Report on the Potential Impact of Cox v. Sony on Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction and Case Summary

A pending case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, presents a significant challenge to digital infrastructure and global development objectives. The case considers whether Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should be held liable for copyright infringement committed by their users, potentially requiring them to terminate internet access for customers upon accusation of infringement. The Internet Society has filed an amicus brief outlining the severe consequences of such a ruling. This report analyzes the case’s potential impact on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to infrastructure, education, economic growth, and inequality.

2.0 Threats to Critical Infrastructure and Equality (SDG 9, 10, 11)

An unfavorable ruling would fundamentally threaten the stability and accessibility of digital infrastructure, a cornerstone of modern society and a key component of SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure). Holding ISPs liable would compel them to terminate services to entire networks based on the alleged actions of a single user. This policy would disproportionately affect:

• Households with multiple users
• Public institutions such as libraries and schools
• Healthcare facilities like hospitals
• Entire communities served by a single provider

This outcome would directly undermine SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). Small, community-led ISPs, which are often the sole providers in rural and underserved areas, would be at existential risk. For example, a provider like Wave 7 in Enfield, North Carolina, connects dozens of households and provides free access to the local library. A single infringement claim could force its upstream provider to sever the connection, cutting off an entire community from essential services and widening the digital divide.

3.0 Impact on Quality Education and Economic Growth (SDG 4, 8)

Widespread internet disconnection would severely impede progress toward key development goals related to education and economic opportunity.

1. SDG 4 (Quality Education): The termination of internet access for households, schools, and public libraries would deny students access to online learning platforms, digital textbooks, and essential educational resources. It would create significant barriers to equitable education for all.
2. SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): Reliable internet is critical for remote work, online job applications, and the operation of small businesses. Disconnecting users would eliminate economic opportunities and threaten livelihoods. Furthermore, the operational burden of monitoring user traffic could force small ISPs, which are vital local employers and economic drivers, out of business.

4.0 Undermining Privacy, Security, and Institutional Integrity (SDG 16)

To avoid liability, ISPs would be incentivized to implement pervasive monitoring of all user activity online. This practice directly conflicts with principles of privacy and security, which are essential for fostering trust in institutions as outlined in SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). The consequences of such a surveillance regime include:

• Violation of Privacy: ISPs would analyze private user data to police for potential copyright violations.
• Compromised Security: Network operators might weaken encryption or ban security tools like VPNs to facilitate monitoring, leaving users vulnerable to data breaches and cyberattacks.
• Erosion of Trust: A shift from ISPs as neutral intermediaries to enforcers of copyright would undermine the open, secure, and trustworthy nature of the Internet, which is a global public resource.

5.0 Conclusion: Summary of Risks to Sustainable Development

Upholding the lower court’s decision would establish a dangerous precedent with far-reaching negative consequences for sustainable development. The primary risks include:

• Disconnection of Communities: Severing access to essential digital infrastructure, directly hindering progress on SDG 9, 10, and 11.
• Forced User Surveillance: Mandating that ISPs police online activity, undermining privacy and security in opposition to the principles of SDG 16.
• Endangerment of Community Networks: Threatening the viability of small ISPs that are crucial for closing the digital divide and promoting SDG 10.
• Global Precedent: Creating a model that could be adopted internationally, hampering global efforts to leverage the internet for sustainable development.

Maintaining the legal understanding of ISPs as neutral conduits is essential to protect an open, secure, and accessible internet for all, thereby ensuring it remains a powerful tool for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights issues that are directly and indirectly connected to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The central theme of ensuring open, secure, and accessible Internet for all communities touches upon goals related to infrastructure, education, economic growth, and inequality.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The article explicitly states that losing Internet access could cut off entire communities, including “schools” and “libraries,” from critical resources. It mentions that a local ISP in Enfield, North Carolina, provides free Internet to the public library, which residents use for “education opportunities.” This directly connects the issue to providing inclusive and equitable quality education.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The article points out that people rely on the Internet for “remote work” and “job applications.” Disconnecting households and communities would severely hamper their ability to participate in the modern economy, find employment, and achieve economic stability, linking the issue to the promotion of sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth.

• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

  This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The entire discussion revolves around Internet infrastructure, specifically the role and viability of “Internet service providers (ISPs).” The article emphasizes the threat to “small ISPs and community networks” that serve “rural and underserved communities,” highlighting the importance of building resilient, reliable, and accessible infrastructure for all.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The potential court ruling disproportionately affects “rural and underserved communities,” which often rely on small community networks as their “only option for reliable Internet access.” An unfavorable decision would widen the digital divide, exacerbating inequalities in access to information, education, and economic opportunities between different communities.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article raises concerns about fundamental rights and freedoms. It warns that an unfavorable ruling could force ISPs to “monitor what you do online,” “police users’ online activity,” and undermine “privacy and security for millions of people.” This relates to protecting fundamental freedoms and ensuring public access to information, which are key components of SDG 16.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 9.1: Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure, to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all.

   The article’s core argument is about maintaining the infrastructure of the Internet. It highlights the role of “small ISPs and community networks” in providing “reliable Internet access” to “rural and underserved communities,” which directly aligns with the goal of developing reliable infrastructure with equitable access for all.

2. Target 9.c: Significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet in least developed countries by 2020.

   Although the article is set in the US, the principle of providing universal access to the Internet is central. The case threatens to “disconnect entire communities from the Internet,” which is the opposite of this target’s objective. The story of Wave 7 in Enfield, which connects households and a public library, is a practical example of efforts to increase access.

3. Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.

   The article warns that ISPs might be incentivized to “monitor your online activity, analyze your private data, and even block entire categories of websites preemptively.” This directly relates to the protection of fundamental freedoms (like privacy) and ensuring that public access to information is not unjustly curtailed.

4. Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.

   In the modern context, Internet access is a critical component of an “effective learning environment.” The article’s concern that “schools” and “libraries” could lose Internet access directly impacts this target, as it would degrade the quality and inclusivity of educational facilities.

5. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all…

   The article argues that the court case puts “rural and underserved communities” at particular risk of being disconnected. Since Internet access is a primary tool for social and economic inclusion (through access to jobs, education, and services), threatening this access works directly against the goal of empowering and including all segments of the population.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article does not cite official SDG indicators, but it provides qualitative and anecdotal evidence that implies several ways progress could be measured:

• Indicator for Target 9.c (Proportion of population with Internet access):

  The article implies this indicator by discussing the number of people and institutions connected by ISPs. For example, it mentions that Wave 7 “connects more than 70 households and provides free Internet access to the local public library.” A relevant metric would be the number and proportion of households, schools, and libraries in underserved communities that have reliable Internet access. A negative outcome in the court case could lead to a decrease in this number, indicating a regression.

• Indicator for Target 9.1 (Viability of infrastructure providers):

  The article suggests that an unfavorable ruling could “Endanger the viability of small ISPs and community networks.” An implied indicator is the number of operational small and community-based ISPs serving rural and underserved areas. A decline in this number would signal a failure to maintain and develop equitable infrastructure.

• Indicator for Target 16.10 (Protection of privacy and freedom):

  The article warns of ISPs being forced to “monitor your online activity” and “spy on their users.” While difficult to quantify, this implies indicators related to digital rights. Progress could be measured through policies enacted that either mandate or prohibit user activity monitoring by ISPs, or through surveys measuring public perception of online privacy and security.

• Indicator for Target 10.2 (Digital inclusion):

  The focus on “rural and underserved communities” versus more connected areas implies an indicator measuring the digital divide. This could be quantified as the disparity in Internet penetration rates, average connection speeds, and affordability between rural and urban communities. An increase in this disparity would indicate a failure to promote inclusion.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: internetsociety.org