On February 26, 2013, the German Marshall Fund’s (GMF) Young Transatlantic Network in Berlin in cooperation with Reporters without Borders hosted a discussion on “How to Rule the New Frontier? Impacts, Hopes, and Challenges of Social Media for Foreign Policy.” The two panelists were Christian Mihr, executive director with the German section of Reporters without Borders, and Ben Scott, senior advisor to the Open Technology Institute at the New America Foundation and Visiting Fellow at Stiftung Neue Verantwortung; and Dr. Constanze Stelzenmüller, senior transatlantic Fellow at GMF’s Berlin office, moderated the discussion.

In his opening remarks, Christian Mihr pointed out that while the discussion on internet freedom began about 15 years ago, only recently has it entered the public domain more prominently. In explaining the work of Reporters without Borders on the issue of internet freedom, Mr. Mihr highlighted the problematic standards of Western governments on matters of surveillance technologies and software, as Western countries allow the development and export of digital surveillance equipment to non-democratic countries, even though the use of that same technology is usually prohibited within their own borders.

Ben Scott continued by reminding the audience that the United States is the leading country in developing surveillance equipment, followed by some EU countries, and Israel. While the increasing role of social media as a foreign policy tool has increased the power and influence of individuals, it has also triggered the demand by governments for surveillance software in non-democratic countries, as seen by the actions of Middle Eastern states during the Arab Spring.

Both speakers agreed that governments and especially foreign ministries do see the need for an export regime of surveillance equipment from a human rights standpoint, but that they face an information gap concerning the unregulated, mostly unknown market in which the producers and recipients of such equipment operate. Intra-agency competency struggles and a lack of resources only add to the challenge of finding a solution that adequately matches the complexity of the issue of balancing internet freedom and governmental surveillance.

A key issue in resolving the policy dilemma lies in determining what constitutes as surveillance equipment in the first place. For instance, tracking software and capabilities in modern communications devices and related infrastructure that allows for locating emergency calls or easy navigation, which makes any discussion of banning said technology highly unlikely, is also the necessary prerequisite for surveillance technology.

The discussion also reviewed the current state of a possible export control regime of surveillance technology in the United States and Germany. While public and political interests of the topic has increased in the former, the U.S. debate is still in the phase of determining who is responsible for and who should ultimately bear the potential financial and political costs of any legislation-be it in form of limiting the export of surveillance equipment or including in international sanctions. In Germany, the issue is receiving a growing amount of political traction within federal ministries and will likely become an important point on the political agenda after the German elections this fall. Other issues raised with the audience were possibilities for individuals to detect surveillance, the importance of information campaigns for journalists and civil rights activists on the latest measures and counter-measures to digital invasion of privacy.