Abstract
Networking and digital communication pervade every area of life. As a consequence, norm formation on the Net has become a hotly disputed process. The chapter tracks the evolution of order in Internet politics and correlates this with the emergence of dissidence and its various manifestations. It is argued that dissidence has found a particularly conducive setting for its operations and that, thanks to the open starting position and an astute use of the expanding protest repertoire, it has managed to generate considerable public interest and high legitimacy. To what extent politicisation and dissident practice will succeed, nevertheless, remains to be seen since public approval in the field of Internet politics does not translate easily into effective changes.
‘Bingo’, Jolu said. ‘I’m not saying it wasn’t terrible in the Great Depression or whatever. But we’ve got the power to organize like we’ve never had before. And the creeps and the spooks have the power to spy on us more than ever before, to control us and censor us and find us and snatch us.’
‘Who’s going to win?’ I said. ‘I mean, I used to think that we’d win, because we understand computers and they don’t.’
‘Oh, they understand computers. And they’re doing everything they can to invent new ways to mess you up with them. But if we leave the field, it’ll just be them. People who want everything, want to be in charge of everyone.’
(Cory Doctorow, Homeland)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
There are at least two other, equally key, notions of the Internet: as a space for communication (an idea I look at in greater detail later on) and as a physical structure. (An overview of the different concepts and their implications is given in Crawford 2007.) Although the second view is playing an increasingly important role in the control of the Internet (DeNardis 2012; Musiani et al. 2016), it is only dealt with indirectly here.
- 2.
There is currently much discussion as to how far we are experiencing the return of closed spaces in this regard. What has triggered this debate is the appearance of ever more ‘closed gardens’, particularly in relation to the mobile Internet and its ‘restricted app’ logic and to access in developing countries, as exemplified in Facebook’s ‘internet.org’ initiative, which allows no-cost access to Internet services but only to specific ones. These changes to the Internet, and the various rationales underlying them, are discussed in, for example, Weinberger (2015); Wu (2010); Zittrain (2009); Clark (2016) and Timberg (2015).
- 3.
On closer analysis, two (complementary) processes are observable that represent a departure from the original multi-stakeholder model: transposition to multilateral institutions (internationalisation) and sharper definition of networks within the ‘network of networks’—the ‘fragmentation thesis’ (Drake et al. 2016).
- 4.
Civil-society actors too have stinging criticisms to make of the present set-up and its institutional predecessors. The conclusions they draw, however, differ from the arguments advanced by the state and the corporate sector. Whereas to begin with a minimally regulated Internet was seen as a better guarantor of freedom on the Net, the defects in the security architecture (Zittrain 2010) and the possibility of utilising open protocols for commercial purposes have undermined this belief (Tufekci 2016). Hence, the idea of an increase in regulation is no longer rejected on principle and instead ways are sought of creating an institutional landscape that is more committed to freedom and more open to democratic influence.
- 5.
This position is known by the name of ‘Internet exceptionalism’ (Johnson and Post 1996) and received what was perhaps its most famous exposition in John Perry Barlow’s ‘Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace’ (Barlow 1996). Music and software piracy were early cautionary developments that seemed to demonstrate the inability of political sanctions or commercial clout to prevent the upheavals caused by the shift from analogue to digital formats and networks.
- 6.
Those that derive particular benefit from digital juridification and order formation often include—speaking in particular of the state—executive bodies such as secret services. Ironically, these bodies themselves are subjected to very little legal regulation. On the contrary, they operate in a broad, loosely defined legal framework that both permits and ensures their expansion. Illustrations of this include the framing of objectives in very general terms, for example, ‘countering terrorism’, and the definition of a task in terms that are too vague or too narrow—as when the analysis of communications content is regulated but analysis of meta-data has no limit imposed on it. As far as private actors are concerned, a renewed increase in sensitivity to issues of data collection and analysis is observable over the last decade, particularly in Europe. The paralysis that had resulted from the assumption that actors operating at global level could not be regulated is beginning to wear off. Parliaments and courts of law in particular have set new trends here, identifying and enforcing regulations that curtail particularly far-reaching practices and in some cases have led to enhanced consumer awareness.
- 7.
It is also clear that, overall, cyber dissidence is located almost exclusively at the left/progressive end of the political spectrum (Wolfson 2014). Naturally, there are also a good many right-wing and nationalist movements that actively exploit Internet networking or use it as a way of doing politics. However, this ‘right-wing’ activity does not relate to issues of norm development or regulation on the Net; it merely uses the Net as a means of tackling non-digital concerns.
- 8.
Only in a very few cases are the demands so radical that they fall outside the bounds of the fundamental consensus that obtains in Western states. In this regard, Julian Assange, for example, is something of a chameleon: There are certainly writings by him that break radically with the notion of statehood and the possibility of representative democracy—see Assange (2006), and, for more general anarchistic observations, Shantz and Tomblin (2014). Having said that, we should bear in mind that Assange’s position, and the WikiLeaks notion of democracy, is ambiguous in places and has undergone several mutations (on this, see Assange 2010; Hofmann 2011; O’Hagan 2014; Sagar 2011). In essence, Assange assumes that, overall, technological developments provide better, that is, more direct, opportunities for influencing and participating in politics but that the basis for this is the essential openness of all decision-making bodies. The broader Internet discourse also includes libertarian voices, which seek to extend the principles of free expression and absolute transparency not only to public institutions but also to private activities.Within the public discourse, numerous voices have been raised against this ideal of radical transparency, often taking the form of literary/fictional treatments of the theme. Jonathan Franzen’s Purity, for example, or Dave Eggers’s The Circle predict totalitarian consequences for society as a whole.
- 9.
One can probably also draw a distinction here between an American and a European Internet culture. The former is much more influenced by Californian ideology and the culture of Silicon Valley, with its mixture of libertarian and 1960s counter-culture stances. (The classic critique of this mix was formulated early on by Barbrook and Cameron (1996). For a general account of developments, see Turner 2006.) The European position is less tied to business and permeated to a greater degree by a culture of data protection (on the cultural differences in general, and on status within the social system, see Williams 2016).
- 10.
Examples of activism that is Net-based but not Net-related include the WikiLeaks publications regarding Iraq and Afghanistan. They also include many of the ‘Anonymous’ group’s actions, in which the choice of means is Internet-related but the substance at issue is not. (The interplay between Net-related and general opposition is explored in Kahn and Keller 2005.) A case in point was Project Chanology, which sought to challenge the Church of Scientology and played a key role in politicizing the group. Here too, however, there was a crucial digital connection, namely the attempt by the Church to have a video of Tom Cruise—one of its members—removed from the Internet (excellent descriptions of the evolution and politicisation of Anonymous are given in Coleman (2014) and Olson (2012).
- 11.
The digital dissidence described here is largely a phenomenon of Western liberal societies. Dissidents in authoritarian regimes do share many of the ideals in question, and in some cases use similar means; however, given the repressive context, the efforts to get the right to freedom of expression and other Internet standards accepted are more of a means to an end. Equally, under an authoritarian regime, much smaller acts are required to turn opposition into dissidence. In general, one should take care not to construe information and communications technologies one-sidedly as ‘liberation technologies’. One has to weigh up what instruments and opportunities also find their way into the hands of the state as a result of the expansion of the digital sphere (on this debate, see Morozov 2011; Deibert and Rohozinski 2010; Deibert 2013; Howard 2010).
- 12.
Interestingly, in this case the name of the party itself constitutes a call to dissidence. Also, battles against copyright provisions (and thus also indirectly against the liberal system of property ownership) have had a high profile in the party’s country of origin—Sweden.
- 13.
The passing of technical expertise to non-expert users in order to make these open structures accessible (CryptoParty is one such initiative) must be included in these activities. Much of what is done by classic hacker organisations—the CCC, for instance—comes under the development, deployment, and dissemination of an open infrastructure in a way that does not seek confrontation with the commercial/political shaping of the digital order (Kubitschko 2015).
- 14.
- 15.
It is important to bear in mind that hacking does not necessarily have a political component and is instead pursued out of technical curiosity, say, or for fun (or indeed may actually be done exclusively or chiefly for these reasons) (Turgeman-Goldschmidt 2005). One reason why hacking has become increasingly politicised is because the ontology of digital communication has undergone a change and what was once a mode of play for experts has turned into a heavily regulated area of human action deemed to be of crucial social importance (Nissenbaum 2004).
- 16.
It would be instructive at this point to look a little further afield and consider the kinds of world views that are associated with digital dissidence—views that appear to play an important part in recruiting new activists and maintaining the digital-dissidence movement in society. Popular culture’s fascination with digital dissidence is evident. It finds expression in admiring narratives about hackers—in the Mr Robot television series, for example, and in countless feature films. Iconic images of columns of green figures and successions of programme codes flashing past elevate computer expertise to the realms of wizardry. At the same time, these admiring accounts always have an undertone of considerable ambivalence, partly because they convey the feeling that anything may happen, that there is no control, and partly because the hacker is often portrayed as a loner and an unstable person.
- 17.
One example of successful endeavour by civil-society actors that remains as telling as ever is the series of so-called crypto wars conducted during the 1990s. As a result of these, comprehensive and accessible systems of coding were made available to end users in the face of strong reservations on the part of political actors. This example also shows, however, that the successes achieved by the Internet movement need constant safeguarding: The Snowden leaks make clear just how keen secret services are to undermine encryption standards (Kehl and Bankston 2015; Diffie and Landau 2007). Similarly, the discussions about ‘back doors’ and ‘golden keys’ in commercial applications demonstrate that the ideal of control-averse network structures faces strong resistance from both the state and, to some extent, business, meaning that norm formation must be viewed as an incomplete and contested project.
- 18.
This is clear from the case of data protection. Thus, the successful challenges mounted against the ‘Safe Harbour’ arrangement both in the courts and in parliament seem at first sight to signal victory, but the updated version of the instrument, entitled ‘Privacy Shield’, contains as many major implementation problems as ever and these are explained—at least by the actors involved in the negotiations—as being due to the impossibility of pushing through any broader-based agreements.
References
Assange, Julian. 2006. ‘“Conspiracy as Governance” and “State and Terrorist Conspiracies”’. Accessed 8 April 2016. https://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf.
Assange, Julian. 2010. ‘Don’t Shoot Messenger for Revealing Uncomfortable Truths’. The Australian, 8 December.
Barbrook, Richard, and Andy Cameron. 1996. ‘The Californian Ideology’. Science as Culture 6(1): 44–72.
Barlow, John Perry. 1996. ‘A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace’. Accessed 23 May 2016. https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html.
Beckedahl, Markus. 2015. ‘Die digitale Gesellschaft: Netzpolitik, Bürgerrechte und Machtfrage’. Journal of Self-Regulation and Regulation 1(1): 11–30.
Bendrath, Ralf, and Milton Mueller. 2011. ‘The End of the Net as We Know it: Deep Packet Inspection and Internet Governance’. New Media & Society 13(7): 1142–60.
Benkler, Yochai. 2011. ‘A Free Irresponsible Press: Wikileaks and the Battle over the Soul of the Networked Fourth Estate’. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 46(2): 311–97.
Benkler, Yochai. 2013. ‘Practical Anarchism: Peer Mutualism, Market Power, and the Fallible State’. Politics & Society 41(2): 213–51.
Benkler, Yochai. 2016. ‘Degrees of Freedom, Dimensions of Power’. Daedalus 145(1): 18–32.
Bennett, Colin J. 2008. The Privacy Advocates: Resisting the Spread of Surveillance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bundeskriminalamt. 2015. Hacktivisten: Abschlussbericht zum Projektfeld der Hellfeldbeforschung. Accessed 4 January 2016. www.bka.de/nn_193924/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/Publikationsreihen/SonstigeVeroeffentlichungen/2015HacktivistenProjektteilHellfeldbeforschung,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/2015HacktivistenProjektteilHellfeldbeforschung.pdf.
Castells, Manuel. 2004. ‘Informationalism, Networks, and the Network Society: A Theoretical Blueprint’. In The Network Society: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, edited by Manuel Castells, 3–45. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Castells, Manuel. 2010. The Rise of the Network Society. 2nd ed. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Celikates, Robin. 2015. ‘Digital Publics, Digital Contestation: A New Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere?’. In Transformations of Democracy, edited by Robin Celikates, Regina Kreide, and Tilo Wesche, 159–74. London: Rowman & Littlefield International.
Clark, David D. 2016. ‘The Contingent Internet’. Daedalus 145(1): 9–17.
Coleman, Gabriella. 2009. ‘Code Is Speech: Legal Tinkering, Expertise, and Protest among Free and Open Source Software Developers’. Cultural Anthropology 24(3): 420–54.
Coleman, Gabriella. 2012. Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Coleman, Gabriella. 2014. Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy: The Many Faces of Anonymous. London: Verso Books.
Crawford, Susan P. 2007. ‘Internet Think’. Journal on Telecommunications & High Technology Law 5: 467–86.
Dany, Charlotte. 2012. ‘Ambivalenzen der Partizipation: Grenzen des NGO-Einflusses auf dem Weltgipfel zur Informationsgesellschaft’. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 19(2): 71–99.
Deibert, Ronald J. 2013. Black Code: Surveillance, Privacy and the Dark Side of the Internet. Toronto: Signal.
Deibert, Ronald, and Rafal Rohozinski. 2010. ‘Liberation vs. Control: The Future of Cyberspace’. Journal of Democracy 21(4): 43–57.
DeNardis, Laura. 2009. Protocol Politics: The Globalization of Internet Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
DeNardis, Laura. 2012. ‘Hidden Levers of Internet Control: An Infrastructure-based Theory of Internet Governance’. Information, Communication & Society 15(5): 720–38.
DeNardis, Laura. 2013. ‘The Emerging Field of Internet Governance’. In Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies, edited by William H. Dutton, 555–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DeNardis, Laura. 2014. The Global War for Internet Governance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Diffie, Whitfield, and Susan Landau. 2007. Privacy on the Line: The Politics of Wiretapping and Encryption. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Drake, William J., Vinton G. Cerf, and Wolfgang Kleinwächter. 2016. ‘Internet Fragmentation: An Overview’. In World Economic Forum (Future of the Internet Initiative) White Paper. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Drezner, Daniel. 2004. ‘The Global Governance of the Internet: Bringing the State Back In’. Political Science Quarterly 119(3): 477–98.
Earl, Jennifer. 2006. ‘Pursuing Social Change Online: The Use of Four Protest Tactics on the Internet’. Social Science Computer Review 24: 362–77.
Earl, Jennifer, and Katrina Kimport. 2011. Digitally Enabled Social Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ebert, Hannes, and Tim Maurer. 2013. ‘Contested Cyberspace and Rising Powers’. Third World Quarterly 34(6): 1054–74.
Enzensberger, Hans Magnus. 2014. ‘Wehrt Euch’. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 1 March, 9.
Faris, Robert, Hal Roberts, Bruce Etling, Dalia Othman, and Yochai Benkler. 2015. Score Another One for the Internet: The Role of the Networked Public Sphere in the U.S. Net Neutrality Policy Debate. Berkman Center Research Publication 4. Cambridge, MA: Berkman Center Harvard University.
Floridi, Luciano. 2014. The 4th Revolution: How the Infosphere Is Reshaping Human Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Funken, Christiane. 2010. ‘Der Hacker’. In Diven, Hacker, Spekulanten: Sozialfiguren der Gegenwart, edited by Stephan Moebius and Markus Schroer, 190–205. Berlin: Suhrkamp.
Ganz, Kathrin. 2015. ‘Zehn Jahre Netzbewegung: Konflikte um Privatheit im digitalen Bürgerrechtsaktivismus vor und nach Snowden’. Forschungsjournal Soziale Bewegungen 28(3): 35–45.
Goldsmith, Jack, and Tim Wu. 2006. Who Controls the Internet: Illusions of a Borderless World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Greenberg, Andy. 2012. This Machine Kills Secrets: How WikiLeakers, Hacktivists, and Cipherpunks are Freeing the World’s Information. New York: Dutton.
Haase, Adrian, and Theresa Züger. 2015. ‘Hacktivismus = Cybercrime? Eine Replik auf die Studie des BKA zu Hacktivisten’. Accessed 8 April 2016. www.sicherheitspolitik-blog.de/2015/02/26/hacktivismus-cybercrime-eine-replik-auf-die-studie-des-bka-zu-hacktivisten/.
Hansen, Lene, and Helen Nissenbaum. 2009. ‘Digital Disaster, Cyber Security, and the Copenhagen School’. International Studies Quarterly 53(4): 1155–75.
Hempel, Leon. 2015. ‘Technisierter Protest, Hacking und die Absorptionskraft des Designs’. Forschungsjournal Soziale Bewegungen 27(4): 112–21.
Himanen, Pekka. 2004. ‘The Hacker Ethic as the Culture of the Information Age’. In The Network Society: A Cross-cultural Perspective, edited by Manuel Castells, 420–31. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hofmann, Jeanette. 2009. ‘Formierung und Wandel des Politischen in der Regulierung des Internet’. In Das Planetarische: Kultur–Technik–Medien im postglobalen Zeitalter, edited by Ulrike Bergermann, Isabell Otto, and Gabriele Schabacher, 175–86. Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink.
Hofmann, Niklas. 2011. ‘Der Gegenverschwörer’. In Wikileaks und die Folgen: Netz, Medien, Politik, edited by Heinrich Geiselberger, 47–54. Berlin: Suhrkamp.
Howard, Philip N. 2010. The Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Information Technology and Political Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, David R., and David G. Post. 1996. ‘Law and Borders: The Rise of Law in Cyberspace’. Stanford Law Review 48: 1367–402.
Jordan, Tim. 2008. Hacking: Digital Media and Technological Determinism. London: Polity.
Kahn, Richard, and Douglas Kellner. 2005. ‘Oppositional Politics and the Internet: A Critical/Reconstructive Approach’. Cultural Politics 1(1): 75–100.
Kamis, Ben, and Thorsten Thiel. 2015. The Original Battle Trolls: How States Represent the Internet as a Violent Place. PRIF Working Paper 23. Frankfurt am Main: PRIF.
Kartenberg, Hans-Peter. 2011. ‘Das Netz als Ort des Protests: Gilt die Demonstrationsfreiheit auch im Internet?’. Bürgerrechte & Polizei 98: 57–63.
Kehl, Danielle, Andi Wilson, and Kevin Bankston. 2015. ‘Doomed to Repeat History: Lessons from the Crypto Wars of the 1990s’. Open Technology Institute Policy Paper, June.
Kelty, Christopher. 2005. ‘Geeks, Social Imaginaries, and Recursive Publics’. Cultural Anthropology 20(2): 185–214.
Kidd, Dorothy. 2003. ‘Indymedia.org: A New Communications Common’. In Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice, edited by Martha McCaughey and Michael D. Ayers, 47–70. London: Routledge.
Kleger, Heinz, and Eric Makswitat. 2014. ‘Digitaler Ungehorsam: Wie das Netz den zivilen Ungehorsam verändert’. Forschungsjournal Neue Soziale Bewegungen 27(4): 8–17.
Kubitschko, Sebastian. 2015. ‘The Role of Hackers in Countering Surveillance and Promoting Democracy’. Media and Communication 3(2): 77–87.
Lagasnerie, Geoffroy de. 2016. Die Kunst der Revolte: Snowden, Assange, Manning. Berlin: Suhrkamp.
Leifeld, Philip, and Sebastian Haunss. 2012. ‘Political Discourse Networks and the Conflict over Software Patents in Europe’. European Journal of Political Research 51(3): 382–409.
Leiner, Barry M., Vinton G. Cerf, David D. Clark, Robert E. Kahn, Kleinrock Leonard, Daniel C. Lynch, Jon Postel, Larry G. Roberts, and Stephen Wolff. 2011. ‘Brief History of the Internet’. Accessed 23 May 2016. www.internetsociety.org/brief-history-internet.
Lovink, Geert, and Patrice Riemens. 2013. ‘Twelve Theses on Wikileaks’. In Beyond WikiLeaks: Implications for the Future of Communications, Journalism and Society, edited by Benedetta Brevini, Arne Hintz, and Patrick McCurdy, 245–53. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ludlow, Peter, ed. 2001. Crypto Anarchy, Cyberstates, and Pirate Utopia. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McCaughey, Martha, and Michael D. Ayers, eds. 2003. Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Milan, Stefania. 2013a. ‘Indymedia (The Independent Media Center)’. In Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements, edited by David Snow, Donatella Della Porta, Bert Klandermans, and Doug McAdam, 603–5. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Milan, Stefania. 2013b. Social Movements and Their Technologies: Wiring Social Change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Milan, Stefania. 2013c. ‘Wikileaks, Anonymous, and the Exercise of Individuality: Protesting in the Cloud’. In Beyond WikiLeaks: Implications for the Future of Communications, Journalism and Society, edited by Benedetta Brevini, Arne Hintz, and Patrick McCurdy, 191–208. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Moore, Daniel, and Thomas Rid. 2016. ‘Cryptopolitik and the Darknet’. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 58(1): 7–38.
Morozov, Evgeny. 2011. The Net Delusion. London: Allen Lane.
Mueller, Milton. 2015. ‘Gibt es Souveränität im Cyberspace’. Journal of Self-Regulation and Regulation 1(1): 65–80.
Musiani, Francesca, Derrick L. Cogburn, Laura DeNardis, and Nanette S. Levinson, eds. 2016. The Turn to Infrastructure in Internet Governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nissenbaum, Helen. 2004. ‘Hackers and the Contested Ontology of Cyberspace’. New Media & Society 6(2): 195–217.
Nissenbaum, Helen. 2005. ‘Where Computer Security Meets National Security’. Ethics and Information Technology 7(2): 61–73.
O’Hagan, Andrew. 2014. ‘Ghosting Julian Assange’. London Review of Books 36(5): 5–26.
Olson, Parmy. 2012. We Are Anonymous: Inside the Hacker World of LulzSec, Anonymous, and the Global Cyber Insurgency. New York: Little, Brown and Co.
Peters, Justin. 2016. The Idealist: Aaron Swartz and the Rise of Free Culture on the Internet. New York: Scribner.
Powell, Alison. 2016. ‘Hacking in the Public Interest: Authority, Legitimacy, Means, and Ends’. New Media & Society 18(4): 600–16.
Pozen, David E. 2013. ‘The Leaky Leviathan: Why the Government Condemns and Condones Unlawful Disclosures of Information’. Harvard Law Review 127: 512–635.
Sagar, Rahul. 2011. ‘Das mißbrauchte Staatsgeheimnis: Wikileaks und die Demokratie’. In Wikileaks und die Folgen, edited by Heinrich Geiselberger, 201–23. Berlin: Suhrkamp.
Sauter, Molly. 2014. The Coming Swarm: DDOS Actions, Hacktivism, and Civil Disobedience on the Internet. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Scheuermann, William E. 2014. ‘Whistleblowing as Civil Disobedience: The Case of Edward Snowden’. Philosophy & Social Criticism 40(7): 609–28.
Shantz, Jeff, and Jordon Tomblin. 2014. Cyber Disobedience: Re://presenting Online Anarchy. Winchester: Zero Books.
Shirky, Clay. 2008. Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations. London: Penguin Books.
Singh, J.P. 2013. ‘Information Technologies, Meta-power, and Transformations in Global Politics’. International Studies Review 15(1): 5–29.
Sprenger, Florian. 2015. Politik der Mikroentscheidungen: Edward Snowden, Netzneutralität und die Architekturen des Internets. Lüneburg: meson press.
Thiel, Thorsten. 2014a. ‘Die Schönheit der Chance: Utopien und das Internet’. Juridikum. Zeitschrift für Kritik – Recht – Gesellschaft 15(4): 459–71.
Thiel, Thorsten. 2014b. ‘Internet und Souveränität’. In Der Begriff der Souveränität in der transnationalen Konstellation, edited by Friederike Kuntz and Christian Volk, 215–39. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Timberg, Craig. 2015. The Threatened Net: How the Web Became a Perilous Place. New York: Diversion Books.
Tufekci, Zeynep. 2016. ‘As the Pirates Become CEOs: The Closing of the Open Internet’. Daedalus 145(1): 65–78.
Turgeman-Goldschmidt, Orly. 2005. ‘‘Hackers’ Accounts: Hacking as a Social Entertainment’. Social Science Computer Review 23(1): 8–23.
Turner, Fred. 2006. From Counterculture to Cyberculture: Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Network, and the Rise of Digital Utopianism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Weinberger, David. 2015. ‘The Internet That Was (and Still Could Be)’. The Atlantic, 22 June.
White, Micah. 2016. ‘The Panama Papers: Leaktivism’s Coming of Age’. The Guardian, 5 April. Accessed 6 April 2016. www.theguardian.com/news/commentisfree/2016/apr/05/panama-papers-leak-activism-leaktivism.
Williams, Elliot. 2016. ‘Hackers and Heroes: A Tale of Two Countries’, 11 January. Accessed 7 April 2016. http://hackaday.com/2016/01/11/hackers-and-heroes-a-tale-of-two-countries/.
Winter, Rainer. 2008. ‘Perspektiven eines alternativen Internets’. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 39: 23–8.
Wolfson, Todd. 2014. Digital Rebellion: The Birth of the Cyber Left. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Wu, Tim. 2010. The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Zittrain, Jonathan. 2003. ‘Internet Points of Control’. Boston College Law Review 44(2): 653–88.
Zittrain, Jonathan. 2009. The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Zittrain, Jonathan. 2010. ‘Protecting the Internet without Wrecking It: How to Meet the Security Threat’. In The Next Digital Decade: Essays on the Future of the Internet, edited by Berin Szoka and Adam Marcus, 91–112. Washington, DC: TechFreedom.
Züger, Theresa. 2014. ‘Digitaler ziviler Ungehorsam: Spurensuche der Dissidenz im digitalen Zeitalter’. Juridikum. Zeitschrift für Kritik – Recht – Gesellschaft 15(4): 472–81.
Züger, Theresa, Stefania Milan, and Leonie M. Tanczer. 2015. ‘Sand in the Information Society Machine: How Digital Technologies Change and Challenge the Paradigms of Civil Disobedience’. Fibreculture Journal 26: 108–35.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Thiel, T. (2017). Turnkey Tyranny? Struggles for a New Digital Order. In: Gertheiss, S., Herr, S., Wolf, K., Wunderlich, C. (eds) Resistance and Change in World Politics . Global Issues. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50445-2_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50445-2_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50444-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50445-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)