The subject of cyber-security and its relationship to national security has once again become a hot topic in the press and among policy makers.  The discussion often centers on two separate and distinct issues. The first is protection of the fundamental ICT infrastructure on which communications and commerce depend. There is certainly a compelling argument to be made that the government has a responsibility to do whatever it can to ensure that public and private sector service providers are not compromised by premeditated and malicious actions such as denial of service attacks and hacking into critical IT systems, or by physical attacks that disable data centers, cabling, and switches. This is much the same as the government’s responsibility to ensure that other basic infrastructure, such as electricity and water, remain consistently available.

The other issue which is often raised in the context of cyber-security is not as clear-cut. There are more than a few voices calling for greater government control of the means by which people communicate; voices which support the idea that governments should be entitled to filter, block, or otherwise censor and limit the electronic venues in which opinions would otherwise be freely expressed.

Looking at the history of attempts to control or censor specific delivery channels (all over the world, not just in Thailand), the technology often remains one step ahead of the censors, and people find a way to get the information they want despite the restrictions.  When publishers are prohibited from printing and selling controversial books, underground newsletters appear that are passed around from hand to hand. When TV news becomes too obviously one-sided, people look to the internet for other sources of information. When web sites are blocked, people use overseas proxy servers. And so on. So the first argument against using censorship as a way to increase security, is that, generally, it simply does not work.

But there is also another basic flaw in the idea that censorship is somehow a valid approach to enhancing security. It confuses the content and the venue. Most people would agree that irresponsible actions, hate speech, incitement to violence, and anything else that directly threatens public security should be illegal.  We can and should pass a law against shouting “fire” in a crowded theater where no fire exists. But while we might justifiably arrest the person who intentionally creates false panic, we don’t then also close down the all the theaters to prevent a reoccurrence.

Although the temptation to engage in censorship is a powerful one, it rests on a slippery slope. Attempts at wholesale blocking of web sites, discussion forums, and other places where competing ideas are expressed, only reinforce the perception of heavy-handedness and detract from the credibility of potentially valid opinions on both sides of an issue.  Those who would be in a position to censor would better serve the goal of national security by instead focusing their efforts on ensuring that a level playing field exists for public debate, and that all opinions have the chance to be heard.

What do you think? Write to us at opinions@ismtech.net