States are primary duty-bearers and major threats to free internet access. The chapter sets out the second meaning of ‘free’ internet access as ‘free from arbitrary interference’. Most internet users live in states where internet access and use is unfree. Autocratic states use the internet to monitor, manipulate, and control their citizens by what has become known as ‘digital authoritarianism’. The chapter uses the examples of Russia and China to show that, when they disrespect free internet access, states turn the internet into a repression technology. Examples include Russia’s technological and legal control of cyberspace and China’s Golden Shield Project, its Great Firewall, and its emerging social credit system. Democratic states also misuse the internet to spy unjustly on their citizens, as was revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013. The chapter explains why indiscriminate mass surveillance practices of democratic states are unjustifiable and harm people’s human right to privacy. It also sets out a list of moral obligations states have as part of the human right to free internet access: that they must respect, protect, and not undermine internet freedom.

This chapter offers an investigation of what Socrates may have meant when, in his infamous appearance before a jury at Athens in 399 BCE, he referred to himself as a myōps – typically translated as a gadfly. The chapter illustrates that the natural world does not just serve to naturalize (and thus normalize) collective political systems that are already firmly in place. As in the case of Socrates, it can also serve as a potent strategy to seek to naturalize (and thus normalize) the individual political stance outside of the collective. The chapter shows that, by carving out a space for dissent, Socrates defined a form of citizenship that resonates far beyond the ancient world. It, for example, helps to explain the ambivalence surrounding modern dissenting voices (such as those of Julian Assange, Michael Moore, and Edward Snowden). The chapter ultimately traces the buzzing of the Socratic gadfly into Hannah Arendt’s political philosophy and illustrates the important tole that this peculiar ancient creature plays in her critique of the perils of modernity.

This chapter contributes to understanding the possible impacts of China’s Cyber Security Law once that law is fully implemented, as it concludes that Chinese authorities conduct an ongoing cost–benefit analysis in evaluating data localisation policies and practices, and that this partly explains China’s delay in implementing the data localisation provisions within the law. This is also consistent with the longstanding practice of the Chinese government to create fuzzy logic laws in areas of rapid change in order to allow for flexibility in implementation depending on the milieu. The costs and benefits of data localisation vary over time, requiring continual re-evaluation; hence, the laws can be implemented and reinterpreted in line with fuzzy logic. In particular, what is meant by ‘important data’ can be changed according to the policy considerations outlined in this chapter.