We need digital ceasefires to tackle warfare in the digital age

Brett Solomon is Executive Director of Access Now. He steps down from his position this week,15 years after he co-founded the organisation.

Fifteen years ago this month, Iran’s Green Movement used Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to protest president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s attempts to steal an election.

Citizens rose up, and spoke out, while government forces jailed foreign and local journalists. The internet was already set as a battlefield for geopolitical conflict.  

It was in that summer of 2009 that I co-founded Access Now, an organisation which defends and extends the digital rights of people and communities around the world. I’ve seen the undeniable shift of technology from the margins of conflict to the centre of modern warfare. And peacemaking mechanisms have not kept up.  

There is now a digital dimension to every major conflict worldwide, from Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and the “forgotten” civil war in Sudan, to the genocide of the Rohingya people in Myanmar and Israel's latest — and bloodiest — war in Gaza.  

Access Now has called for both a physical and digital ceasefire in Gaza. Safeguarding digital rights is essential to resolving conflicts and crises in the 21st century, and digital ceasefires must be annexed to traditional ceasefire agreements, encompassing everything from connectivity to censorship.  

In any warzone, access to information can be a literal lifeline. It allows people to stay in touch with loved ones, learn where to find shelter and evacuation routes, or reach international aid. But these basic human rights are often crushed.

State and non-state actors increasingly and routinely wield or withhold technology as a weapon of war, whether they are using AI to target airstrikes, cutting off internet access to besiege civilian populations, or disconnecting dissidents through surveillance and censorship.  

Disruptions to internet access and telecommunication infrastructure do not just jeopardize people’s safety on the ground. They enable disinformation and war propaganda to spread on and offline like a virus at home and abroad. Atrocities risk being lost in the fog of war.  

Given how the digital ecosystem has become an essential part of the international humanitarian response system, telecommunications deserves the same level of attention — and protection — under international humanitarian law as hospitals, schools, or refugee camps.  

Ceasefire agreements must be renewed and upgraded to match the realities of conflict in the digital era. They should be led by the most impacted grassroots organizations and communities, with close involvement from stakeholders such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the UN Security Council.  

This starts with assessing the state of contemporary cyber conflict, and the different points at which technology shapes warfare, long before there are boots on the ground and often long after they have left.  

Disinformation campaigns, discriminatory censorship, the proliferation of spyware, and digital attacks all dial up tension, polarize public opinion, and heighten the likelihood of full-blown war. It’s essential to look beyond the battlefield.  

Digital security attacks threaten members of opposing parties, civil society groups, journalists, anti-war advocates, and human rights defenders. Authoritarians lash out worldwide, in desperate attempts to win hearts and minds. Our digital peacebuilding efforts must be just as borderless.  

On a practical level, this is why we must protect encryption to prevent armed actors from exposing, doxxing, or silencing dissenting voices.  

We also need an international ban on the use of spyware and targeted surveillance programs by state actors, whether within countries or between them, especially when used as a weapon in international military conflict.  

Finally, tech companies and social media giants must do more to manage content control mechanisms that limit speech, while safeguarding against harassment and calls for genocide. It is imperative to protect freedom of expression and dissent.  

The digital world inflames, and increasingly defines, how war is waged. We cannot overlook it as we pursue peace, and digital ceasefires will help to guarantee it.