By Ronald Austin Jr

IT is Guyana’s turn to experience the debate on national security and freedom of speech. We are late to the party by global standards. This contestation is often never settled. This deliberation may never cease and it should not. The progressives will continue to baulk at legislative attempts by governments to secure its protection, agents of government globally will maintain their right to protect against digital threats in the age of modern technology. As this healthy national debate ensues, it is important for statesmen and women to approach this issue prudently. There has to be a graceful balance to achieve too inviolable objectives: national security and freedom of speech.

The Case of the State
Ever since the modern state was introduced with the Peace of Westphalia (1648), threats to those who provide custody over the state have always been real. Rebellions, insurrections, revolutions and coup d’etats are words dreaded by governments. During the days of no computers, no smart phones and no digital connectivity, this danger was physical. In the modern age, rebellions, insurrections, revolutions and coup d’états can be organised from mobile phones with internet access. With that in mind, remember, digital transformation will inevitably come along with digital threats, especially to the state. Further, any shadowy character can start a fire on digital sphere. There is no denying that the digital sphere is sometimes the Wild West with the strangest of humans who advocate unlawful acts against the government and seek to bring harm to the leaders in government. Digital threats to governments also come from within the halls of government; this internal peril is silent and often not detected. State secrets can be procured by hackers outside and inside government. Who would dare argue that the state does have an argument in this debate? In its report, ‘Governing In The Age Of Cyber Threats’, Accenture documented, ’50 times more attacks were launched against government in the past year than in any other industry’. An example of the risk to governments is evident where hackers, criminals or political agent provocateurs send a “phishing” email message to government employees, when workers click on the message; the government computer could be rendered useless until a ransom is paid. This digital criminal practice is known as ‘Ransom ware’. ‘Ransom ware’ can also occur when Ransomers send a government agency a letter threatening to take down the computer system of critical parts of government’s computer system unless money is paid. Cyberwarfare against the state is undeniable. State and non-state actors are pivoting to this weapon in the age of modern warfare. Examples include massive spying by the United States (US) on other countries reported by Edward Snowden: the National Security Agency (NSA) of the US spied on the German Chancellor Angela Merkel and there is the case of the US also becoming the victim of cyber warfare. The US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) experienced a data breach which was widely attributed to China. Non-state actors engage in cyberwarfare to whip up hatred and attacks on governments, even promoting rebellions to serve narrow political agendas.

The Case for Responsible Freedom of Expression
The digital sphere is not solely a bad place,it is also a place where law-abiding citizens seek to constructively critique their governments. It is sometimes their only recourse against imperfect government. The digital sphere should not be demonized, on the basis of actions of bad actors. In Pre-2015 Guyana, beset with an ethnocratic dictatorship, social media was our saviour. When Channel 9 was being threatened by the state and the ‘black clothes’ police swooped down on this news outlet, our only recourse was social media. When ads were withdrawn from the Stabroek News and press freedom was under threat, we sought refuge under the digital sphere. When CNS Channel 6 faced closure and journalists at the Kaieteur News received death threats, it was social media that served as the great push back. Lest we forget, our quiet revolution in 2015 and reclaiming our beloved Guyana from a destructive cabal was driven in large part by social media. When there was inflexible arrogance at the level of the state that came with the politics of ‘we have the ethnic numbers’, many young people used social media to seek redress. As we proceed to address cyber threats, this recent history must play on our minds as we consider policy and legislation. We live in an era where it is near impossible to stop the flow of information. Governments must develop thick skins and defend the right of some critics to make baseless, lawful noise in cyber space, using responsible freedom of speech.

The Graceful Balance
The graceful legislative posture of balancing national security with fundamental human rights, specifically, freedom of speech, is not easily achieved. The United States, the great bastion of protecting fundamental human rights provides a panoramic view of this difficult task at play. The threat of terrorism in the post-9/11 period, caused the US to renege on its core values that speak to the protection of fundamental human rights. Courts in the US were forced to rule on cases of people being charged with speech-related offences and incitement of violence, all related to terrorism offences. This information serves to highlight the fact that not even the US, has figured out how to perform this difficult, graceful balance. At the end of the day, the legalese that is contained in any legislation to address national security threats from the cyber sphere should be air-tight and the drafters must ensure it cannot be easily exploited by autocrats, dictators and totalitarians.