in the democratic potential of digital media as a valid information and news source. Globally, this digital isolation has led to human rights concerns, geopolitical tensions, and technological fragmentation.

Mechanisms of Digital Borders

Authoritarian regimes employ various strategies to create and enforce digital borders. These methods are sophisticated and evolve with technological advancements to ensure comprehensive control over the digital sphere. These include Internet censorship and filtering, surveillance and data collection, social media manipulation, and control of the digital infrastructure.

One of the most direct methods of enforcing is using firewalls and filtering technologies to block access to certain websites and online services. China’s Great Firewall is a prominent example, preventing access to selected foreign news websites, social media platforms, and content deemed subversive by the state. By controlling what information citizens can access, authoritarian regimes shape public perception and suppress dissenting views.

Mass surveillance is another key component of digital authoritarianism. By monitoring mass media and online activities, governments can track and intimidate academics, activists, dissidents, and journalists. Advanced algorithms and artificial intelligence facilitate real-time monitoring of social media and other digital communications, identifying and targeting individuals and media outlets who threaten the regime’s narrative.

Mentioned above, Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology allows for detailed monitoring and filtering of Internet traffic, enabling regimes to block specific content and identify users accessing prohibited material.

Social Credit Systems (SoCS) have also been conceived and implemented to build evaluative ratings for citizens, businesses, and other organizations. They use big data to monitor behaviors and assign scores based on compliance with government standards. Predictive policing technologies employ AI to analyze data and predict potential criminal activity, leading to pre-emptive actions against perceived threats.

Authoritarian governments also manipulate social media to spread propaganda and disinformation. This interference includes the use of bots, trolls, memes, and state-sponsored media to flood the digital space with content that supports the regime’s objectives while drowning out opposition voices.

By owning or heavily regulating Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and telecommunications companies, authoritarian regimes can ensure they have the ultimate say in who can access the Internet and how it can be used. This control extends to shutting down the Internet entirely during periods of unrest, as seen in countries like Bangladesh, Eygpt, Iran, and Myanmar.

Implications of Digital Borders

The implementation and enforcment of digital borders has profound implications for the political, social, and economic landscapes of affected countries.

Digital borders can greatly limit freedom of expression. Digital repression means citizens cannot freely share information, discuss political matters, or criticize the government without fear of reprisal. This control suppresses public discourse and hinders the development of a healthy, diverse society.

By limiting access to international news and perspectives, authoritarian regimes isolate their populations from the global flow of information. This hinderance fosters controlled narratives and an insular worldview, which can be manipulated to maintain nationalistic or xenophobic sentiments.

Digital borders can also impede economic development. Flows of information are crucial for innovation and global business operations. Restrictions on Internet access and online services can discourage foreign investment, hinder technological progress, and reduce competitiveness in the global market.

Pervasive surveillance and control erodes public trust in digital technologies. People become wary of expressing themselves online or using digital services, knowing their activities are being monitored. This mistrust can stymie the adoption of new technologies and hinder digital literacy and public discourse.

Broader Consequences

The intersection of digital borders and authoritarianism extends beyond individual nations, affecting global politics and international relations.

The suppression of digital freedoms raises significant human rights concerns. International organizations and civil society face challenges in addressing these violations, as authoritarian regimes often justify their actions under the guise of national security and sovereignty. Civil society, consisting of dense and diverse networks of community groups, often stand between the individual and the authoritarian state. Citizen groups, cooperating with community-based groups and associations, strengthen civic freedoms and rights such as fair elections, the freedom to associate, expression of speech, and free media.

Digital borders contribute to geopolitical tensions, particularly between authoritarian and democratic states (which also have to guard against the perils of digital control). Conflicts over cyber espionage, digital trade barriers, and information warfare are increasingly common. Democracies advocate for open Internet principles such as net neutrality. At the same time, authoritarian regimes push for cyber-sovereignty and centralized control over network management, including using “kill switches” that can immediately shut down Internet transmissions through the digital border.

The imposition of digital borders can lead to a fragmented global Internet, where different regions operate under vastly different rules and restrictions. This fragmentation threatens the foundational concept of a unified, open global Internet, complicating international collaboration and digital interoperability.

Conclusion

Authoritarian regimes’ enforcement of digital borders in the modern era represents a significant challenge to global norms of free expression, access to information, and human rights. As regimes continue to develop and refine their methods of control, the civil and international communities must navigate the delicate balance between respecting national sovereignty and advocating for digital freedoms. The future of the Internet as a space for the free exchange of ideas and information hinges on the global response to these authoritarian practices and the collective effort to preserve an open and inclusive digital world.

Citation APA (7th Edition)

Pennings, A.J. (2024, July 27). Digital Borders and Authoritarianism. apennings.com https://apennings.com/dystopian-economies/digital-borders-and-authoritarianism/

Notes

[1] Giddens, A. (1985). The Nation-State and Violence. University of California Press. p. 172.
[2] Shahbaz, A. (2018). The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism. https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/10192018_FOTN_2018_Final_Booklet.pdf
Note: Chat GPT was referenced for parts of this post. Several prompts were used and parsed.

© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

---

Anthony J. Pennings, PhD is a professor at the Department of Technology and Society, State University of New York, Korea teaching broadband policy and sustainable development. From 2002-2012 he was on the faculty of New York University and taught digital economics and information systems management. He also taught in the Digital media management at St. Edwards University in Austin, Texas, where he lives when not in the Republic of Korea.

Related

Category: artificial intelligence, crisis communications, democratic political economies, digital coordination, digital geography, dystopian economies, geopolitical risk, how IT came to rule the world, sustainable development, telecom policy and net neutrality
Tags: Administrative power > nation-state > surveillance

Comments

Comments are closed.