How To Kill The Internet: An Annotated Guide

Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to kill the internet. Well, sort of. Russia is taking steps that would enable the government to unplug the country from the world wide web and fall back on its own, internal Russian network. A Russian agency plans to perform tests on a prototype of the "RosNet" (our coinage) soon.

That would be a boon to Vladimir Putin's ongoing bid to tighten control over the online realm, an obsession rooted in the anti-Putin protests of 2011-2012, and the Snowden revelations about massive US online snooping in 2013. The system is meant to be a temporary emergency measure, according to the Russian press – in case of hostile cyberattacks, or serious internal protests.


But Russia's president has a problem: ordinary Russians are accustomed to relatively unfettered access to the global internet. If Putin really pulled the plug during a bout of unrest, or if he tried to clamp down too hard on the global internet in other ways, he could face a popular backlash.

But Russia's experimentation here got us thinking: what are governments' different strategies for controlling cyberspace? Some do it for national security reasons, others are responding to consumer concerns about privacy. In all cases, what governments can and can't do is a product of the prevailing political, technological, and economic forces in their countries.

Here are a few basic approaches we've noticed:

Build your own: That's China's approach. Around 800 million people in the country surf the web, buy stuff and find love over a sanitized version of the internet that's been engineered to block or stamp out information that could threaten political stability or the legitimacy of the Communist Party. That seems to suit China's millions of internet users just fine. It easier to tolerate being disconnected from the global internet when you've already got domestic internet services and apps that are easily as innovative, and in some cases even more influential, than foreign ones. But that's a model that other governments – even technologically sophisticated ones like Russia's – will struggle to replicate.

Cut it off, and damn the consequences: Governments that lack the resources and knowhow to develop sophisticated censorship systems like China's or a backup domestic internet like the one Russia hopes to build still have options for controlling cyberspace. When governments in Cameroon or regional states in India were worried about protests or other social unrest spreading via social media, they just cut the internet off. There are two big problems with this approach: one, it's expensive – and will only grow more so as a bigger chunk of the global economy relies on online connectivity. Two, it's potentially politically explosive: when Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak cut off the internet to try to stamp out protests that were being organized on social media during the Arab Spring, it only solidified popular opposition to his regime.

Tighten up the rules, but don't close the road: No country has benefited more from the global internet than the United States, and you won't see the US talking about cutting off US citizens anytime soon. Still, Washington is increasingly concerned about cybersecurity threats and the national security implications of foreign (read: Chinese) equipment suppliers. The Trump administration is more aggressively confronting foreign hackers and trying to push China's huge tech companies out of next-generation 5G networks around the world. The EU for its part, is also trying to assert more government control over the internet, by tightly regulating hate speech and setting stricter rules to protect users' personal data.

Which of these strategies do you think is most likely to succeed in the long run?

The Mueller report is finally here! What comes next? It's US Politics in 60 Seconds with Ben White!

And go deeper on topics like cybersecurity and artificial intelligence at Microsoft on The Issues.

The Fed's decision not to raise interest rates again in 2019: good or bad news?

It's Money in 60 Seconds with Sallie Krawcheck!

And go deeper on topics like cybersecurity and artificial intelligence at Microsoft on The Issues

GZERO interviews Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó.

It once seemed so encouraging for Venezuela's political opposition: Millions in the streets. Strong international support. An unpopular autocrat seemingly on the ropes. But what a difference a month can make.

In early March, Juan Guaidó — the man recognized by dozens of countries as Venezuela's interim president — returned home to cheering crowds. He had been abroad for almost two weeks, currying favor with other regional governments, and trying to get much–needed humanitarian aid to his countrymen.

But in the days since then, little has changed. Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro remains in power, despite having overseen one of the most staggering economic collapses in modern history.

Guaidó's overtures to the military to drop their support for Maduro have had little effect — only an estimated 1,000 soldiers and national police have defected, despite huge protests, growing sanctions pressure, and the whispered threat of US military action. The top brass remains loyal to Maduro.

In fact, after a few weeks of mostly ignoring Mr. Guaidó, Venezuelan authorities have quietly ratcheted up pressure of their own. Earlier this week, in a pre-dawn raid, the intelligence services detained Mr. Guaidó's chief of staff at his home, raising the possibility that the government may be closing in on Mr. Guaidó himself.

With relatively few tangible gains to show recently, what is Guaidós plan? Is he open to US military intervention? What would a realistic transition look like?

He sits down with us to answer these very questions. Watch the interview here.

During a speech in 1937, Winston Churchill warned that "Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers from which they dare not dismount." In the intervening years, we've seen ample evidence that he was right. Any leader who forcibly seizes political power knows that giving it up can be dangerous.

More Show less