La démocratie digitale : quelle gouvernance ? | Neila Benzina | TEDxCarthage

La démocratie digitale : quelle gouvernance ? | Neila Benzina | TEDxCarthage


Translator: Robert Tucker
Reviewer: Denise RQ Hello. My name is Ingrid Stanson. I am originally from Malmö in Sweden. I’m tall, I’m blonde, I have blue eyes,
and I am 23 years old. I’m single, and I love going out
in the evening partying. (Laughter) (Applause) Yes, I knew the reaction
would be something like that. If I wanted to attract a very large number
of people on my social networks, if I wanted to make a lot of friends
in a very short time, especially among the men
– True, gentlemen? – that’s exactly what I’d do. That’s exactly how I’d go about it. Yes, it would be easy. But no, my name is Neila Benzina Atruz. I am Tunisian, I’m married,
I have two children, I am entrepreneur, and I’ll soon be 40. (Applause) So now, imagine that Ingrid Stanson
is Mohammed Al Baghdadi, recruiter for ISIS, the Islamic State
of Iraq and the Levant. Mohammed Al Baghdadi seeks to draw
into his sphere, his Jihad sphere, a very large number of young people
who are desperate and lost, searching for something
to hold on to, searching for guidance. Young people, yes, hundreds
of thousands of young people who would find themselves trapped, who are unable to go back
and retrace their steps. Yes, he would be capable
of turning them into human bombs. Mohammed Al Baghdadi, you know what?
He didn’t hesitate to do it. He’s already doing it today,
massively and uncontrollably. The Internet and social media
unleashed all passion. The Internet and social media
have allowed a great effervescence allowed things to boil up
like nothing else. The Internet and social media today
provide a place for all fantasies, but also, unfortunately,
for all forms of manipulation. So, what is it really? The power of Twitter and Facebook is
much-vaunted in revolutionary movements. Consider the speed with
which all those messages, all those slogans were sent. The impact that it had on us. It all inspired us, gave us power. We felt united, standing in solidarity
against the opponent, in a position, finally,
to be able to change things. Yes, we felt able to change things,
our destiny finally belonged to us. Yes, everything was possible. Except one also realized states’ ability to use all the data and information
for themselves in their own interests. We realized, worse still,
and more serious still, the capacity of all types of terrorists, and one must say, of all types, to have unlimited access to the world, to propagate their fascistic
and nauseous theories, to manipulate, animate all their networks, Jihadist, terrorist,
murderous, bloodthirsty. Yes, that’s how they had
unlimited access to the world. After the enthusiasm
that followed the Arab Spring, or what we like to call
the beginning of the Tunisian spring, after the events
on Independence Square in the Ukraine, we began to allow ourselves to dream that finally the voice
would be restored to the people, and that the peoples
would make good use of it. Yes, it would be possible. We were going to be able
to build a better world together in which there would be
greater synergy, more collaboration, greater possibilities, more opportunities. You can imagine this world
able to break down barriers, to abolish borders,
allow us to get closer, and to seek all that would be beneficial beyond the interests of the individual
and the individualist. It would finally be possible. Except that one realized also,
unfortunately, that the use of this new freedom would be
far more complicated than it seemed. Digital democracy
is difficult to put in place. The path is still long and difficult. Yes, the use of this new freedom
has brought a lot of disappointments. And these disappointments
lead us today, unfortunately, to put in question
this pseudo-libertarian model. It’s sad to use the term
‘pseudo-libertarian’ because finally it’s libertarian only
for well-established, safe democracies. Authoritarian states have nothing to fear
from these giants of the Internet, from these players on the Internet,
from these mad sources of information, which, it should also be noted in passing,
are there first and foremost for business. They are there first and foremost
with commercial interests. They are there first and foremost
to monetize and make money from your passage through
their environment, through their system. Yes, they know how to pull in the cash
as soon as you enter their sphere. Well, authoritarian states
are no longer afraid of that because they have completely mastered
their operational modes. Look how Google has yielded to China. See how Russia has required that its data
be stored on its own territory. Look again how the NSA has enabled itself to have access to all the information
and all the data of GAFA: Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple,
and many others besides. Today, one poses the question, in fact: In the end, is all this
nothing but an illusion? Governments appear to have
complete control over the modes of operation of the Internet. At first they had difficulties, they struggled to master
the tools of the web. They were taken short
by the tidal wave that was the web. And then, over essentially
the last four, five years they have reorganized themselves. They’ve made massive investment
to regain control. And all content today, whether written
or oral, is monitored. It’s all known. It’s all under control. And the threat that justifies
such surveillance is real. Except that there is a paradox. While we have seen
put in place this arsenal, and this power of control, in the end we have seen
complete control was not achieved. Abuses are still here and they are
much greater than before. We have seen the proliferation
of all the dishonest use of the Internet, of all the unhealthy uses: cybercrime, fraud, hacking everywhere. Never has so much been monitored,
so much been controlled, and never has control
been so lost as it is now. Maybe this paradox can be explained today by the absence of a legislative framework
that was adequate, that was appropriate, that was well configured
for the world of the Internet. Probably there is a defect, which is not carried
in its genes, in its DNA, the possibility to be able to act
effectively upstream and downstream. It is as if today the reality is
that we have informers everywhere, snitchers, what we like to call snitchers. These snitchers
keep an eye on us, watch us. They see potential criminals, they see criminals prepare their acts, they see offenders walking around, but they can’t act, they can only observe; they cannot prevent them
from committing their crimes, and they cannot bring them to trial
when offenses have been committed. For lack of police, lack of judges, lack of a suitable legal
and judicial framework. So probably today
it’s for the Internet government, to take the lead and to organize itself. Regulation should come from inside,
from this ‘government’ of the Internet. It’s for it to find the solutions. It’s for it to seek mechanisms
that will enable it to propose a model which has all the advantages
of the Internet without the disadvantages. Yes, it is possible,
but we must think it over. For example, one might think
about better personal ID, about better traceability of content. This personal ID would require
everyone to show their face, to assume simply who we really are, according to what we write,
what we say, what we relate. Because suppose you hide
behind pseudonyms, insult everyone, say whatever you want. Of course you’re going to have fun. What I’m calling for is
for more taking of responsibility, more accountability of Internet users. And obviously, this is possible
only if we advance openly, if we are obliged to show
ourselves clearly and fully. In order to do so,
I propose a digital identity card, a numerical identity card. This digital identity card
would replace all those cookies that trace and track us already
without our knowledge. It’s better that we do it
openly and always. Yes, it is possible. This identity card would be a real asset
for the world of the Internet. This identity card would be
a revolution for the Internet model. Some will say to me,
“And the right to be forgotten? And the wish to remain
anonymous, what about that?” We need to think about that, of course, but what I think is,
is that if one weighs the two up, me, I would prefer a model where finally everyone accounts
for what he says and what he writes. I think that this model offers us
the best the virtual world has to offer. So, if I might return to Ingrid Stanson, you will still be able
to get acquainted with her, and to see who it is behind the screen. At the same time,
with this digital identity card you will have the possibility of checking,
verifying, the veracity of what she says. And that would be a real asset, because at least
you will not be chatting way with a bearded man behind the screen. Equally, Ingrid Stanson herself
would probably be pleased to know that it is you
who is on the other end of the line. So yes to digital democracy, that digital democracy that still needs
several steps for it to be put in place. Among these steps,
I recommend a digital identity card, a numerical identity card, whereby we would have
a much healthier ecosystem, a much more aware ecosystem, an ecosystem
in which we have more confidence, an ecosystem of benefit to everyone. Thank you. (Applause)

3 Comments on "La démocratie digitale : quelle gouvernance ? | Neila Benzina | TEDxCarthage"


  1. Oui okay, c'est une très bonne idée mais comment le sécuriser? Je pense que c'est l'un des contraints qui n'ont pas permises à cette idée de naitre, les solutions existent mais l'implementation est très difficile encore, example le vote électronique.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *