A Thickening Plot; A Devil's Bargain?

Over the last two weeks since the uncloaking of the U.S. Government's PRISM and related global  surveillance and data-mining activities, I have twice suggested that perhaps one of the most damaging outcomes will be the fragmentation of the Internet (link to June 7 post; link to June 14 post).

In both posts, my focus was not on the technological architecture of the Internet, but, rather, on what has to date been a remarkably global Internet service ecosystem, led by innovative and first-to-market American companies. 

I have expressed concern that the reports of leading U.S. Internet companies in cahoots with the American intelligence apparatus could lead to a profound lack of trust in these companies, particularly outside the U.S., resulting in a mass migration to alternative (existing or greenfield) non-U.S. Internet destinations, social networks and other Internet services that market themselves as "safe" or independent from spy agencies.

While such a power-shift in the Internet service industry could well introduce a new era of Internet innovation and competition, it might not bode terribly well for the American incumbents, or even U.S.-based newcomers.  

Of equal or greater concern, however, is that such a trend could lead to the fracturing or Balkanization of the Internet, at least on a service level, undermining the openness and freedom and global exchange of information that the Internet has fostered over the last two decades.

As mentioned above, what my recent musings haven't focused on is the impact that the PRISM+ and related revelations might have on the global ICT industry.

Over the last couple of years I have rather regularly commented on the prejudicial treatment my employer - China-headquartered Huawei Technologies - has experienced in the U.S.  When you peel away all of the histrionic fear-mongering, you come up with not a shred of remotely substantive cause for any unique-to-Huawei cyber- or national security concern.  It all boils down to the company being domiciled in China.  And given that every one of our competitors do as much R&D and coding and building in China as we do, the domicile of headquarters is hardly an indicator of a unique threat.

In many of those posts on anti-competitive U.S. policies, I have raised the concern that the political protectionist  policy model being pursued in the U.S. - however poorly veiled as cyber security initiative - might set a precedent for similar such policies in other markets, to the detriment of U.S. companies doing business overseas.  There were any number of times over the last two years when I thought such mimicking of or retaliation against U.S. policy might be triggered.

It seems PRISM+ may have done the trick.

TechInAsia ran an article today titled "Chinese Media: Snowden Says Cisco Helped the US Spy on China" (link).  The article quotes from and links to multiple Chinese Media outlets noting that Cisco equipment powers much of the Chinese Internet and reporting that Cisco had been identified as somehow linked to the U.S. Government's PRISM or related spying tools.  

While the article notes that it is unclear if PRISM leaker Snowden or anyone else has actually specifically charged Cisco with such collusion, it adds: "...It probably doesn't matter at all...regardless of what Snowden actually said, Cisco and other American companies are going to have a much harder time winning Chinese contracts than they used to."

I'm not certain that such challenges will be limited to Chinese contracts.  Indeed, will Cisco and other American companies have any more success proving negatives in China or elsewhere than Huawei has had in the U.S.?  Can these companies expect treatment somehow different than the hybrid Star Chamber-witch hunt experience that Huawei has suffered in the U.S.?  Did American policy-makers and politicians not anticipate that their antics and precedents might backfire on them?

The TechInAsia article concludes with a poignant point which takes a slightly different direction on the Balkanization concern that I have been expressing in recent posts: "Just a decade or so after Internet and communications technology brought the whole world closer together, it increasingly looks like hacking and surveillance scandals and suspicions are likely to tear it back apart."

Sad, but seemingly true.

Protection of our nation's networks and data is a paramount policy goal.  But, equally important should be policy which further encourages the blossoming of the open Internet, open and free communications and exchange of information, freedom of speech and democratic values.  

As of this point in time, we seem to have sacrificed or are in the process of sacrificing the latter - not only in terms of practice and integrity within the homeland but also in terms of our ability to export such values abroad - for the former.  A devil's bargain indeed.