The development of Indonesia’s Internet is inseparable from the impact of geopolitical factors on Indonesia’s Internet governance. Internet governance is not just about fiber optics, data centers, etc., but certain components within the system are interconnected and inseparable, requiring complex coordination between government and private sectors, not to mention cross-border actors. Driven by the United States, the Internet has rapidly expanded globally, but its highly dominant influence has put pressure on the sustainability of the global Internet. This pressure comes in the form of allocating Internet governance responsibilities to international bodies such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and the United Nations (UN), thereby legitimizing ad hoc, decentralized, and distributed Internet governance. However, this distribution of regulation is dangerous because the nature of the Internet system will become centralized and rigid as it is controlled by the government. This pressure raises questions about the sustainability of the Internet, because the future fate of the Internet may be fragmented, either due to uneven development due to regional disconnection or even development. However, the current coexistence of the Internet is that a certain component of the Internet is ignored, becomes dominant, and may even lead to the collapse of the entire system, and many parties are currently experiencing one of these situations. (O’Hara and Hall, 2018).
- Take data governance as an example
One of the equally important aspects of Internet governance within the Internet component is data, whether personal data, group data, or other data. As a developing country in the southern hemisphere, Indonesia has become a new target for US technology giants to expand their digital economy. Countries in the Global South, including Indonesia, experience a data governance void and are urged to adopt existing data governance within the international order, but data governance is influenced by international business interests, domestic politics, and power relations between countries, one of which is the United States The big impact of big tech expansion. Big US tech companies and the European Union (EU) have both developed clever strategies to attract new users by offering free internet access, even as they aim to use raw data from countries in the Global South to develop and sell their latest digital products. This is of course dangerous because if data governance is not properly regulated to compete, it could lock in future data flows in developing countries, especially those in the Global South, from being able to compete with developed countries where technology companies are spread across the globe (Hicks 2021).
The most appropriate way to deal with the influence of technology giants is to reform the tax system and data localization. The tax reform has sparked heated discussions among about 130 countries within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), with almost all countries agreeing to impose a “digital services tax” to ensure that technology companies do not evade state taxes on their business activities. obligation. activities, arranging their sports activities in host countries, including Indonesia, where the activity is carried out. Another approach used by China, India and Russia is to use the influence of large technology companies to support domestic digital products, such as Baidu in China, Yandex in Russia, while India uses the data it obtains from citizens to develop digital infrastructure. Data localization is a policy used to reclaim economic rights over data generated by its citizens. Governments mandate that domestic data production must be stored in data centers located close to the host country, because until now, data from big tech companies was stored in US and European locations without knowing the origin of the data. This is India’s resolute action towards “data sovereignty” and India actively develops and promotes data localization. Furthermore, the United States actively defends Big Tech and opposes these approaches (Hicks 2021).
- The race to control data
Data, an extremely valuable asset for the economy and security, triggers competition to control its production and distribution. From an economic perspective, large tech companies from North America and China dominate the list of the world’s largest companies by market capitalization. Meanwhile, on the security front, this is closely linked to the widespread protests sparked by Snowden’s revelations about the surveillance of large numbers of individuals in the United States, as well as similar, albeit smaller, mass collection of data in European countries. The vast amounts of data collected by European countries contradict the EU’s preference for personal data security rather than national security, now known as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Hicks 2021).
- The Impact of Hegemony on Indonesia
Each international player has its own way of approaching data issues, initially triggered by the business expansion of big tech companies, taking data patterns beyond business issues and into the realms of international relations, political economy, and international development. The most influential international players in data governance policy are known as data empires, consisting of the United States, the European Union, and China. The US empire places no restrictions on cross-border data flows; instead, it enters into trade agreements to develop economies of scale and data coverage, and prohibits data localization measures that support trade. The EU makes the protection of personal data a top priority and believes that by building trust, individuals will feel comfortable with companies using their personal data. Finally, Imperial China’s policies restrict the flow of data and information not only across borders, but also within China. This policy aims to maintain social stability and the power of the Communist Party, while also helping sectors in need of knowledge such as artificial intelligence (Hicks 2021).
Hegemonic actors, as “rule makers” who already have their own data governance, put pressure on other countries, especially developing countries like Indonesia, to act as “rule takers” to choose an empire that can provide benefits. Should Indonesia choose data governance rules based on trade agreements, market access restrictions, or even authoritarian types as an integral part of Internet governance? As a developing country, Indonesia is sure to experience many international data flows, as large numbers of Indonesians use the Internet as a geopolitical opportunity to negotiate data localization with big tech companies (Anam and CNBC Indonesia 2022; Annur 2023). However, Indonesia must have electricity and internet infrastructure and qualified human resources. If negotiations proceed to international organizations, friction will arise between developed and developing countries and it will be difficult to reach an agreement. For example, the United States and the European Union refuse to localize data, leading to increased production and consumption in developing countries. From this perspective, it would be better to proceed with bilateral negotiations after discussions in international organizations. Taking these factors into consideration, Indonesia can develop the most appropriate data governance policy, but the example of hegemonic countries should not be ignored (Hicks 2021).
- Internet governance in Indonesia
Internet governance policies, including data, as regulated in the ITE Law and the recently promulgated new PDP Law, are not immune to the influence of hegemonic actors such as China, the United States, and the European Union, which have carried out Positive norms. Internet governance. But here’s the question: Which way does Indonesia prefer to go? Judging from the content of the ITE Law and the PDP Law, the ITE Law is biased towards China and reflects the authoritarian type. However, in the Indonesian context, if the ITE Law is abused by domestic political elites, it suppresses freedom of speech and the digital field. In essence, the ITE Law takes into account the religious and socio-cultural values of society and prohibits the dissemination of obscene videos, online gambling, defamation, blackmail and threats, dissemination of fake news, hate speech and online terrorism (CNBC Indonesia 2022). It is also important to involve experts in the IT field and use ITE law with caution, as not all parties in the legal field understand it and fear that it could lead to authoritarian Internet governance.
At the same time, PDP law tends to favor the EU, which is firmly committed to managing personal data responsibly and without harming others (Wibawana 2022). However, there are still some areas that need to be improved in the PDP Law, such as which agencies are authorized to use this law to prosecute those who violate the PDP Law, because during the implementation process, there will definitely be agencies to supervise all actions of the parties. In their digital economic activities; the extent to which these institutions have the authority to use PDP laws is a key issue that needs to be assessed. Furthermore, it is also important to clarify the delineation of the legal scope between individuals and institutions, as individuals and institutions certainly have different capabilities to process and control data (Arditya and Nugraha 2021).
Indonesia’s task of improving Internet governance still has many areas that need to be addressed, both technical and regulatory. Internet governance is not just an Indonesian problem; Countries around the world are working hard to improve Internet governance. The influence of hegemonic countries on Indonesia cannot be ignored, as they have also made more rapid progress in Internet governance and technological development. Indonesia must not blindly accept the influence of hegemony or be controlled by domestic political elites. Coordination among relevant stakeholders in Internet governance is a necessary condition to ensure that Internet governance benefits all parties and does not harm any party. Some aspects of Internet governance that need to be addressed and improved in Indonesia include cybersecurity regulations, electronic transactions, free speech online, privacy and surveillance, and the Internet of Things (Shafira 2021).