Data Flow: An Unlikely Fascism Indicator

US history tells us that widespread access to information increases civic engagement, education, and opportunities for advancement. Foundations of Information Policy confirmed this notion when it stated “The increase in the size and effectiveness of the postal service coincided with the increased efficiency of newspaper printing. The new mass readerships of newspapers… ensured that much material related to civic participation was available to flow through the newly expanded postal system” (Jaeger and Taylor, p 107). Our own constitution protects the right to information distribution through the first amendment, which was determined by the 1943 case Martin v. City of Struthers, a supreme court decision pertaining to the dissemination of religious material in a door-to-door manner. While considering the case, Justice Hugo Black decided “This freedom embraces the right to distribute literature, and necessarily protects the right to receive it.” (Hudson, 2017). Yes despite this historic and constitutional commitment to information sharing, the United States has effectively stopped supporting free international cross-border data flow since 2023.

Cross-border data flow is defined as “the movement or transfer of information between servers across country borders” (BSA, 2017). It is a global issue that is closely connected to the Digital Divide problem, or the “gap between those who have access to technology, the internet and digital literacy training and those who do not” (North Carolina Department of Information Technology, 2025). However, it is more specific in that it addresses state-sovereignty of information sharing within and outside of the state’s borders. It is a crucial policy that allows for international business, the spread of democracy and global cooperative efforts, and the advancement of opportunities for people all over the world. However, it also encompasses global issues such as national cyber security, private information protection, state surveillance, and data regulation.

In a world of increasing globalization, this is a serious issue that affects all people, regardless of location. The limitation of cross-border data flow is a problem that can be solved by increased international support for free data flow, and a commitment from international powers to not do business with governments who prevent their own citizens and organizations from sharing information. The prevention of information sharing by governing bodies is akin to the prevention of democracy, since those same citizens are not being given full agency over their ability to make educated decisions and demand their ideals be met by their governments. It is important to note that 78 percent of the world’s internet users live in countries where expressing political, social, and religious viewpoints leads to legal repercussions (Funk and Brody, 2023). When borders are closed to data and citizens are cut off from receiving or spreading information, it reduces the average person’s power and liberty in places where their right to free expression is already limited.

In 2023, the United States’ Trade Representative Katherine Ta ended longtime American support for the World Trade Organization’s e-commerce rules that allow free cross-border data flows, as well as prohibit national requirements for data localization and reviews of software source code (Lawder, 2023). This decision was defended with the argument that Congress needed the power to regulate big tech firms. They believed that this power was limited by cross-border data flow regulations set by the organization. However, experts argued that there were many ways for the US government to exercise power over private corporations, while in comparison, there are very few international coalitions dedicated to preserving cross border data flow. Since the United States positions itself as a spreader of democratic ideals, the removal of it’s support for an international cooperative ‘s efforts to support cross-border data flow signalled to other nations that this is a low priority problem, even though the stakes are in reality very high. It is true that private entities like Big Tech firms are definitely the target of US strategy in limiting cross border data flow, and despite its separation from traditional commitment to free data flow, this new American stance rests on the less extreme side of this policy. The United States does not currently take part in the widespread foreign media censorship. But a growing number of states are involved in censorship around the world, led by authoritarian regimes who have been exercising these policies for decades. For example, authoritarian governments like China and Russia are similarly pushing for limitations to the WTO e-commerce rules in order to censor private citizens, limit access to foreign source material, and access the personal data of their own citizens (Funk and Brody, 2023). These acts are committed with the goal of making their citizens less politically engaged, less informed, and unable to hide their otherwise private oppositions to local ruling parties.When free cross-border data flow is not protected, it opens the doors for authoritarian powers to assert control over all stakeholders: individuals, organizations, and even their own agencies. 

Free cross-border data flow is not only important for fighting off authoritarian regimes. It has also been cited to improve average internet speeds, enables businesses and nonprofits to provide important services worldwide, allows data to be stored in the most secure data centers in the world, gives all people access to information from foreign sources, allows interaction between people from all over the world, and even boosts online political organization (Funk and Brody, 2023). These are all incredibly important international societal benefits that would be lost if nations continue to support state-control and closed borders in relation to information and data. An extreme  example of what happens when states are given full control over their citizen’s access to international data is North Korea’s position on free information flow. The country’s DPRK Law of Rejecting Reactionary Thought and Culture, or the “anti-reactionary thought law”, of 2020 was a recently issued North Korean policy which outlines harsh punishments for citizens who smuggle and circulate foreign media inside of its borders. “Foreign media” including entertainment, news, music, or books. Because of the country’s extreme anti-cross border data flow laws, it took almost three years for even a neighboring country - in this case South Korea - to obtain a copy of the law, since outside nations have very limited knowledge of the government operations within the authoritarian nation, and even less knowledge of its private citizens (Jang, 2023). The purpose of this law is not only made to spread fear, citizens have been tried and punished publicly for not adhering to it. In fact, a North Korean military officer was publicly executed for the crime of distributing a file containing international news in April, 2023 (Lee, 2023). While this is an example of a very extreme version of limitations on cross-border data flow, it is a real-world example of the dangers of not preserving the global internet and free data flow. A government policy enacted to take down monopolies could eventually devolve into stripping the rights of private citizens who disagree with that same government, since it sets a precedent of state-controlled information policy and data flow.

Despite these real world examples, there are very few international coalitions dedicated to preserving cross border data flow at the moment. Efforts must be adopted by individual nations in order to tip the international scales back into the direction of open borders for data, since it is individual nations themselves who have tipped the scales in the direction of closed borders. The World Trade Organization and the World Economic Forum are both spaces where international leaders can communicate the benefits of supporting domestic policy that increases data flow. This will be necessary to reduce the amount of nations leaning towards closed data borders.

Actions can be taken to improve the management and impact of cross-border data flows at the global level, but it will require a different strategy than what international leaders have been implementing in the past decade. Recently, free data flow has been limited because of its connection to other serious international issues. Democratic governments believe that they must sacrifice their commitment to freedom of speech and the right to information in order to handle other related data issues, such as Big Tech’s monopolistic control over data and even cyber terrorism. Currently, the limitation of cross-border data flow is being heavily included in legislation that is meant to attack other issue areas. For example, the United States’ decision to pull back support for free data flow in order to gain the power to regulate big tech firms within its borders. By focusing on solving one issue, they unknowingly increased the potential of escalating another. It will be necessary for governments to take notice of the long-term effects of their data policy in order to combat the very real hazards of limiting free data flow. Otherwise, we will continue to find nations unwittingly targeting data flow in their domestic and foreign policy.

Creative solutions must be found to address these very real data issues, without sacrificing the ability of average citizens and organizations to access important information within their localities. One example of a creative solution was recently passed by the European Union. In October 2024, the Network and Information Security (NIS) Directive 2 was enacted by EU member states to combat cybersecurity threats to national infrastructure-related entities such as energy, healthcare, and transportation (World Economic Forum, 2024). The directive makes it clear that as cyber threats become more sophisticated, it will be necessary for nations to work in tandem to address and respond to those threats in order to remain strong and protect their citizens. The directive also addresses issues with private companies controlling data in ways that are harmful to the public good. It requires all organizations that reside within the EU to report cyber attacks within a maximum of 24 hours of initial awareness, at the risk of being heavily fined. Local authorities around the world are also getting involved with creative solutions to controlling big tech within their borders without sacrificing the best interests of their citizens. Recently, governments around the world have begun to enact policies known as “hostage-taking laws”, which allows for international companies to share and manage data within a nation’s borders so long as they maintain a physical presence there as well. This dissuades companies from pushing back against user data requests from foreign powers at the risk of their employees being targeted within those countries by local authorities (Funk and Brody, 2023). 

In the short-term, we are seeing diminishing support for free cross-border data flow alongside the resurgence of authoritarian policy around the world. This is not a coincidence, it is a slow but calculated slide into the long-term consequence of decreased support for international cooperation: fascism. Freedom House identified 23 countries that proposed or passed new requirements for local data storage in 2022 (Shahbaz et al., 2022), meaning that there is a growing trend of countries limiting their citizens' data storage to servers that are readily accessible by their own governments. It also identified a record number of governments who blocked websites with nonviolent political, social, or religious content, notably from a majority of sources considered foreign. This is an effort to create national internet spaces that are more readily available for control, data-mining, and surveillance. According to Freedom House, these figures are just a few aspects related to a 12 year long decline of global internet freedom monitored by the nonprofit. Another long term effect of cross-border data flow limitation is diminishing economic stability. The current lack of international support for free data flow threatens the $2.8 trillion of global GDP that relies on free data flow between nations in the form of global shipping, trade, entertainment, and customer service operations. Hotels, car manufacturers, logistics enterprises, and restaurant chains are expected to be the worst hit by lack of data flow around the world, since these industries rely on data analytics that operate at a global scale (BSA, 2017).  According to the World Economic Forum, digital trade is the fastest-growing area of global trade of the past decade (WEF, 2023), and that by 2023, cross-border business-to-business commerce is expected to account for two-thirds, or $1.78 trillion, of digital trade (Daniel et al., 2022). The global economy affects all people, regardless of nation of origin, especially considering that most people in today’s world have become accustomed to using international goods and services in their daily life. Another area that will be critically harmed is health and medicine. According to the Business Service Alliance, doctors regularly utilize software to analyze patient data and determine where specialists are needed for consultation. Utilizing global metrics and accessing input from internationally recognized specialists outside of their country of origin is crucial to patient care , as well as the research and development of treatment for complex health issues. The Business Service Alliance stated in its 2017 report of cross border data flows that “Medical errors account for roughly 98,000 deaths a year in the United States, and large scale analysis of personal health data has helped hospitals develop risk stratifications to guide certain procedures in order to reduce the risk of medical error” (BSA, 2017). Cross border data flows are critical to the future of the healthcare and wellbeing of the United States, but also the entire globe. 

Democracy requires citizens who are informed and engaged, so having free flowing information is important for democracy to work at its full potential. This is because civic engagement is limited when citizens do not have full control over their information, because limited information means limited decision-making abilities. Some democracies may find it beneficial to limit cross-border data flow in order to prevent foreign propaganda and increase their control of data, as the Biden Administration did when it rescinded its support for cross-border data flow, but this is still an anti-democratic stance. An official for the office of the trade representative said in 2023 that the removal of support was due to a growing US need for  “balancing the right to regulate in the public interest and the need to address anticompetitive behavior in the digital economy” (Lawder, 2023). However, this is similar rhetoric used by authoritarian governments to limit their own nation’s access to data. North Korea’s “anti-reactionary thought law” states that “rotten ideology and culture of hostile forces…  paralyzes the people’s revolutionary sense of ideology… and deteriorates and depraves our society, as well as all types of impure and absurd ideology… that are not in our own style.” (Jang, 2023). North Korea wishes to “regulate in the public interest” to prevent its citizens from deciding for themselves if they wish to continue living in their current state, which their government naturally assumes they would not. It is anti-democratic for a government to decide for its people which information is acceptable for viewing.

Only time will tell if the world’s interest in data flow will continue to shrink or expand, it will depend on citizens and organizations defending the first amendment and warding off authoritarian ideals in their home countries. This is a crucial step in national governments holding each other accountable for not supporting global cross-border data flow.

Bibliography

1. “Cross Border Data Flows.” Business Software Alliance, 2017. 

2. “Cybersecurity Rules Saw Big Changes in 2024. Here’s What You Need to Know.” World Economic Forum, 17 Oct. 2024, www.weforum.org/stories/2024/10/cybersecurity-regulation-changes-nis2-eu-2024/. 

3. “Data Free Flow with Trust: Overcoming Barriers to Cross-Border Data Flows.” World Economic Forum, 19 Jan. 2023, www.weforum.org/publications/data-free-flow-with-trust-overcoming-barriers-to-cross-border-data-flows/. 

4. “What Is the Digital Divide?” North Carolina Department of Information Technology, www.ncbroadband.gov/digital-divide/what-digital-divide#:~:text=The%20digital%20divide%20is%20the,variety%20of%20industries%20and%20sectors. Accessed 27 Mar. 2025. 

5. Daniel S. Hamilton and Joseph Quinlan, “The Transatlantic Economy 2022: Annual Survey of Jobs, Trade and Investment between the United States and Europe”, 2022: https://transatlanticrelations.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/TE2022_ report_HR.pdf.

6. Funk, Allie, and Brody, Jennifer. “Reversal of US Trade Policy Threatens the Free and Open Internet.” Tech Policy Press, Tech Policy Press, 21 Nov. 2023, www.techpolicy.press/reversal-of-us-trade-policy-threatens-the-free-and-open-internet/. 

7. Hudson, David L. “Right to Receive Information and Ideas.” The Free Speech Center, 1 Jan. 2017, firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/right-to-receive-information-and-ideas/#:~:text=Right%20to%20receive%20information%20coupled,to%20receive%20information%20and%20ideas.%E2%80%9D. 

8. Jang, Seulkee. “Daily NK Acquires Full Text of the Anti-Reactionary Thought Law.” Daily NK English, 21 March. 2023, www.dailynk.com/english/daily-nk-acquires-full-text-of-the-anti-reactionary-thought-law/.

9. Lawder, David. “US Drops Digital Trade Demands at WTO to Allow Room for Stronger Tech Regulation.” Reuters, 25 Oct. 2023, www.reuters.com/world/us/us-drops-digital-trade-demands-wto-allow-room-stronger-tech-regulation-2023-10-25/.

10. Paul T. Jaeger, and Natalie Greene Taylor. Foundations of Information Policy. ALA Neal-Schuman, 2019.

11. Sang Yong Lee. “North Korea’s War against Outside Information and Culture - 38 North: Informed Analysis of North Korea.” 38 North, 25 May 2023, www.38north.org/2023/05/north-koreas-war-against-outside-information-and-culture/. 

12. Shahbaz, Adrian, et al. “Countering an Authoritarian Overhaul of the Internet.” Freedom House, 2022, freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2022/countering-authoritarian-overhaul-internet.