The development of the Internet in Indonesia is inseparable from the influence of geopolitical factors on Internet governance in Indonesia. Internet governance isn’t just about things like fiber optics and data centers. There are interconnected and inseparable components within the system, requiring complex coordination between governments and the private sector, as well as cross-border actors. Although the Internet is rapidly expanding around the world thanks to US efforts, its highly dominant influence is putting pressure on the sustainability of the Internet globally. This pressure takes the form of assigning responsibility for internet oversight to international organizations such as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and the United Nations (UN), giving more legitimacy to ad hoc, decentralized, and decentralized internet governance. It is done. However, this assignment of oversight is dangerous because of the centralized and rigid nature of the Internet system, which is controlled by governments. This pressure raises questions about the sustainability of the internet. Because the fate of the future Internet may be fragmented, developing unevenly with unconnected areas, or developing evenly. However, the current state of the Internet can coexist because one component of the Internet can be ignored, become dominant, and even lead to the collapse of the entire system. Many parties are currently experiencing one of these conditions. (O’Hara and Hall, 2018).
- Data governance example
One aspect of Internet governance that is equally important in the Internet component is data, including personal data and group data. Indonesia, a developing country in the Global South, has become a new target for US Big Tech’s expansion in promoting the digital economy. Having experienced a data governance vacuum, countries in the Global South, including Indonesia, are being asked to adopt existing data governance within the international order, but data governance is influenced by international commercial interests, domestic politics, and interstate forces. Affected by relationships. This is a major impact of the expansion of US Big Tech. Both US-based Big Tech and the European Union (EU) have a smart strategy to attract new users by offering free internet access, but the aim is to collect raw data from countries in the global south. The idea is to leverage it and develop it into a modern digital product that can be sold again. This is certainly dangerous. Because if developing countries, especially those in the Global South, are unable to properly regulate and compete on data governance, they will be unable to secure the future of data as they compete with developed countries where technology companies are expanding around the world. (Hicks 2021).
The most appropriate way to address the influence of Big Tech is to reform our tax system and data localization. The tax reform is being hotly debated within the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which includes around 130 countries, and includes a “digital services tax” to ensure that technology companies do not evade national tax obligations for profit-making purposes. Almost all countries agree. Activities by placing physical activity in the host country. This includes Indonesia, which is implementing this. Another approach taken by China, India and Russia is to leverage Big Tech influence to support domestic digital products such as China’s Baidu and Russia’s Yandex, while India leverages Big Tech to support domestic digital products such as China’s Baidu and Russia’s Yandex. The idea is to develop digital infrastructure from data obtained from citizens. Data localization is a policy used to reclaim economic rights to the data that citizens generate. Until now, data from Big Tech has been stored in locations based in the U.S. and Europe without knowing the data’s origins, prompting governments to encourage domestic data generation to be stored in data centers closer to the host country. It is regulated. This is being done as a decisive step towards ‘data sovereignty’ and India is actively developing and promoting data localization. Moreover, the United States actively defends Big Tech and opposes these practices (Hicks 2021).
- Competition in data management
Data is an extremely valuable asset for both the economy and security, sparking competition to control its production and distribution. Economically, Big Tech companies from North America and China dominate the list of the world’s largest companies by market capitalization. Meanwhile, on the security front, large numbers of individuals are subject to surveillance by the United States, sparking widespread protests, and to a lesser extent, concerns over mass data collection carried out by European countries. It goes hand-in-hand with Snowden’s revelations about similar tactics. Massive data collection by European countries contradicts the EU’s tendency to prioritize the security of individuals’ data over national security, now famously known as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (Hicks 2021).
- Impact of hegemony on Indonesia
Each international party has its own way of dealing with data issues. Initially spurred by the expansion of Big Tech, data patterns moved beyond business issues into the realm of international relations, political economy, and international development. The most influential international actors in terms of data governance policies are known as data empires and consist of the United States, the European Union, and China. The US Empire does not impose restrictions on cross-border data flows. Instead, enter into trade agreements to develop economies of scale and data coverage, and prohibit data localization measures that support trade. The EU has made the protection of personal data a top priority and believes that by building trust, individuals can feel confident that companies will use their personal data. Finally, imperial China’s policies not only restrict the flow of data and information across borders, but also within China. This policy aims to maintain social stability and the Communist Party’s power, while supporting fields in need of knowledge, such as artificial intelligence (Hicks 2021).
As a “rule maker” that already has its own data governance, hegemonic actors pressure other countries, especially developing countries like Indonesia, to choose one empire that can serve as a “rule receiver” and provide benefits. . Should Indonesia choose rules based on trade agreements, market access restrictions, or authoritarian data governance as one of the components of its internet governance? Indonesia is certainly experiencing a lot of international data flows, as many Indonesians are using the internet as a geopolitical opportunity to negotiate localization (Anam and CNBC India 2022, Annur 2023). However, Indonesia needs power and internet infrastructure capacity and qualified human resources. If negotiations proceed to international organizations, friction between developed and developing countries, such as the United States and the EU refusing data localization, will make it difficult to reach an agreement, leading to increased production and consumption in developing countries. From this point of view, it is preferable for negotiations to be conducted bilaterally after discussions at international organizations. Considering these factors, Indonesia can develop the most appropriate data governance policy, but the examples of hegemonic countries should not be ignored (Hicks 2021).
- Internet governance in Indonesia
Policies regarding internet governance, including data, are regulated by the ITE Act and the recently enacted new PDP Act, but these are not immune to the influence of hegemonic powers such as China, the US, and the EU, and are actively controlling various aspects. It is regulated. Internet governance. However, the question arises as to which side Indonesia is leaning towards. Looking at the contents of the ITE Law and the PDP Law, the ITE Law tends to lean toward China, which embodies an authoritarian character, but in the Indonesian context, the ITE Law tends to be used by domestic political elites to suppress freedom of expression. When exploited in the digital realm. In essence, the ITE Act takes into account the religious and socio-cultural values of a society and prohibits crimes such as distribution of obscene videos, online gambling, defamation, blackmail and intimidation, spreading of fake news, hate speech, online terrorism, etc. The act is prohibited (CNBC Indonesia 2022). Equally important is the careful implementation of his ITE method by involving experts in the IT field. This is because not everyone in the legal field understands the ITE Act and there are concerns that it could lead to authoritarian Internet governance.
On the other hand, PDP laws tend to lean towards the EU, which is strong on managing personal data responsibly without harming others (Wibawana 2022). However, there are still some aspects of the PDP Act that need improvement, including which agencies are empowered to use the Act to prosecute violators of the PDP Act. Because there will always be an agency that monitors all actions taken by the various parties during enforcement. In digital economic activities. The extent to which these institutions are authorized to use the PDP Act is an important question to be assessed. Furthermore, it is important to clarify the boundaries of legal scope between individuals and institutions, as they certainly differ in their ability to process and control data (Arditya and Nugraha 2021).
Indonesia’s challenge to improve internet governance still has many areas that need to be addressed, both technically and regulatoryly. Internet governance is not just an Indonesian issue. Every country in the world is striving to improve Internet governance. The influence of hegemons on Indonesia cannot be ignored, as Indonesia is also progressing more rapidly in Internet governance and technological development decisions. Indonesia must not blindly accept the influence of hegemony or be dominated by domestic political elites. Coordination among stakeholders in Internet governance is necessary to ensure that Internet governance benefits all parties and does not harm any particular party. Some aspects of internet governance that Indonesia needs to address and improve include cybersecurity regulation, electronic transactions, online freedom of expression, privacy and surveillance, and the Internet of Things (Shafira 2021).
