In an era of increasingly ubiquitous digital surveillance, groundbreaking study Research led by the University of Konstanz reveals the mechanisms behind state control of the internet. The study, involving a German-American team, maps the global pattern of Internet service provider ownership, revealing clear differences between democracies and authoritarian countries.
Mapping the digital divide
The study’s findings highlight significant divisions in ownership of internet infrastructure. In authoritarian regimes, state-owned enterprises dominate the ISP sector. This is in stark contrast to democracies, where these services are largely owned by private companies. The research team painstakingly mapped global ownership structures, creating what they call an “Internet Surveillance Atlas.” The Atlas not only identifies who controls countries’ digital pathways, but also highlights the strategic importance of this control in facilitating state surveillance and censorship.
The role of transportation networks
One of the key insights from the study is the important role that transportation networks play in state surveillance. These networks, which direct data traffic between different parts of the Internet, are largely invisible to ordinary users. In authoritarian states, however, these networks are largely state-owned, allowing for widespread surveillance and censorship of data traffic without public accountability. This state control of transportation networks contrasts with democracies, where private entities primarily operate these networks, providing a layer of protection against unwanted state surveillance.
The international dimension of ISP ownership
The study also delves into the international operations of ISPs, revealing patterns of political alliances in the digital sphere. In authoritarian countries, foreign ISPs are almost entirely owned by companies from other authoritarian countries. This finding suggests strategic alliances between authoritarian states that help bypass liberal standards on privacy and data protection while reinforcing authoritarian governance models. The researchers identified distinct clusters of technological cooperation among authoritarian states, highlighting the political logic underpinning the international activities of these providers.
While direct state ownership of internet service providers is an explicit control mechanism, the research team warns that it is not the only means of influence. Authoritarian governments can also exert pressure on private Internet service providers, thereby indirectly controlling data traffic. This suggests that levels of Internet surveillance in authoritarian countries may be more widespread than the findings suggest.
As we reflect on these findings, it becomes clear that the fight for control of the internet is about more than just censorship or the manipulation of digital content. At its core is who owns the infrastructure that underpins the digital world. This study reveals the strategic importance of this ownership for enabling state surveillance and censorship, particularly in authoritarian regimes. It also highlights the complex interplay between state control, international alliances, and global struggles for digital freedom and privacy. As we move forward, understanding these dynamics is critical to addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by the digital age.