Visionaries Multimedia

Internet Governance Policy Survey - November 2007

This Web page contains some of the qualitative written elaborations  gathered among the data in a survey of IGF participants that was fielded to measure attitudes about current and likely Internet governance policy initiatives. Responses were gathered from 206 IGF attendees, roughly 15 percent of Forum participants, representing 60 countries. The Internet Governance Forum in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Nov. 12-15, 2007, was the second of five annual global events that attract stakeholders who come together to discuss issues tied to the future of information and communications technologies.  Respondents were asked to provide written elaborations about their concerns for the future of the Internet in open-ended response boxes on the survey; some chose not to reply to every question asked, so you will not find 206 responses to each question. The researchers express their thanks to survey respondents, some of whom spent up to an hour carefully considering and providing their input for this survey. The written responses were sometimes composed in a mix of languages and some were written with grammatical or syntax errors but had a discernible meaning; these have been edited to bring clarity for use on this site. Please address any inquiries about the data to

To return to the IGF Survey Statistics page, click here.

To return to the first IGF Rio Survey page, click here.

This page contains responses to the question on concerns about the future of SECURITY. To go to other open-ended responses, click on the appropriate category below:


Open-ended response number five


List the most important future concern(s) you have about SECURITY and Internet governance.

List the most important future concerns about security and Internet governance.
My concern is that security will be used as an excuse to limit the freedom of the net.

Securing the next one billion coming online.

Keep technical security and content control as clearly separated issues.

The rights to privacy should not be undermined by security priorities. The Internet is the Internet coz of current privacy level (which is not too high, neither too low).

Balancing freedom of expression and the right to privacy with the need to make the Internet free from spammers, phishers and fraudsters.

Concern: the defense of privacy after it ends for good.

Guarantee security without breaching the individuals’ rights to privacy.

Infringement of freedom of expression by security.

Security vs. privacy; security vs. human rights.

As I've said before, there is too little enforcement and real cooperation, too much policy making and talking. Supply the resources, make this a real priority!

Everyone is responsible for some aspects of security. It is not an "either/or" situation.

Concern that restrictive decisions around content will be made in the name of security. "Cybercrime" refers to a rather broad area of possible crimes. Some of these will be sorted out by the private sector in order to offer their services. But there are also activities that are not considered crimes in some countries, but are illegal in others.

Ensuring that methods of ensuring security of the Internet infrastructure do not compromise the openness of the Internet.

Expand & develop new tools to enhance security with minimum loss of privacy and rights from the individual users.

Who rules it.

Internet users should be like automobile drivers. You can write down a license number, go to a state government agency, pay money and identify yourself and then get the information about the owner. The same should be true of a specific IP address at a specific time.

Preventing fraud, viruses, identity theft, etc.

Dominance of the Microsoft software monoculture.

That governments don't jump to quick simplistic solutions but engage in sustained and broad-based debate.

Balance between individual privacy of choice and national or global norms.
Surveillance and privacy issues.

The convergence of spam, spyware, viruses and other malware. Bad guys do not stand upon protocol. They just do it. Government and ISPs lag far, far behind.
That laws are territorial by nature that governments might exploit this for political censorship and stopping freedom of expression.

Policy should be in place with participation of stakeholders.

This set of questions is far to simplistic - security must be designed into the entire Internet cycle (hardware/transport/software/etc.) and users must be educated to use tools that enable trust and manage their personal identity details. Must be based on open, inter-operable standards and services must be distributed.

I think countries across the globe should use existing or make new treaties with one another to address cybercrime the same way they do when there are issues with crime-related roaming cell phone

1) The DNSSEC [Domain Name System Security Extensions] delivery constantly best practices on security issues shall be followed and implemented by all Internet operators in their fields. 2) The mirrors root servers deployment gives a better resilience on the

Illegal activity and security are often confused. What is illegal in one place may not be in others. The activities that we globally agree on are crimes are already being dealt with by Interpol etc. So they should have a computer/Internet division and ability inside Interpol, but not a whole Internet Police! Internet security is a technical issue. It does not mean crime fighting, but rather strong locks on the systems that hold the data. Rather like the difference between a bank vault and a police

How can my country be responsible for illegal content in its boundaries, if the way the Internet is structured, there is no boundaries?

Invoking security concerns to justify government-sponsored restrictions.

Because security is such a major issue, some level of control is unavoidable, I’m afraid.

Privacy issues; anonymity as a form to grant the freedom of expression; Internet jurisdiction problems; secure protocols; open standards.

Internet needs to be more secure but respect privacy. Needs to be more coordination globally.

Must exist a joint effort, between countries, providers and users.

Lack of software and hardware that aren't as vulnerable as those of today.

We need more advanced security technologies.

Laws that already exist should be extended to cover security over Internet as well.

Widely varying readiness among the countries on this issue.


Real coordination by users and local authorities.

Information online about security.

Hacking and cracking.

Over-control for security reasons.

Enforcement of global Internet policies and eventual regulation on cybercrime.

Global cooperation.

Governments spying online on private computers (like planned in Germany).


Lack of education by users.

Misleading people (phishing etc).

Ethics, security measures.

How will security be ensured?

Security must be accepted as everyone’s responsibility. This has to be accepted universally at all levels from governments, service providers to individual users.
Expansion of trash content on the Web.


Major accessibility by individuals and quality of security of the information.


The privacy versus law enforcement this is the question at the same time requires privacy and the right of the individual, it is important that this is done in legal processes. The illegality structure regulations must provide means to ensure their identity.

We all have a responsibility.

Finding the right balance between fighting crime and protecting human rights.
The oppression of individuals and organizations targeted by dictators.

1 - The lack of cooperation between the different actors; 2 - Creation of a sort of global police for the Internet. The Internet must remain free but it takes some cooperation between the police forces of the world (building missions Interpol suffice).

Everyone is responsible for its security.

Balance of security and liberties.


End users have nothing to do with security; they are usually not computer experts.
It is essential that the steps to ensure a degree of security on the Internet do not harm freedoms. Respect for confidentiality, privacy must be respected.

Ditto my previous answer.

A project of the Elon University School of Communications
All rights reserved. Contact us at