The future of the internet in the hands of internet enemies.
Is the future of the internet in the hands of internet enemies? Is the Minister of Communications only responsible for cabling or does he also have the authority in filtering and unblocking? With changes in governments, can the policies governing the internet in Iran change or not? Will the internet situation be different under the government of Masoud Pezeshkian compared to the government of Saeed Jalili?
These days, in the strange and unpredictable election turmoil, such questions are repeated more than ever because it seems that the issue of the internet in Iran has become one of the most important concerns of a wide range of people, and the prospect of its improvement can have a significant impact on the decision of many people to participate or not participate in the presidential election.
Is the Minister of Communications only responsible for cabling or does he also have the authority in filtering and unblocking? With changes in governments, can the policies governing the internet in Iran change or not? Will the internet situation be different under the government of Masoud Pezeshkian compared to the government of Saeed Jalili?
These days, in the midst of a strange and unpredictable election turmoil, questions like this are being repeated more than ever. It seems that the issue of the internet in Iran has become one of the most important concerns for a wide range of people, and assessing its improvement can have a significant impact on many people’s decisions to participate or not participate in the presidential election.
Since the month of Esfand in 2012, when the High Council for Cyberspace was formed to deal with the troublesome phenomenon of the internet, this council has made various decisions as the top authority for internet policy-making and coordination among other institutions in this field. As this entity progressed, it gained broader powers for itself. Alongside the National Cyberspace Center as its executive arm, the High Commission for Regulation of Regulations was established as the supervisory and regulatory body to handle complaints, practically taking on the responsibilities of all three branches in legislation, execution, and oversight.
The idea of the National Information Network, mistakenly referred to as the National Internet, and all the resolutions defined under it, is cooked up by this council and center. These resolutions have outlined a clear vision for the future of the Internet in Iran, establishing complete independence of the National Information Network in three layers: infrastructure, service platforms, and content from the Internet as an integrated international network.
This means that this network can meet users’ needs without requiring the Internet, and various positive and negative incentives for users to use services based on this network instead of the Internet are considered.
However, the Supreme Council of Cyberspace is not the only non-governmental entity in the field of Internet governance. The Working Group on Determining Instances of Criminal Content, operating under the supervision of the Deputy Prosecutor General for Cyberspace of the country, local courts, the National Security Council, and other important entities all have a hand in the filtering fire. In such circumstances, it seems that the executive branch does not have much more to do than just execute orders from above.
So far, the common narrative among people has been legally established, but the governance system in Iran, despite the hierarchy that preserves the role players, like any other system, depends on the outcome of different stakeholders. The role of the government in many of these institutions, while not the most important or influential, can sometimes act as a disruptor or implement its own interpretation of the approved measures.
The government, not as a policy maker, has limited discretion in scheduling and implementing decisions and may be willing to bear the necessary costs to counter a decision if it has the will and motivation, such as not enforcing the order to filter Instagram in the previous government, which even led to the Minister of Communications being taken to court because of it. In this case, creating some friction in the implementation of measures may pave the way for new technologies and prevent the cat-and-mouse game of filtering and circumvention tools in favor of the right to free access to the internet.
But the more important issue on the other side of the story is that the government not only refrains from intervening as a facilitator and pioneer in exerting its full power to restrict internet rights, in fact, the government’s hand is very open here. It can implement decisions faster and even beyond executive expectations.
It can also actively engage in further restrictions and no one will stand in the way of its conservative governance structure, even if it succeeds one day in disconnecting the internet without causing problems for the country’s routine mechanisms. It is not unlikely that the aforementioned elements will be encouraged. This is where it can be said that it doesn’t matter who is in power, not because those who can lift extensive filters or take a proactive step towards internet access rights.
Rather, because internet enemies are eager to quickly achieve their ideals, the costs and consequences are not important to them, just as the consequences of sanctions are not important to them, just as low public participation in elections is not important to them.
Persian
مشاهده این مقاله به زبان فارسی