Archive for the ‘ Information Ethics ’ Category

Free Speech Debate Proposes 10 Draft Principles, What Will Be No. 11?

The Free Speech Debate has recently proposed ten draft principles, while leaving the 11th (and perhaps further) slot open for – surprise surprise – debate:

  1. We – all human beings – must be free and able to express ourselves, and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas, regardless of frontiers.
  2. We defend the internet and all other forms of communication against illegitimate encroachment of public and private powers.
  3. We require and create open, diverse media so we can make well informed decisions and participate fully in political life.
  4. We seek openly and with civility about all kinds of human difference.
  5. We allow no taboos in the discussion and dissemination of knowledge.
  6. We neither make threats of violence nor accept violent intimidation.
  7. We respect the believer but not necessarily the content of the belief.
  8. We are all entitled to a private life but should accept such scrutiny as in the public interest.
  9. We should be able to counter slurs on our reputations without stifling legitimate debate.
  10. We must be free to challenge all limits of freedom of expression and information justified on such grounds as national security, public order, morality, and the protection of intellectual property.
  11. What is missing? What would you propose? Join the global conversation…

The list and corresponding discussion reminded me of something I posted on this blog a while ago: Blasphemy, Free Speech, and Dangerous Things.
In this post, I argued that due to the nature of discourse, not all “speeches” are equal in the manner that some are more powerful than others. Keeping this in mind, the argument continues, free speech should be treated as part of a bigger whole; society should understand the power that speech hold; and this great freedom/right/privilege/power is productive only when set in a suitable framework (through education, information and media literacy, etc.), which (for example) protects the less-powerful and less-privileged or educates also about the power and dangers that accompany free speech.

In light of this argumentation, this is the proposal I made for principle no. 11:

We acknowledge that free speech is a mean to an end and not an end in itself.

Furthermore, we emphasize that free speech is a right that withholds considerable power. Therefore it should be treated as part of a whole, combined with information and media literacy, access to education, etc.
(See http://drawer20.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/blasphemy-free-speech-and-dangerous-things/)

Do you have other suggestions? Here’s where you can express them!

2013
04/22
CATEGORY
Freedom of Expression
Freedom of Opinion
Information Ethics
Information Freedom
Information Literacy
Leave a comment

Big Data, Neutral Data?

BIG? data.

(In short:) Big Data refers to data sets in such amounts and complexity, that they require special methods – automated of course – for their capture, curation, storage,search, sharing, analysis,and visualization. Big Data is then used to find patterns (or rather anomalies).

Furthermore, Big Data is currently a hot cyberspace buzzword for marketing and other fields of business. Basically, these unbelievable amounts of data are collected from various sources such as social networks, online purchases, financial transactions, read news and articles, watched videos, cellular phones etc. pp. Then they are evaluated and, of course, sold.

A lot has been said and written about Big Data, its potential and its risks. To name a few examples, here are two very good articles by Evgeny Morozov and Danah Boyd.

Big Data, Neutral Data?

Keeping in mind that Big Data has much potential and it can be utilized positively as well as negatively, one can easily assume that Big Data per se must be “neutral”.
It was a similar statement I came across in Twitter (a part of a podcast from @breitband), which incited a discussion on the subject and got me thinking.
However, I had to deny this statement because as I see it, Big Data might be a lot of things, but it’s everything but neutral.

Big Data is value laden, both positively and negatively (positive and negative are of course a question of positive/negative to whom?).
When talking of Big Data, one usually refers to personal and individual-related data (my online-habits, the flight I scheduled for summer, what I share on Facebook, the book I bought on Amazon, the personal search queries I trusted Google with, my location etc.), which is collected without the person’s knowledge.[1]
Other uses of Big Data, such as in physics and meteorology should be discussed separately.

If the data is used for the benefit of the person – for example, in order to credit the person to receive a loan – it is in this regard positive for her. The utilization of such data, which was collected without the person’s awareness and which is evaluated according to standards she isn’t familiar with, is ethically problematic.

But the main problem occurs when this data is used without the person’s awareness and consent. For example, when insurance companies use a person’s search queries and read medical articles (let’s say about breast cancer) to change a person’s policy so that it would be more expensive or exclude certain cases (you know, that article you read about breast cancer).

Another major issue is that governments and law enforcement agencies might be tempted to use all this available data for their needs. And they already do, all around the world (the legal basis to quickly and intrusively gain access to this data exists).
But the cases, for which law enforcement agencies use this data, are not about selling a product. These are cases of a person’s (or nation’s) security, future, life and death. Mistakes caused by inaccurate data or an algorithm that analyze that data won’t cause much damage when trying to sell something, but it’s a different picture when considering the work of law enforcement and national security.

Or as Evgeny Morozov once said: “Stasi was into Big Data before it was cool”.

So far I showed how the use of Big Data – that is, of the information derived from it – can be positive (with ethical concerns) as well as negative, supporting it’s assumed neutrality. Now I will try to explain why data – big or not – isn’t neutral.

(Not So) Neutral Data

I only partly agree with some comments I received, which claim that data (unlike information) is a raw collection of… well… data. This collection can be deployed in various ways and therefore is neutral. But reality is a bit more complex.

I agree that the level of complexity (data → information → knowledge) has an inverted relation to “neutrality”. This however, doesn’t make data neutral.
The philosophy of information (and of technology) has gone a long way to prove that technology – also information and communication technology (algorithms and online-platforms included) – isn’t neutral. A technological artifact can be used for many purposes, negative as well as positive, but it is value laden through its design (and the socialization of the person using it), promoting certain purposes/uses and demoting others.
This is true for the algorithms that evaluate (big) data and the utilization they find.

But this is also true for the raw data at hand. Let me explain:
A random collection of ‘0’ and ‘1’ might be neutral. But Big Data (or most artificially generated and collected data for that matter) isn’t a random collection of bits. Big Data contains certain kinds of data that is collected by certain practices in certain structures and for certain goals:

  • Big Data is a certain kind of data: mostly personal and individual-related but also general habits of people, their location etc.
  • Big Data is collected through certain practices: harvesting, web bugs, cookies, sale to/through third parties, cellphones, and much more.
    For example, you can install Ghostry to get a short glimpse of (some of) those who are tracking you wherever you surf.
  • Structures: even before running the algorithms to analyze the data, it is collected and saved in structured and linked manner, which serve the purposes of the one collecting it (making money). These structures alone are structures that can favor and discriminate different uses of the data.
    Not to mention data, which is analyzed on the fly during its collection.
  • And last but not least – intention: all this data serves the purposes of those collecting and analyzing it. That is, this data is collected with certain intentions (also before it can be analyzed, otherwise it wouldn’t be collected and stored). These intentions can be, for example, financial and political.

All this is far from being neutral, even for a collection of bits.

P.S.

Although this article’s main concern is Big Data, I would argue that this framework of addressing the “neutrality” of data (types of data, practices, structures, and intentions) is applicable in many other contexts.

[1] Of course this information is hidden somewhere in the User Agreement we always “agreed” to without actually reading it, but let’s suppose a person tries to read this bible-length legal text, the average person has no chance of understanding it.

2013
02/10
CATEGORY
Information Ethics
8 comments

Blasphemy, Free Speech, and Dangerous Things

„With great freedom, comes great responsibility“
(paraphrasing Spiderman and… Voltaire[1])

During the past few weeks we’ve witnessed violent riots in several Muslim countries, protesting against a film that (to their opinion) insults Mohammed, their prophet.

The discussion of these incidents in western media and politics as well as on social media platforms was a mix of two othering-strategies:
On the one hand occidentalistic (in the post-colonial meaning) opinions and world-views, often including many prejudices about and generalizations of Muslim and/or Arab culture.
On the other hand, there was a clear dissociation from the creators of the film and its content.

For a long time, I found it very hard to constitute my opinion on the matter, until a survey in Germany made me realize that we might be discussing the wrong issue. In the survey, 47% of the participants supported banning the video. That is, 47% chose against blasphemy on the cost of setting (another) precedent for a limitation of free speech.

Freedom of opinion and freedom of speech cannot facilitate themselves

They require (among others!) a society which enables marginal (and sometimes extreme) opinions to be heard but at the same time is also sensitive to the opinions and emotions of others.
The former without the latter is like a “democracy”, in which the majority decides but the rights of the minority are not protected. That is, no democracy.

Free speech isn’t really free if the opinions of the privileged can ascend the opinion of the unprivileged/discriminated. It isn’t free if the privileged can say what they want without considering the consequences for others, less privileged persons.
This applies especially then, when a discourse crosses cultural, national, and geographical borders.

Which brings me to the next question:

Should content, which is published knowing that violent reactions will follow, be treated similar to content that explicitly incite violence (such as hate speech)?
(a similar question was also discussed by Padraig Reidy)

I say no. Maybe because I support radical free speech, maybe because I fear a dystopian future of the kind Ray Bradbury describes in Fahrenheit 451 (a book-less future, where the firemen’s task is to burn libraries together with their owner. A future, which was created gradually by limiting free speech in order to protect the feelings of different groups).

But that still wasn’t the main question. The main question is a meta-question about our society and its free speech. As I said in the beginning:

With great freedoms, comes great responsibility

Our society, especially in western democracies, urgently needs to start reflecting about its alleged free speech. Because granting free speech without educating about the power of speech, its possible consequences (for the self and for others), the respect for other opinions and beliefs etc. is not creating freedom –  it’s creating power without responsibility.

The discussion of the film and its violent results isn’t a discussion about the creators of the film (them) and the participants of the violent riots (again, them).
It’s a discussion about us, about our society.
A society that constantly produces kinds of speech, which cross the line of how to express legitimate criticism and which try to influence (an already problematic) discourse by knowingly inciting disrespectful violence instead of respectful dialog.

Free speech per se isn’t a moral superiority, it’s the way we use it that defines our morals.

[1] Voltaire. Jean, Adrien. Beuchot, Quentin and Miger, Pierre, Auguste. “Œuvres de Voltaire, Volume 48″. Lefèvre, 1832

2012
10/03
CATEGORY
Censorship
Freedom of Expression
Freedom of Opinion
Information Ethics
5 comments

Heiße Debatte um das Leistungsschutzrecht… Und wo bleiben die Bibliotheksverbände?

Ich fühle eine Art Déjà vu. Ich habe es schon mal (ok, mehrmals) gesagt.

Sascha Lobo hat schön aufgezählt, wer alles an der Diskussion um das neue Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger teilnimmt, das LSR kommentiert und kritisiert:

Es lohnt sich, genauer hinzuschauen, wenn sich so völlig unterschiedliche Teile der Gesellschaft gegen ein Gesetz stellen. Vor allem, weil BDI und Linkspartei ja nicht die einzigen sind. Der Bitkom, die Grünen, die Junge Union, die SPD, ungefähr alle Internetverbände, die “Netzgemeinde” in Komplettbesetzung, Netzpolitiker in der CSU, der Verband der Automobilindustrie, der DJV Berlin-Brandenburg, die Freischreiber, noch zwei Dutzend andere Verbände sowie naheliegenderweise die in Deutschland tätige Internet-Wirtschaft in toto. Schon rein statistisch erhöht sich dann die Chance, dass das Gesetz falsch ist.

Fällt noch jemand außer mir was auf?

Wo sind die Bibliotheken und Bibliotheksverbände? Oder Verbände anderer Information Professionals (z.B. DGI und GfWM)?

Wie kommt das, dass sie (wir) nichts dazu zu sagen haben? Oder noch schlimmer, sind wir nicht in der Lage, unsere Stellungsnahme an die Öffentlichkeit zu bringen?

Also nochmals:
Die Praxis der Informationsberufe, von BibliothekarInnen bis zu WissensmanagerInnen, von Archivare bis zu Web Designer, alle sind vom Urheberrecht betroffen. Früher waren es die Grenzen der Technologie und Ressourcenmangel Ressourcenknappheit, die die Informationspraxis eingeschränkt haben. Heute ist das das Urheberrecht, das die Grenzen des möglichen definiert.

Und das Leistungsschutzrecht?
Ein klares Produkt der Verlage-Lobby, völlig an der (Netz-)Realität vorbeikonzipiert und eigentlich, ein Schuss ins eigene Bein für Verlage.
Ob Blogger und Twitterer davon betroffen sind ist eine Auslegungssache (und der Gesetzentwurf lässt viel Raum für unangenehme Auslegungen).

Werden Bibliotheken auch davon Betroffen sein, auf Grund eines tollen digitalen Angebots z.B.? Vielleicht, vielleicht auch nicht. Es geht aber nicht um die eigene Betroffenheit. Es geht darum, dass DIE FACHLEUTE, die eigentlich Ahnung von den Sachen haben (sollten) und ihre Praxis vom Urheberrecht nicht trennen können – sie müssen eine Stellungnahme in jeder Entwicklung (wenn man das Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger als Entwicklung überhaupt bezeichnen kann) dieses Gesetztes haben.

Weiterhin, wenn sie noch an irgendwelche ethische Grundsätze glauben und wirklich an der Gesellschaft denken, in der sie agieren, dann müssen sie eine Meinung haben. Eine fachliche Meinung, die alle diskutierten (und nicht diskutierten) Aspekte dieses Leistungsschutzrechtes umfasst, die Argumente abwägt und erklärt, wohin diese Entwicklung wirklich hinführt.

Und wenn BibliothekarInnen, InformationswissenschaftlerInnen, WissensmanagerInnen, Information Brokers etc. das wirklich nicht wissen und nicht können, dann müssen sie dringend und ernst über ihren Beruf nachdenken.

 

So, Ventil raus, jetzt sind Sie dran.

 

Nachtrag:
Ich will an dieser Stelle weiter betonen – Es ist völlig klar, dass solche Stellungnahmen und Teilnahme an öffentlichen Diskussionen Ressourcen (v.a. Personal-Ressourcen) verlangen, aber es geht um viel mehr.
Das Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverleger wird seit langer Zeit diskutiert und hat bereits drei Gesetzentwürfe. Es ist ein weiteres Beispiel dafür, wie informationsethischen und -politischen Themen von Informationsfachleuten in der Forschung, Lehre und Praxis undiskutiert und unkommentiert gelassen werden (ein paar weitere Beispiele: nur in den letzten Monaten hatten wir öffentliche Debatten um ACTA, Vorratsdatenspeicherung und den Staatstrojaner).

Das ist ein Alarmsignal für die Diskussionskultur und gesellschaftliches Bewusstsein unseres Berufsumfeldes.

2012
08/31
CATEGORY
Copyrights
Information Ethics
Library Values
Politics
2 comments

Comment Speech: Lawful Access Legislation, Its Risks and Why Libraries Must Care

This is my comment speech to the paper “Lawful Access Legislation, Its Risks and Why Libraries Must Care” by Brent Roe and Jeannie Bail, presented on the FAIFE Session “Master of content or How to win the battle over freedom in cyberspace?” at the IFLA 78th Conference in Helsinki:

(Please note that this is a preliminary and summarized version. I might make some adjustments before/during the session and insert it here later on)

The description of the lawful access legislation in the paper has many similarities with the Telecommunications Data Retention legislation in the European Union.

Telecommunications data retention compels ISPs to save all users’ connection-data and locations for a period of (at least) 6 months and grant law enforcement agencies access to this data. In the age of constantly connected cell-phones, a simple cross linking with services like Google Maps and telephone directories is enough to create a complete surveillance apparatus, also if the content of a connection (e.g. of a phone-call) isn’t revealed.[1]

Although the European Commission admitted the regulations to be problematic and couldn’t provide proof for their effectiveness in detection rate or fighting terror, the regulations remain compulsory for all EU members.
In Germany, the Supreme Court declared these regulations unconstitutional due to privacy issues and lifted the legislation. Since then there is a constant debate between the conservatives, who present telecommunications data retention as a magic cure for all social problems, and liberals who oppose it.

However, I don’t perceive such legislations “only” a threat to privacy.
When a person is being watched, or is aware of the possibility that he/she is being watched, there is a chilling effect on free speech and information freedom.
Doesn’t matter if it’s Foucault’s Panopticon, East Germany’s Stasi, or more subtle (but far more effective) online surveillance.

Which brings me to the main question of the paper:
Should libraries care? Should they comment broadly or stick to “their own” concerns?

As the paper explains, libraries could be defined as ISPs and thus obligated to violate their patrons’ privacy, as the situation in the U.S. is.
But I want to approach this question more broadly. Several months ago I argued in an article in the German library journal “Bibliotheksdienst” that yes – libraries should (and even must) care, comment, and act on issues related to information ethics, freedom of expression etc., also if these issues do not (yet) directly affected libraries.
That is, libraries should start looking beyond the library-counter.
I used several examples to discuss this notion: failure to act in the copyrights-problematic (library associations being satisfied with exceptions for libraries), the Trojan-Horse applied by the German government (Staatstrojaner), Telecommunications Data Retention, and WikiLeaks.

Failing to act on such matters until the library practice is affected from them is a failure in fulfilling our code of ethics and social obligation. Furthermore, libraries’ inactivity in regard to such developments is a silent contribution for their success. A contribution for which my generation, today’s “new professionals”, will have to pay the price.
And if libraries think they could continue operate autonomously within a control society or a society in which information, knowledge, and culture are mere commodities that are preserved for the social-privileged – they’re making a bitter mistake.

In addition, the impact on the perception of libraries by the public as institutions that act for civil freedoms and know their way in cyberspace (and not just between bookshelves) is a positive side effect (and should stay only a side effect of our actions).

Beside actions on a political level (such as comments and lobby) libraries also have the task of educating users about (online) privacy, (online) freedoms, and online hazards.
In short – information literacy.
As the examples mentioned in the paper demonstrate, this includes informing users about the impact that certain legislations can have on their personal (and constitutional) freedoms and rights.

In conclusion, there are many hindrances when it comes to privacy, exercise of free speech, and participation in social and political discourses.
From “clicking” over information to private corporations, through artificial exclusion-mechanisms (such as copyrights), and up to invasive state legislations (such as Lawful Access and Telecommunications Data Retention).
If libraries perceive access to information, knowledge, and culture as their true calling, not merely a task that needs to be done, then they should begin to act.

[1] For visualization: the Green-Party politician Malte Spitz gave the press access to his telecommunications data (after taking Telekom to court), which is available as an interactive map: http://www.zeit.de/datenschutz/malte-spitz-vorratsdaten/

The session will soon be made available to watch online. I will add the link subsequently.

2012
08/06
CATEGORY
Freedom of Expression
IFLA
Information Ethics
Information Freedom
Library Values
wlic2012
Leave a comment

Vom helluō librōrum zum Bücherwurm 2.0? – eine Replik

Im Aktuellen Heft vom Bibliotheksdienst (Bibliotheksdienst 46. Jg. (2012), H.6 S.487-492 – Link zum Volltext) gibt es eine „Entgegnung“ auf meinen Artikel „Zwischen Bibliothekaren und Bücherwürmern. Über das (fehlende) soziale Engagement der Information Community“ (H. 3/4 S. 171-181).

Hier handelt es sich um eine inhaltlich ziemlich dünne Auseinandersetzung mit meinem Artikel, die sich eigentlich als einen Anti-Piraten Text auszeichnet. Anstatt sich dem Inhalt meines Ansatzes zu widmen, wird im Artikel auf meine Person konzentriert und mir den Versuch vorgeworfen, eine „Wahlwerbung“ für die Piratenpartei über den Bibliotheksdienst fördern zu wollen.

Diese Lesart meines Artikels finde ich aus einigen Gründen problematisch:

Hier zunächst was im Artikel als Agenda der Piratenpartei betrachtet wird: Ablehnung der Vorratsdatenspeicherung, Überarbeitung des UrhG und kritische Betrachtung des Staatstrojaners. Dies kann man sowohl in Wahlprogrammen als auch in den Äußerungen von PolitikerInnen der Linken, Grünen und FDP finden. Zum Teil sogar bei der SPD und der CDU.

Leider scheint es mir, dass sich die Behandlung meines Artikels vom medialen Zirkus um die Piratenpartei ablenken lässt. Schade, weil es in meinem Artikel viel mehr darum geht, (zu unserem Beruf höchst wichtigen) Themen inhaltlich und mit Bezug auf Informationsethik zu diskutieren.

Zweitens ist eine mangelhafte bzw. sehr selektive Auseinandersetzung mit meinen Argumenten zu bemerken.

In meinem Artikel steht ausdrücklich, dass es nicht darum geht, parteiisch zu handeln, sondern „Phänomene“ inhaltlich und professionell zu behandeln. Denn „[a]us welcher Ecke des politischen Spektrums diese Phänomene stammen, ist nicht Gegenstand unserer Kritik und unseres Handelns“ (S. 176-177).

Weiterhin wird ignoriert, dass das Engagement in der „physischen Welt“ im Artikel ausdrücklich betont wird. Ebenso wie die fehlende Behandlung von berufsrelevanten, gesellschaftlichen und politischen Themen in der Ausbildung.

Drittens, die Selektivität im Artikel endet nicht beim Inhalt meines Aufsatzes, sondern geht weiter bei der Darstellung meiner Person.

Sowohl in meinem Google-Profil als auch in Xing sind meine Mitgliedschaften in IFLAs KM-Sektion, FAIFE und B.I.B erwähnt. Diese gehen einige Jahre zurück, lange bevor ich mit der Piratenpartei etwas zu tun hatte. Bei denen ist die Mitgliedschaft auch viel aktiver in Form von Teilnahme an Konferenzen, Beiträgen und Poster-Präsentationen.

Auch wenn man meinen Blog durchklickt, erfährt man sehr schnell, dass ich mich mit Themen der Informationsethik seit einigen Jahren beschäftige, im lokalen und internationalen Kontext. Dies ist eine weitere Tatsache, die im Artikel komplett ignoriert wird, um mein Engagement in der Piratenpartei in den Mittelpunkt zu setzen.

Woher in Xing die Information entnommen wurde, dass ich „Erfahrung in der Informationstechnologie“ habe, ist mir ein Rätsel. So eine Erfahrung habe ich nicht und es steht auch nicht in meinem Xing Profil. Meine berufliche Erfahrung ist im Bereich Wissensmanagement. Wenn die AutorInnen das als „Informationstechnologie“ verstehen, dann weiß ich selber nicht mehr.
Bei Wissensmanagement jedenfalls, geht es nicht um Trends sondern um zukunftsorientierte und langfristige Prozesse.

An dieser Stelle noch eine Anmerkung zur Diskussionskultur der heutigen Gesellschaft: Es wird kritisiert, dass ich eine schnelle Reaktion auf Ereignisse befürworte (obwohl gleichzeitig die Wichtigkeit einer transparenten Diskussion betont wird). Ich habe an keiner Stelle im Artikel den heutigen medialen Diskurs weder positiv noch negativ bewertet, vielmehr habe ich die Situation dargestellt und habe versucht zu überlegen und konstruktiv vorzuschlagen, wie damit umgegangen werden kann. Nicht um Aufmerksamkeit für Bibliotheken zu bekommen, sondern um die Diskussion über informationsethische Themen nicht nur anderen Akteuren zu überlassen. Ziel, wie im Artikel erwähnt, ist es „über den Bibliothekstresen hinaus“ zu schauen und zu agieren. Denn Bibliotheken und andere Informationseinrichtungen operieren nicht in einem Vakuum, sie operieren in einer Gesellschaft und müssen deswegen (meines Erachtens) an den Diskursen in dieser Gesellschaft beteiligt werden.

Nur weil ich mit der Realität der heutigen Diskursgeschwindigkeit konstruktiv umzugehen versuche, bedeutet das nicht, dass ich diese immer für gut erachte. Diese Realität zu ignorieren, nur weil man sie ablehnt, finde ich nicht viel besser.

Ein Beispiel dazu wäre IFLAs Reaktion zu ACTA – eine wichtige und inhaltliche Stellungnahme, die leider Monate nach den großen Protesten kam und kaum (wenn überhaupt) im öffentlichen Diskurs wahrgenommen wurde. Jetzt stellen Sie sich vor, sie wäre genau zu der Zeit der Proteste bekanntgemacht worden und durch soziale Medien, Blogs und die traditionelle Presse zirkuliert. Was für ein Impact es erreichen könnte, wenn der internationale Dachverband von Bibliotheken und Informationseinrichtungen ACTA kritisch betrachtet. Die Auswirkungen, die es auf die öffentliche Wahrnehmung von Bibliotheken als gesellschaftlich bewusst und aktiv haben könnte, sind nicht auszuschließen (obwohl diese meines Erachtens nur als positives Nebenprodukt bleiben sollen).

Und zum sprachlichen Aspekt: Ich lehne jede Art der Formulierung, die Geschlechter als dichotom darstellt bzw. ein oder mehrere davon ignoriert, ab. D.h. Formulierungen wie Besucher/-innen, Besucher-innen und in einigen Fällen auch Besucherinnen und Besucher. Ich bevorzuge Formulierungen wie BesucherInnen oder Besucher_innen (was in der Originalversion meines Artikels stand). Diese Formulierung behandeln aus meiner Sicht Personen aller Geschlechter gleich bzw. lassen Platz für Personen, die sich aus persönlichen, gesellschaftlichen, politischen oder biologischen Gründen nicht als männlich oder weiblich definieren. Auch wenn andere Autoren manchmal bevorzugen, nur Besucher anzusprechen und die anderen bloß „mitmeinen“ (oder ignorieren), damit es nicht im Auge der LeserIn stört, verweigere ich mich das ebenso zu machen. Und dies sind keine „Konstruktionen einer feminismuskritischen Satire“.

Die Redaktion vom Bibliotheksdienst hat meine Formulierung eigenständig geändert, wovon ich erst mit Erscheinung des Heftes erfahren habe. Alle Beschwerden wegen „feminismuskritischer Satire“ können bitte an diese adressiert werden.

Ein Schlusswort

Mein Artikel war und ist keine Wahlwerbung. Weder für die Piratenpartei noch für andere Parteien. Er wurde sogar verfasst, noch bevor ich in der Partei aktiv war (und erst einige Monate nach dem Verfassen veröffentlicht).

Es ist nicht verkehrt, wenn ich thematisch mit einer Partei arbeite, die meinen Idealen entspricht. Deswegen ist es in der Vergangenheit bereits mehrmals passiert, dass ich auch mit anderen Parteien kooperiert habe. Das wird in Zukunft wahrscheinlich auch weiterhin so sein.

Des Weiteren stimme ich DonBib von *Ultrà Biblioteka* zu. DonBib schrieb in Reaktion auf mein Artikel (was im Blog inhaltlich kritisiert wurde eine Reaktion, die meinen Artikel sachlich kritisiert), dass es wünschenswert wäre, BibliothekarInnen aktiv in allen Parteien zu sehen.

Unter den vielen Reaktionen zu meinem Artikel gab es sowohl Lob als auch Kritik. Ich wünschte mir diese würden weiterhin auf inhaltlicher Basis erfolgen und eine konstruktive Diskussion zum Platz unseres Berufsumfeldes in gesellschaftlichen und politischen Debatten führen. Nicht so wie es im „Vom helluō librōrum zum Bücherwurm 2.0?“ der Fall ist.

2012
07/04
CATEGORY
Information Ethics
Library Values
Politics
1 comment

Are Cyber-Activists Cyber-Criminals?

I recently encountered a blog post that handles the typology of online criminal activity and, amongst others, defines online activists as criminals. Needless to say I was outraged.

Why?

Well, to make things short, online activists are not criminals. I like to assume that the author didn’t mean all online activists are criminals, but defining online activism as a type of criminal activity per se is very problematic.

Even more problematic is to include the three groups criminal organizations (organized crime), cyber activists and secret services (state institutions!) in the same category.

What and who are cyber activists?

You, me, and everyone else who ever supported a cause in Facebook or Twitter; signed an online petition; made an angry comment on a company’s website or Facebook-page etc.

Evgeny Morozov (in contrary to Clay Shirky that almost mystifies the power of online tools to mobilize people) also warns of Slacktivism.
This is a kind of conscience relieving act (liking a cause in FB) that makes a person feel she did her part and thus negatively affect her activism in offline life, which is much more important in many cases (more on the subject of social media and collective action in my thesis ‘CollectiveAction 2.0′).

Sandor Vegh defined three general categories for Cyberactivism: Awareness/advocacy, organization/mobilization, and action/reaction.

The most distinct type of cyber activists, the action/reaction category, is the one addressed in the mentioned article. The activists directly attack certain aims. These aims are the online presence of real-world organizations and entities; these could be companies or corporations, governments and state institutions, NGO’s or political organizations.
The attacks serve a social or political statement and usually cause reversible damage such as taking websites offline; sometime the damage is less reversible when, for example, sensible information (that has to do with the statement that is to be made) is published. In the majority of the cases, the information turns out to be of public interest by proving the unjust that was done.

The people who do it (the cyber activists) are usually idealistic motivated with limited financial resources but if they are devoted enough to their cause or mobilize enough like-minded, they have significant human resources.

Now it is quite clear that centralized groups such as WikiLeaks, as well as decentralized groups such as Anonymous (theoretically, anyone can be Anonymous), are all cyber activists of the third category (action/reaction).
Also individuals, such as Paolo Cirio and Alessandro Ludovido with their genius Hacking Monopolism Trilogy, are cyber activists of that category (or at times of the first one).

Criminalizing activists

But is it really a criminal act to expose unethical and corrupt behavior? To expose scandals on national and international scale? To expose information of public interest that was hidden from the public for the sake of personal interests?

The targets of cyber activists (and of the offline world activists as well) are mostly very powerful, politically and financially, so there is no surprise that they have the ability to criminalize the activity against them.

Take a look at some comparisons that run around the internet:

Source: unknown.

Source: unknown.

But why criminalize?

A criminal target is an easy target. It is much easier to neutralize a person or a group that were declared as criminal.

But more important, when criminalizing a person / group / type of activity, their place in public discourse is affected – the person (group, activity) is being delegitimized and contra-positioned against the law-obeying (and thus “ethical”) public.

And in democratic societies, control over public discourse – that is control over information, communication, and public opinion – is the strongest and most important weapon.

Cyber activists are criminals

Just like in non-cyber-space, it doesn’t matter if your activity is ethical or not; for the benefit of society or of your own; legal but unjust, or just but illegal.
It matters if you’re in position of power (political, financial, lobbying…) to legitimate your activity and criminalize those who oppose you.

Cyber activists are criminals just because they have high-profiled targets.

Society on the other hand, should support a reflective and ethical discourse, not populist accusations and sweeping criminalization of activists made by corrupted politicians and lobbyists.

2012
06/13
CATEGORY
Activism
Information Ethics
Politics
1 comment

The WikiWitch-Hunt

…or what officially called Intermediary Censorship (1, 2).

The term intermediary censorship was coined by Ethan Zuckerman, in a very interesting ONI-publication named Access Controlled, which handles the strategies of governments around the world to shape and control cyberspace.

The situation today is that the internet is almost entirely privately held. For us as users it means that although the normative belief of having a (cyber-)space, in which we have a protected free speech, the fact is that we are always bound to terms of use, which are written by the service providers. The boundaries set by these terms of use can reflect social norms and law frameworks in the country or region, where the service provider is located, as well the service provider’s financial interests or personal world-view.

Of course the service providers have the right to do so and we as users have the choice whether to use those services or not, but the main issue here is to which extent can we rely on privately owned spaces (i.e. services) for us to carry out our free speech? Especially if those services have a lot going-on on their agenda before free speech…

The last few weeks we have had a clear example of how this situation can get completely messed up, and yes, I mean the way WikiLeaks and its activists are being hunted down in all possible fronts.

Of course each issue from the ones I am about to mention has an official explanation (e.g. violation of the Amazon terms of use), but when looking at the big picture, adding the timing and sequence of the different occurrences, it is not just that these explanations seem to be farfetched, but it is clear that these are a result of political pressure and lobbying, in which explicit threats are not to be excluded.

Some of the highlights

(please keep in mind – what you read here is just the tip of the iceberg, there have been and probably will be many more):

  • Amazon stopped hosting WikiLeaks’ website due to violation terms of use. This happened directly after being contacted by US Senator Joe Lieberman.
  • French hosting company OVH, to which WikiLeaks moved after Amazon stopped hosting the website, took WikiLeaks’ server offline in response to pressure from the French government.

Those cases raise two concerning issues:

First, as state above, to which extent can we rely on private companies to protect free speech?

Second is the worrying phenomenon of governments, which are normally supportive of free speech, not just trying to take WikiLeaks out but doing it outside of their authorities. It is clearly defined that if someone is to decide whether a website (or some of its content) should go down, it is the court of law. Not the government and especially not one politician (remember Joe Lieberman?) or political-party.

Those institutions have too the right not to give their services to certain clients. But again there are several concerning issues that are to be raised:

First are the clear double standards. Ku-Klux-Klan is just one of the horrible institutions who continue to receive services from Visa and Mastercard, PayPal probably has also a few on its list. So how could those companies claim they have stopped their service to WikiLeaks because they don’t support illegal activity (although no court of law found WikiLeaks illegal yet), but still support institutions, which are openly calling for racism, discrimination, violence etc.?!

Second is the right of a client to do as he/she wishes with his/her money. The clients (and not the financial institutions!) are the ones to decide if a contribution to WikiLeaks is ethical or not and it is their money, which is being contributed. This applies also to the Swiss bank – a bank does not have anything to do with the intended purpose of the money in an account, let alone a legal defense of a person in court. Let us not forget that the accusations are for a sexual crime and (allegedly) don’t have anything to do with WikiLeaks. But the intention is clear – closing on Julian Assange.

Having three major financial institutions in the (neo-liberal) US and one in (the neutral) Switzerland surrendering to political lobbying is a frightening fact. It shows us that if governments are not able to take down an institution that they don’t like within their legitimate authority (in WikiLeaks’ case – official censorship in the US or Europe is possible only with a court order), they are still able to financially suffocate this institution and its activists.

Outlook

The actions taken by the US government and others (who had to play along?) have clear watch and beware tactics. These can make one wonder…

  • What are the US and other governments so afraid of? What else could WikiLeaks unveil?
  • Is it so controversial that they’re willing to sacrifice their support of free speech and principles of democracy for it?
  • Why are they so anxious to frighten potential followers of WikiLeaks from taking its place (if and when it will come down)?
  • Doesn’t it create a contra-productive affect, making people more interested in the real revelations on WikiLeaks (and not the government-gossip)? Making people more supportive of WikiLeaks’ struggle? Making the media and public more critical?
  • Or is it just a kind of psychological compensation for the US government, demonstrating its power after being embarrassed publically (once again)?

** This post is a part of the Drawer2.0 alternative coverage of the WikiLeaks case: What the media doesn’t tell you and which issues are really at stake. Click here to read more.

2010
12/12
CATEGORY
Censorship
Information Ethics
Intermediary Censorship
Politics
WikiLeaks
2 comments

WikiLeaks’ Legitimacy in Terms of Information Ethics

The main issue that interests me about WikiLeaks’ work in general and the Cablegate leak in particular is its legitimacy in terms of information ethics.

As many of my previous blog posts show, information ethics is a field with many aspects, which are often positioned very differently between cultural spaces or due to personal point of view and/or interests. It will be quite hard to bring them all together when tackling this issue, but I will try to address the ones that I see most relevant.

To my point of view, WikiLeaks doesn’t operate in the name of freedom of expression. It is more that freedom of expression gives a certain amount of legitimacy to WikiLeaks’ work. WikiLeaks has a clear stated position saying that their “primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations.” (WikiLeaks:About).

WikiLeaks (and I mean the team standing behind this organization) expresses its position by exposing unethical conduct of governments, especially when those are trying to quiet these actions down. People and organizations, which did exactly the same thing while risking their lives in different sorts of regimes and contexts throughout history, were hunted down and severely punished in case they were caught, but they are considered heroes today.

Think about it when you hear about the witch hunt of WikiLeaks activists like Julian Assange.

I see Government transparency as highly important when it comes to information ethics in terms of politics. Activists or whistle blowing organizations like WikiLeaks are actually a vital instrument when it comes to Government transparency and democracy. Having actors, who are steadily observing government activity, criticizing it and exposing flawed conduct to the public, is one of the most important control mechanisms for a democracy. But WikiLeaks differ from the traditional role player, the media, in two ways:

  1. WikiLeaks is not bound to any government control (due to national security for example) or hardly to any law frame. It uses a very sophisticated encryption of its communication and operates from countries, where its operation is within the restrictions of the law (mostly Sweden, which is highly liberal regarding freedom of the press). This fact makes WikiLeaks capable of exposing a lot more information.
  2. WikiLeaks is a non-profit organization that operates first of all out of principles (which I cited above). The media’s first goal is financial profit; social justice comes at the second place (best case scenario). It means that the media have financial considerations, which influence its decisions whether to publish something, when and into which extent. WikiLeaks just puts it all out there and lets us choose what is relevant and build our opinion to it. The Cablegate leak is a clear example – those documents contain various information of inappropriate governmental conduct on an international level, but all the media is talking about is this tabloid-level government gossip.

BUT there is a fine line between government transparency and the certain amount of secrecy, which is essential for diplomatic contacts (one of many articles/essays to this issue by Clay Shirky). So some of the information exposed by WikiLeaks in the Cablegate leak probably crosses this line, but I will still argue that it doesn’t make the leak unethical.

In days of over-censorship and cover-up as everyday government practices, the public is being constantly denied of information, which is in its own interest. After all, the public elects its governments and governments work for their public. Shocks from the kind that WikiLeaks produces appear to be the only way to control governments and their conduct.

I believe that the major success of the Cablegate leak could be an increased government transparency by governments around the world (and not just the US). Who knows, maybe they’ll also start conducting more morally.

I hope it won’t be used as an excuse to limit our alleged freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, or who knows, maybe to start censoring the internet also in western parts of the world (more to the new methods of censorship used in the WikiLeaks case soon on this blog).

And finally, when looking at the top 10 of the Cablegate revelations, one needs only to use some common sense in order to realize that the leak is ethical; the leak does reveal unethical conduct of several governments; and although some of the diplomatic information revealed maybe should have been kept secret for a certain period of time, this information does not differ WikiLeaks from any other news-agency, who would have found out about it sooner or later and reveal it.

National Security is an issue that usually has the top hand when it collides with ethical issues like human rights, privacy or freedom of expression. Sometimes it’s just a good excuse when they’re being violated.

Until now, although the US government made repeatedly those accusations, there was no proof of any leak to be a real threat to national security and/or the security of individuals, which are mentioned in those documents (mostly in other countries, like in the War Diaries case). Primarily because those documents were produced several years prior to their exposure.

Furthermore, prior to the Cablegate leak, WikiLeaks contacted the US Embassy in the UK in an attempt to prevent publication of information that might put individuals in risk.

Any cooperation? Yeah, Right!

So making those accusations retrospectively will be far fetched. Accusing WikiLeaks of damaging the US relations with some other countries? Well, just look at the documents if you want to know who’s really to blame.

** This post is a part of the Drawer2.0 alternative coverage of the WikiLeaks case: What the media doesn’t tell you and which issues are really at stake. Click here to read more.

2010
12/10
CATEGORY
Freedom of Expression
Information Ethics
Politics
WikiLeaks
1 comment
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 384 other followers

%d bloggers like this: