The politics of information technology

The politics of information technology

Yanuar Nugroho, Researcher & General Secretary Uni Sosial Demokrat,
Jakarta, yanuar-n@unisosdem.org

Internet users throughout Indonesia must sense something was
wrong between May 5 and May 10, when it took longer than usual to
connect to the Internet.

Yes, the problem was not a common one. Domestic Internet
traffic plunged, as it had to be re-routed via a foreign
bandwidth. And yet, non-domestic traffic went on with no problem
at all. Even sites owned by the central government (with the
suffix go.id) were unable to be accessed. Why did this happen?

The Indonesian Internet Exchange (IIX) -- managed by the
Association of Indonesian Internet Service Providers (APJII), had
been cut-off, and so all servers were shut down, causing routes
of data within the domestic network to be halted and the routing
process had to be performed through a foreign network thus
slowing Internet access.

There was an angry response. APJII was blamed for taking
illegal action that adversely affected many parties like Internet
users and the Directorate General of Post and Telecommunications
(Postel).

What APJII performed was, in fact, a boycott represented by
the Internet community here in response to careless action
carried out by the police and Postel who seized communication
equipment operating on frequency 2.4 GHz. Wireless Internet
connection technology is currently deployed on this bandwidth and
is much cheaper compared to the conventional connection via phone
lines.

In fact, the telecommunication body of the United Nations, the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), has allocated the
frequency 2.4 GHz to be unlicensed and free to be used by anyone.

By utilizing this allocation, alongside the developed wireless
technology, low-cost Internet services to the public were made
possible because Internet kiosks were no longer required to pay
the ever-increasing day-to-day telephone rates.

In addition, remote areas have noticeably benefited from the
expansion of the Internet. When Coordinator Minister for the
Economy Dorodjatun Kuntjoro Jakti and Coordinating Minister for
Peoples' Welfare Jusuf Kalla visited remote village of Nglilo on
the slopes of Mt. Merbabu, Central Java, on May 4, they saw for
themselves how local peasants were familiarized with
teleconferencing, carried out by wireless technology. It was
ironic, therefore, that just one day before the ministers' visit,
the reckless seizures of the same equipment took place in
Jakarta.

The whole trouble started when the monitoring body of Postel
wrote a letter to order users of 2.4 GHz band to halt their
activities until an official permit was released. Anxiety emerged
among telecommunication and informatics (telematic) communities,
which have been developing wireless technology, because the
letter was interpreted as against the resolution made by the ITU.
In fact, there had been efforts to request official permission to
Postel, organized collectively by the wireless users gathered in
Indo WLI. Nevertheless, up until recently, not a single permit
has been issued thanks to the many unclear procedures, one of
which is related to fees and other financial matters.

Therefore, once the unreasonable raids had been carried out by
Jakarta's administration, hand-in-hand with Jakarta Police, who
seized wireless communication equipment, APJII -- fully supported
by its associations: the Association of Indonesian
Telecommunication Kiosks (APWI), the Association of Indonesian
Internet Kiosks (AWARI) and IndoWLI -- reacted and staged a
boycott, by shutting down all the machines serving the domestic
routing for three straight days.

One might recall a similar controversial case related to Voice
over Internet Protocol (VoIP) some time ago, which still remains
unsolved. VoIP, which enables low-priced audio communication
using Internet networks and protocols, was considered a threat
instead of an opportunity. There had been much criticism in
response to it. Yet, it is not difficult to wonder whether the
national body of telecommunications, Telkom, had its own
interests. Why? Because VoIP would reduce the income of Telkom
generated from international dialing. Also, some politicians and
political parties confused the VoIP issue with nationalism, which
was just simply irrelevant.

In so confusing a situation, it was very unfortunate the State
Minister of Communications and Information, representing the
government as a public agency, had no clear stance at the time.

When the developers of VoIP technology were arrested and their
equipment confiscated without permission, official authorization
was given exclusively to certain business groups to purchase the
necessary permits. So, where does this problem originate?

It seems that any discourse on technology is a discourse on
power as well. It was the English philosopher, Francis Bacon
(1561-1626) who introduced the well-known phrase "knowledge is
power". The knowledge inherited from information technology (IT)
could be used to organize the movement's network for a new
Indonesia with solidarity and a democratic ethos. But in the
hands of uncontrolled groups blindly seeking profit -- as we can
often see in global economic practices -- IT can also be captured
to control many aspects of our shared life. This depraved process
was never its intention at all.

Foucault, following Bacon, in his Strategies of Power,
L'Express (1988), emphasizes the development of all knowledge can
never be detached from the exercise of power, for science itself
has become a powerful institution in itself.

Again, we are facing the ambivalent face of IT. It is not IT
alone that has become the problem, but in what kind of power it
can be made to exercise. It is therefore clear the importance in
technology is not only related to technical proficiency, but also
to the sensitivity toward the exercise of power that brings
enormous consequences to society. Therefore, how can the exercise
of power be controlled?

The fact that official permission to utilize VoIP technology
can be purchased or the reality that financial payment is
involved in obtaining authorized use of 2.4 GHz band for wireless
Internet use, clearly shows there is another power, external to
the legal and formal power belonging to the government as a
public agency. Indeed, this suspicion is unavoidable: That there
is a hidden agenda among the legal authorities to impose control
over the telecommunications infrastructure and to withdraw it
from collective ownership.

Yet, by following this line of logic the following statement
will arise: If there is money available, surely the official
license can be purchased, can't it?

Thus, it has become clear the process of gaining authorized
permission -- to apply any kind of technology or to operate on a
certain frequency -- is not necessarily a democratic process. So,
who is more powerful? The authorities or those who have the money
to buy the rules -- including buying the process that makes the
rules? This is a simple but very central question, yet we often
forget it.

In such a process, a telematics community like APJII and its
associations have lost out because they have to undergo the logic
circle of capital and the production process, which relies solely
on communication and information systems. Even so, the same
consequences have also occurred within other professional groups.
The fact the consequences are out of sight does not mean they are
absent.

The case of VoIP and bandwidth 2.4 GHz reflects the critical
moment of a tension that comprises three aspects. Firstly, it
implies the need for the protection of the telematics communities
as a whole. Secondly, it involves the problem for those
"information workers" engaged in Indonesia's political economy.
Lastly, within the equilibrium of the "three axes of power"
consisting of market systems, public agencies and the civic
community, the solution of this case will be an important
indicator to highlight whether market systems have ruined or
improved our shared life, or if it is possible to improve
conditions for at least one social group first: the telematics
community.

This reveals a convoluted interest structured within a huge
and sophisticated framework that echoes the issue of information
technology. It seems difficult to stand the inconsiderate
exercise of state power that wiped out the capacity of the
telematics community recently: from the complicated and
deliberately unclear process of obtaining an official permit, the
raids and seizure of equipment, to the fact that the license for
frequency usage and technology utilization can be bought.

The action of shutting down the IIX servers by APJII is a
considerable step for democratization. It has been made apparent
to all those who still believe democracy is only related to the
control of state power democratization also involves the public
accountability of the stakeholders of technology -- including
information technology.

When the technology developed for the advancement of communal
life is being plundered by a collusion of interests between
businesses and the state, democracy needs to stand strong and
hold its ground. Our stance to fight for it will go down in
history as an honorable act.