Archive for the ‘ Information Freedom ’ 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

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

Remember, remember, the fifth of November

5. November 1605. Wenn alles planmäßig gelaufen hätte, hätten Guy Fawkes und seine KollegInnen zum Gunpowder Plot es hinbekommen, den englischen Parlament zu sprengen. Das war allerdings nicht der Fall.

Heutzutage werden in Deutschland 100,000 Emails und Datenverbindungen täglich gescannt, analysiert und mitgelesen. 2010 waren es insgesamt 37 Million!

Schlagwörter wie Bombe, Bundestag, Jihad, Atom und weitere schönen Sachen setzen den Überwachungsapparat in gang. Genau die Wörter, die verschiedene Abgeordnete täglich verwenden, um die Bevölkerung einzuschüchtern. Aber im Bundestag herrschen andere Regeln, da braucht man das Wort “Kommunismus“, um vom Verfassungsschutz “beobachtet” zu werden.

Aber anscheinend ist jede und jeder der 82 Million BürgerInnen Deutschlands ein möglicher Guy Fawkes. Jede und jeder plant den Bundestag in die Luft zu jagen. Es ist auch ganz klar, dass alle, die das planen, darüber per Email kommunizieren und es ausdrücklich mit den Wörtern BOMBE, BUNDESTAG und ATOM (und zwar in deutscher Sprache) formulieren.

Aber wenn sogar die europäische Kommission auf zahlreiche Probleme, Mängel und Rechtsverstöße in der Umsetzung der Vorratsdatenspeicherung hinweist und keine Belege für die „Notwendigkeit“ oder den „erfolgreichen“ Einsatz liefern kann, muss man sich überlegen – WARUM werden 100,000 Emails und Datenverbindungen täglich analysiert?

Verwendet da jemand George Orwell’s 1984 als Gebrauchseinleitung der Staatsführung?

Ob die angeblich verfolgten Ziele durch diese Methode wirklich erreicht werden ist nur eine Debatte, viel wichtiger ist aber eine andere:

Warum stehen eigentlich 82 Million Menschen unter Generalverdacht? Und was hat das bitte mit Demokratie zu tun?

Wie lässt sich dieser Apparat sonst anpassen? Welche Schlagwörter werden verwendet, um andere Sachen über uns herauszufinden? Unsere politische Meinung? Sexuelle Vorzüge? Konsumverhalten? Musikgeschmack?

Wollen wir eigentlich ein Apparat haben, der den Behörden mit Hilfe eines Knopfdrucks ALLES über uns erzählen kann und wird? Alles im Namen der Terrorbekämpfung natürlich.

Ein Apprat, der (bzgl. Kriminalitätsbekämpfung) bewiesen nicht funktioniert. Und ein Terror, den es in Deutschland gar nicht gibt.

Ich schlage vor: jede Email mit “MfG Bombe, Atom, Bundestag” zu unterschreiben. Mal sehen was unsere Behörden mit 200 Million anstatt 100,000 täglichen Mails anfangen könnten.
Weil wenn 2012 eigentlich 1984 ist, dann mal richtig.

2012
02/27
CATEGORY
Freedom of Expression
Freedom of Opinion
Information Freedom
Politics
Privacy
Leave a comment

(Tro)German Horse

I’m a terrorist. Du bist es auch. But there must be another reason, why our governments are keen to spy on us.

In early October 2011 the Chaos Computer Club (CCC) declared to have hacked a Trojan Horse (1, 2), designed by the German government in order to spy on its citizens. Moreover, the Trojan is so poorly designed that it enables third parties other than the designers (and I leave you to figure out who those actors could be) to access and take over infected computers.

This fact makes me wonder what is it that makes governments of democratic countries with alleged free speech and right for personal privacy to spy on their own citizens.

What do terrorists, slave-traders, and drug dealers have in common?

The official explanation we usually get is the war on terror. This is an especially hard battle in Germany; a land, which suffered no international terror attacks in its history.

So you and I are terrorists. We are not slave-traders, although Germany is a central hub of worldwide human trafficking (1, 2). We are neither drug dealers, although Germany is an important transit point and financial center of drug cartels. We are terrorists, where there’s no terror.

But it’s easier to join the world trend of war on terror instead of using some reasonable explanations in order to break your citizens’ declared rights (free speech, privacy, assembly, and other minor things that happen to constitute a democracy). By doing so you are also able to regulate the integration of minorities and wake an overall criminalization of certain groups to serve your political needs. Doing politics is doing fashion and the war on terror is the new black.

Ok, enough with sarcasm, there must be something else.

Threatening democracy, with democracy

Every first-year social and political sciences student can repeat the mantra of ‘no state wants smart citizens’. But it’s not about having dumb ones; no state will want that also. It’s about controlling their ‘smartness’.

It’s not about suppression, it’s about control. And let me explain what I mean.

Different methods (let’s say information-politics) enable states to have a certain amount of control over their citizens’ intellect. Clear forms of those methods are censorship or government transparency. But without official censorship (which is a form of suppression), governments need to use other means of control; school curricula and distribution of resources in the education system are two examples. Cutting resources for humanities and investing more in natural and applied sciences in the academy (a worldwide trend nowadays) serve several goals in the matter of controlling the citizens’ ‘smartness’: (1) compatibly with the capitalist market, it nurtures an intellect that produces measurable profit (in form of scientific discoveries, leading to the production new products and patents) and (2) it limits the “production” of aware, questioning, analytical and critical citizens, a known effect of humanities and the worst nightmare of every politician.

But something has happened. Something, which made states worry about their control.

And then came WWW

Technological means (of communication and transportation) fulfill very important social functions. They aid people to exchange information, come together, and eventually cooperate. Retrospectively, older technologies also used to put barriers on these functions – their limitations made communication slow and expensive, so that their social functions were also limited and depended on access to resources.

With those limitations, governments didn’t really need to worry about their citizens being ‘smart’ or even collaborating. Furthermore, with a few simple mechanisms that control the flow of information, such as copyrights and subtle but calculated control over / use of mass media, maintaining the status quo was quite simple.

But there was a fundamental change over the last decade. The Internet introduced quick, effective, and (most importantly) cheap ways of communicating and collaborating. A new model of communication was added to the old one-to-many (books, TV/radio broadcast etc.) and one-to-one (telephone, written correspondences etc.) models, namely many-to-many (forums, mailing lists, or their amphetaminized versions Twitter and Facebook).

Furthermore, people can easily find others like them online, exchange information and collaborate with almost no effort or resources. And that applies to everyone, from all ends of the political, social, and economical spectrum. Now, imagine what this can do to the government’s precious status quo.

It’s like comparing a printed encyclopedia with Wikipedia. The former has “professionals” and “experts” (which were used to exert their control over knowledge and its legitimization) on the one side and passive consumers on the other. Wikipedia, on the other hand, removes old barriers and enables thousands of everyday people to join forces and share information and knowledge. At the bottom line, which of both is the most up-to-date and contains an unbelievable amount of knowledge?

Now, imagine those capabilities in the hands of so many citizens, which previously wouldn’t have a chance of finding each other, let alone communicate and cooperate. “Power to the people” just got a whole new meaning.

So why should governments care about that?

I’m not trying to develop any conspiracy theory. It is just a very basic need of a state to have control over its citizens. Be it through biopolitics (to name an equivalent example from another field of state control over the individual) or be it through infopolitics.

People constantly exchange tremendous amounts of information online, which are incommensurable with older technologies. For governments, just as for parents of teenagers – not having control over the information their children (i.e. citizens) exchange and being exposed to can drive them crazy.

As the tools and capabilities of communication develop, so do the control mechanisms. They become more sophisticated and more intrusive. But they also prove to us that our governments will tolerate free speech only to a certain extent. And when the natural limitation of technology and economy can’t regulate free speech anymore, other mechanisms will.

And when you can’t suppress, you control.

Authoritarian regimes, such as China and Iran, are doing both. Democratic states however, can only (try to) control using various means.

(Tro)German Horse

I can’t know for sure why my government would like to spy on me.

I know for a fact, that it is not because I’m a terrorist.

I assume though, it has to do with my government:

  1. being worried about that precious status quo.
  2. becoming more and more obsessed with control over citizens, as new information and communication technologies tend to destabilize that control.
  3. playing into the hands of actors, with interests that extend far beyond democracy, personal freedom and other irrelevant issues. Such as copyrights-lobbyists (to name one example).
2011
10/09
CATEGORY
Freedom of Expression
Information Freedom
Politics
2 comments

You have the right to remain silent

According to FAIFE, statistics on ONI and others, every fourth person on the planet lives under censorship. This means that 1,717,275,000 out of 6,869,100,000 (estimation taken from Wikipedia, 17. September 2010) people do not have the freedom to express themselves, to build their own opinion in matters concerning them or other matters, or to have a free and equal access to information (which is not manipulated or first chosen suitable by others). Due to the interdependency between all of these elements, I will continue and use the term free speech to address them as a single unit.

When including surveillance, which takes place even in many countries in which free speech is being protected by constitution or law and no (official) censorship is being done (like the US and the European Union… did someone say “the free world”?), almost each and every world citizen is being controlled. And just to make things clear – I do see surveillance as a sort of censorship or control mechanism that affects ones handling of information and therefore a violation of free speech, but this is a subject for another essay.

At this point I also won’t address the global digital divide and the fact that citizens of many countries just don’t have the infrastructure or financial possibility to access much information in the first place.

Those facts make me wonder about the term HUMAN RIGHT being used often in the context of free speech and the term PRIVILEGE, which has an interesting relation to rights.

Yeah, Right.

The main problem with rights is that for them to take hold, they need not only to be declared, but also anchored within an enforced codex, like a constitution, law or other kinds of regulations.

Many declarations of rights already exist, like the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), but they also have their Achilles’ heel – the “Should” principle. There are too many “shoulds” and “shalls” within those declarations. Each society (-> country -> government) can adapt those rights how it sees fit.

There are many cultural, historical and social differences between countries and it is clear that the UDHR (for example) is a strict western perspective. And let’s face it, the west needed two world wars, to colonize and then de-colonize almost the entire world and at least one big economic crisis (and that’s just in the late 19th and 20th century) to get to human rights. So expecting the rest of the world’s cultures to apply all those “shoulds” and “shalls” is not exactly practical.

Just look at the clashes between the US perspective, who view freedom of speech as utmost important (the 1st amendment), and the perspective more common in European countries, for them there is nothing more important than privacy, even at cost of free speech. Those clashes occur more and more frequently in the age of Web2.0, where the boarders between free speech and protection of privacy are becoming blurred and the geographical boarders, which used to separate between cultures, don’t play a role in exchange of information anymore, because it is done in the all-embracing cyberspace.

So if our “free” worlds can’t agree on minor issues like explicit videos posted on youtube, facebook’s privacy policy or Google search results, I’m hardly surprised when cultures that are considerably different from the western ones, don’t line up so easily with some things that really matter. Human rights for example.

What is a privilege?

Wikipedia says: “[…]In a broader sense, “privilege” can refer to special powers or de facto immunities held as a consequence of political power or wealth. Privilege of this sort may be transmitted by birth into a privileged class or achieved through individual actions.” (1. October 2010).

So we’ve got one major difference already – Rights are de jure and privileges are de facto.

But I like Peter Li’ir Key’s definition a lot more (please do take the time to read it; it’s not one of those feel-free-to-ignore-me links). There a few parts of this notion to privileges, which can be extremely relevant in the context of free speech:

  • it is privilege that creates its corresponding oppression, and then there is a feedback loop.
  • privilege (and it’s corresponding oppression) are not marked by intention, they are marked by effect.
  • partaking in your privilege is to participate in the corresponding oppression.
  • there is no escape from your privilege.
  • privilege is marked by absences.
  • having privilege is rarely an intentional or conscious act.

Try repeating those sentences out loud, using “freedom of speech” instead of “privilege” and “censorship” instead of “oppression”.

I will add that having a right someone else doesn’t, is a privilege.

Free Privileged Speech

To sum up my argument, I believe that free speech is a privileged speech. It shouldn’t be and it doesn’t have to be, but currently it is.

This means that ¾ of the people in the world have the privilege to express themselves, the privilege to build their own opinion in matters concerning them or other matters, the privilege to have a free and equal access to information (which is not manipulated or first chosen suitable by others).

The dimensions of privileges like free speech or free and equal access to information are becoming clear when considering how they are being embodied later on:

It’s economical – the more access to information you have, the more you can nurture your education, choose yourself a profession, expose yourself to markets beyond the ones physically near you etc.

It’s personal – you can develop yourself as a person, read and enrich your knowledge and mind with the information that interest you (music, books, movies and so on).

It’s spiritual – you can choose your world view, life philosophy, and even religion. Furthermore, you can choose not to have any or decide for yourself how to comprehend and practice your belief (and that’s an informational emancipation that could only be dreamt about until the 20th century).

It’s political and democratic – you can build your own political opinion from a variety of (politically) independent sources and discuss it at any time, oppose your government, demonstrate and take part in changes.

It’s social – you can openly communicate, share your thought and opinions, whatever they are, with your friends, family, and complete strangers. Or do it discreetly without having concern about being followed or watched.

Many of us enjoy those privileges and see them as their basic rights. Many of us don’t.

Think about it the next time you express yourself.

2010
10/08
CATEGORY
Censorship
Freedom of Expression
Information Ethics
Information Freedom
Politics
Leave a comment

Free World? Yeah Right!

I find it ironic, that just two days after publishing my post Fahrenheit WWW, which discusses the term censorship and what governments can get out of it (more out of the in-land point of view), a new bill was announced in the US, giving the president the privilege to limit or cut off the internet connection for a time period up to 30 days(!). All of that with the lame excuse of “Cyberterrorism”.

I don’t find it ironic, rather horrifying, that the congress needed less than a week to approve this NON-democratic, NON-liberal, NON-equal, NON-free, NON-… NON-… NON-… decision.

Cyberwhat?

I ask myself the same question.

In my opinion, Cyberterrorism is a lame excuse coined by a specific group of people that have a lot of interests – that are not always for the good of all – to develop another control mechanism (remember the last post?) that would help them maneuver different processes to their own interest.

By processes I mean political, social, economical and anything else that can come to mind, because the internet has an effect on all of them.

I won’t deny that terror attacks do take place also online – Turkish attacks on Israeli websites, attacks on US government websites (origin is still not certain) and attack on Google accounts of Chinese right activists are just a few examples.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck…

It must be one.

I’m not denying the existence of Cyberterrorism, but I do dismiss it as a reason for the measures the US-Government is taking.

If any website, let’s assume the Pentagon, wants to protect itself from being hacked, they should invest in their own technology or even consider going offline when needed.

Furthermore, governments should invest their resources in making this world a better and equal place to live in, where no more terror is needed (and it doesn’t matter what kind of terror) because everybody everywhere has equal rights and equal access to resources (social, economical, education etc.).

After all, if I don’t want someone to break into my own home I lock the door, install a sophisticated alarm-system, buy a guard-dog and even purchase an insurance policy. But what I do not do is block all the routes in and out of my city, shut down all the airports, or enforce a curfew.

It just doesn’t work that way!

So what do they get out of it?!

Most discussions about this decision concentrate on means of in-land control that are made possible, such as filtering or censoring of websites like Wikileaks (which seems to be the pentagon’s no.1 target, even before good old Osama).

Those discussions are at most important and relate directly to my hypothesis in Fahrenheit WWW, but I aim to begin a new discussion.

So you have the right to freedom of speech only when you say what the government likes. That’s not a new concept. But as the topic of this post points out, it’s about the free world and that’s why I want to concentrate on the global perspective of this decision.

According to Wikipedia, the US has 310 million citizens.

So how come that one person, that not even all of the Americans have elected him, could have influence on the other 6,521,600,000 people that lives on our planet?

There are two kinds of people in the world: US and NON-US.

Or are there?

One would think that in cyberspace, a space without nations and borders, it wouldn’t matter anymore where you live or which nation you belong to (and those two don’t always correlate). But it’s important for us to remember, that a huge percentage of the internet traffic doesn’t just go through the US, but also major services are provided from there.

That is why I, a non-US citizen or resident, really concerned for the implications of that decision.

And here is my argument:

Scenario 1 – The dollar crashes (not much of an imaginary scenario is it?).

The US shuts off its internet, no trade without the New York Stock Exchange can be done, the dollar may be saved, but our economy crashes.

Scenario 2 – Another scandal of the US-Government is being leaked out (even less imaginary than a dollar-crash).

The US internet goes offline, we can’t Google it, we can’t Yahoo!-Search it, we can’t Bing-Search it, we can’t tweet it, we can’t even share it on Facebook / Digg / StumbleUpon etc.

Our free speech is being controlled, without even being within the physical or cybernetic boarders of the US.

It is not that all those services will practically crash if the US will go offline, most of them do have servers abroad, the services will probably continue to work partially in some countries, but those servers won’t be able to handle all the traffic in case that the US servers are down. Furthermore, in a case that the US goes offline, there is a big chance for the internet traffic outside of the US to significantly grow and load those servers even more.

Scenario 3 – “Cyberterrorism” attack on the US.

Again, the US internet goes offline; all other countries are suffering major influence and damages in many fronts: economic, communications, services (not just Google, but many other expensive and professional services in many fields are centered in the US) are not functioning.

Result – the US made their problem into our problem. Not they are suffering from online terror, we are suffering from online terror, we are paying for someone else’s (political) mistakes.

There is no better way to draw someone else to your side in a war. No better way to draw someone else into your war.

Conclusion

What I’ve tried to make clear in this post is that this mechanism produces a new type of control, one that goes over and out of the boarders of the US.

Maybe for the first time in history, one country, one person, can have control (through information!) on the rest of the world through actions done inside of its “borders”.

2010
07/16
CATEGORY
Information Ethics
Information Freedom
Politics
Leave a comment

Fahrenheit WWW

Apparently Australia is joining a growing list of western / industrialized / democratic / liberal (*delete whichever is inapplicable) countries, which are starting to line up with China and censor its civilians’ Web access (a complete overview here). Not just that – the government is also going to keep track of what people are doing on the internet, because, like the German ‘Piraten Partei’ (a political party) said in their campaign, “you are a terrorist”.

I don’t know what horrifies me the most – that the government can access all of my information flow, including private information like emails, chat history, Skype calls etc. or that it can decide which information is suitable for me and which is not.

Today I’m going to discuss the latter.

The logic of censorship

Michel Foucault, a French philosopher and sociologist, argued that “This interdiction [censorship] is thought to take three forms: affirming that such a thing is not permitted, preventing it from being said, denying that it exists.” (The history of sexuality: The will to knowledge, 1976).

Although in some extremist countries things are also prevented from being said, in some they are prevented of being heard, read or watched. Australia is now at the stage of declaring some information as “not permitted”, the prevention is soon to come.

But is denying the existence of certain information, “bad” and harmful as it might be, really the way to deal with it? Of course not! I’ve already discussed my position to this matter in the post “Robin Who?!”.

Denial-mechanisms are a lot stronger than what one can imagine. When you deny existence – you are also preserving other existences.

Our society has different norms, they provide us stability, a status quo, something that governments have an explicit interest in keeping. When those norms are being challenged, there is a threat of structural change (best case scenario) or chaos (worst case scenario), and of course that governments don’t want that to happened, so it’s better to quiet up everything (and EVERYONE) that exceeds the norm.

Just think about it: are you Caucasian? 30-50 years old? middle class? heterosexual? married? male? educated? belong to the majority-religion in your country of residence?

If you said no, or even just hesitated, it’s you.

And as China proves us, like many other countries in the past, controlling your norms and eliminating structural threats is good for business (yes, I mean money).

Just one reservation

Despite and because of my (sometimes extreme) liberal opinions, I still think there is one kind of information that should be prevented, not only from consumption, rather from it’s mere production. That is information, which requires exploitation or abuse of other people in order to produce it.

What for example? Child pornography, probably the most damned kind of information running through the internet, whose prevention I can only support. Because, if we take a look back on information literacy and it’s social and moral dimension, it is not a matter of educating “information consumers” to view this information critically, it’s a matter of using ones power supremacy to exploit someone else and to harm him, in order to produce a desired “information-product”.

A book burns at 451°F (232°C)

Long before the internet, Ray Bradbury described in his novel “Fahrenheit 451” (1953) a future world in which books are completely outlawed and firemen’s task (since houses are completely burn-proof) is to burn books together with the houses they’re found in (in some occasions, also the residents of the house, the books’ readers). It all started with a few books, but their number kept growing until all books were excluded.

Putting Bradbury’s amazing observation of the western society aside, I’ve read the book with an overwhelming sense of Déjà vu.

“I know this!” I said to myself.

And then I thought about the internet.

2010
06/15
CATEGORY
Censorship
China
Freedom of Expression
Information Freedom
1 comment
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 384 other followers

%d bloggers like this: