Why Is U.S. Trade Rep Tai Killing What’s Left of the Open Internet?

​A new online surveillance danger to human rights, free expression, and liberty is emerging in the online world. This particular threat is not coming from Moscow or Beijing, but inexplicably from America’s own trade representative, Katherine Tai.
 
Until now, the open architecture of the internet has made it difficult for illiberal governments, ranging from Uganda to Venezuela, to access what is posted and shared by dissidents, members of vulnerable minorities, and disgruntled citizens. Dictators have many surveillance workarounds at their disposal, including increasingly robust spyware spreading around the globe like wildfire. But at least the open architecture of the internet makes it difficult for dictators and persecutors to confidently track or trace every text, email, and online search within their borders.
 
It is thus out of a commitment to democracy and human rights that U.S. administrations and trade representatives have long strived to defend U.S. tech companies from being required to turn over data to be stored on local servers, which would Balkanize the internet. The United States also rejected requests from regimes that would compel U.S. tech companies to turn over their proprietary source codes so foreign governments could access the algorithms of messaging apps and digital platforms, potentially giving hostile actors access to the guts of their operations.
 
Late last year, Trade Representative Tai withdrew support for these longstanding U.S. digital trade principles before the World Trade Organization, a vastly underreported story with consequences that are just now beginning to sink in. This will subject leading U.S. tech companies to strict regulation in virtually every market in the world. That’s an odd position for America’s trade representative – who is usually expected to safeguard the competitiveness of American companies. The consequences for privacy and human rights promise to be catastrophic.
 
The Center for Democracy & Technology penned a coalition letter in February that itemized these negative consequences of Tai’s about-face. People’s personal data, the letter states, “can reveal who they voted for, who they worship, and who they love.” Data localization would upend a globally interoperable internet, placing this personal data firmly within reach of governments, “creating unique risks for people’s privacy, free expression, access to information, and other fundamental freedoms.”
 
Restrictions of cross-border flows of information will restrict the ability of people to access information from around the world. And the forced disclosure of products’ source code has the potential to undermine privacy and security here in the United States.  
 
Why is Tai doing this? Her actions appear to be the result of lobbying from Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan and DOJ Antitrust Chief Jonathan Kanter, who are actively encouraging global antitrust actions against large U.S. tech companies. Even if you are critical of Google, Apple, Amazon, and Meta, inviting Myanmar and Uzbekistan to regulate U.S. industries is astonishing, to say the least.
 
Clearly, this proposal wasn’t widely vetted. Nathaniel Fick, the State Department’s Ambassador for Cyberspace and Digital Policy, testified in a hearing late last year that he learned of this sea change in U.S. policy from press reports. There are signs that Tai’s surprise kicked off a fierce debate within the administration.
 
To be fair, the internet is far from perfectly open as it is. Some countries like India already require a degree of data localization. The Biden Administration’s effort to protect Americans’ personal data from hostile “countries of concern” like Russia and China will be portrayed by some as a step toward Balkanization. But Tai’s policy reversal kicks this trend into overdrive. It will enable foreign governments to surveil democracy activists and dissidents around the world, while heightening threats to Americans at home.
 
This is a monumental shift in American policy. It must be more widely discussed, debated, and investigated by journalists and Members of Congress.