DIGITAL AMERICA

Monthly Archives: February 2014

Drones Sailing Around the World and Delivering Our Mail: Is this Normal?

// Posted by Deirdre on 02/28/2014 (12:34 PM)

In an article in Wired called “The Drone That Will Sail Itself Around The World,” Adam Fisher discusses the “sailing robot” that has been constructed to travel around the world by sea. Saildrone is “a wind-powered autonomous surface vehicle” that… Read more

+
0

In an article in Wired called “The Drone That Will Sail Itself Around The World,” Adam Fisher discusses the “sailing robot” that has been constructed to travel around the world by sea. Saildrone is “a wind-powered autonomous surface vehicle” that is 19 feet long and made of carbon-fiber. It was released into the San Francisco Bay in October. The engineers of Saildrone programed it so that it would sail to Hawaii, 2,248 miles away, completing the world’s first “no-handed” sail in 34 days. In its journey across the pacific, the drone has been confronted with storms of gale-force winds and has battled fierce breaking waves.

“Above the waterline the boat is painted safety orange and emblazoned with the words OCEAN RESEARCH IN PROGRESS in all caps. The hull is black with bottom paint, and near the bow is the name in a fancy serif: Honey Badger.”

The engineering of Saildrone really mimics that of an airplane more than that of a sailboat. It has a tail just like an airplane does, it is designed to adjust to extreme angular changes, and it is powered completely by wind. Richard Jenkins and Dylan Owens, the engineers behind the Saildrone technology, hope that the structure will prove its sailing abilities so that one day it can be sent to vast, untravelled parts of oceans throughout the world to collect information. Jenkins and Owen both hope that once the technology of the structure is perfected it can be sent around to collect data that will prove that global warming is real. They would do this by monitoring changes in ocean acidification, which is the “key barometer of climate change.” And even beyond that the potential of ocean drones is huge:

“Drones could replace the world’s weather and tsunami buoys. The waters around oil platforms could be sniffed 24/7 for the first signs of a spill. Tagged sharks, whales, and other marine life could be followed and their locations patched into the international marine-traffic control system with a warning to stay away. Protected borders, coastlines, islands, and environmentally sensitive marine areas could be patrolled by drones programmed to photograph any interloping ships.” (Fisher, 2014, Wired)

What’s next for Saildrone? Jenkins and Owen hope to send the structure literally around the world. They have programmed it to travel about 25,000 miles around the South Pole and then in the direction of the equatorial Pacific. The engineers are constructing several more drones, now completely digital and constructionally perfected, to sail across oceans. Hopefully they will provide us with some valuable information about these bodies of water that we couldn’t know about without this technology.

Cleary Saildrone can offer the world a multitude of scientific and security uses; its potential is undeniable. Reaches of the world that are nearly invisible right now could be seen and researched, enabling the world to make infinite scientific advances. This article reminded me of our discussion about recent technology replacing humans. In the case of Saildrone, this is clearly not a danger to the world because people have never been physically able to travel to these places.

For research purposes I definitely support the use of drone technology, and Jenkins and Owens’ creation has provided a perfect example of the type of drone that can only be helpful to the world. I read another article, however, on other perspective uses of drone in mail delivery services for Amazon. USA Today reported in December that Amazon is gearing up to use small, unmanned drone aircrafts to deliver packages in a new program they will call “Prime Air.” The structures, called Octocopers,  would be programed to fly to their destination in 30 minutes or less.

It’s interesting that technologies like this are emerging, but I question whether or not this is a good thing. There’s nothing I like better than to receive my online orders quickly, but I would probably wonder how reliable and safe it is for automated machines to fly through the air delivering our packages. The Federal Aviation Administration would have to play a role in regulating the ways in which the drones operate, but even so I’m not sure how comfortable I am with this idea. The Amazon PrimeAir drone technology is several years away from being able to do this, but the company’s CEO swears that it will happen in the near future.

“Drones have mostly been used by the U.S. military to shoot missiles at enemy combatants in countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, the cost of these unmanned aircraft has dropped precipitously in recent years, making them more accessible to commercial users, such as companies, small businesses and entrepreneurs.” (Barr, USAToday, 2013)

There are laws that the government has passed that do not allow for the free use and construction of drones throughout the US, but many people believe that within the next few years the FAA will begin to allow drones for commercial use. How do you feel about the recent accessibility of drones to businesses and researchers? I personally believe that there should be very strict regulations on the uses of drones; they should be employed for military and scientific purposes, not for entrepreneurs and small companies. The Amazon CEO claims that the company will have a plan for safety and take extreme caution with the aircrafts, but I still wonder how safe this is. And beyond that, do we need our packages delivered in 30 minutes while AmazonPrime offers next day and two day delivery? Is this what our world has come to? Also, PrimeAir could potentially eliminate the job’s of Amazon workers and pose a threat to FedEx and UPS, which Amazon currently relies on for ground shipments. So the way I see it, drones (which people assume are helping businesses) could potentially be detrimental to others.

These articles reminded me a little big of our discussions about high frequency trading and technology taking over the roles of humans. We’ve created technologies to do certain things for us, but now we’ve turned a corner where it appears to me that we have taken it too far. While the Saildrone seems to be a positive use for drones (doing what humans can’t do themselves), the invention of PrimeAir seems to be an excessive use of drone technology. There are many ways to look at this and its hard to saying we should stop using drones altogether because they can be useful in so many ways. I do wonder, though, if one day they’ll be used for everything humans do and could replace us in many areas. That’s a scary thought.

Articles:

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2014/02/saildrone/#slide-id-152781

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/12/01/amazon-bezos-drone-delivery/3799021/

 


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
+

Hacking For Love <3

// Posted by Alexandra on 02/25/2014 (11:23 AM)

Amidst all of the negative conversation we have had regarding hacking, it was refreshing to read an upbeat article on some of the positive uses of hacking. In this month’s issue of Wired Magazine, an article featured a young man… Read more

+
0

Amidst all of the negative conversation we have had regarding hacking, it was refreshing to read an upbeat article on some of the positive uses of hacking. In this month’s issue of Wired Magazine, an article featured a young man who hacked the popular dating site, OKCupid, in order to find his true love.

The article, How a Math Genius Hacked OKCupid to Find True Love, by Kevin Poulsen was published in the February issue of Wired. The article tells the story of Chris McKinlay, a UCLA PhD student who after struggling with “traditional dating” for many years, hoped to find luck on the popular dating site OKCupid. This site, founded by Harvard math majors in 2004 by matching people based on which questions they answer out of a survey of almost 1,000 and how they rank those questions from most important to last. McKinlay’s original profile was not attracting very many matches with over 80 percent compatibility. So he decided to take matters into his own hands.

McKinlay hacked OKCupid’s database, figuring that if he could find out which questions mattered most to the types of women he was attracted to, then he could create multiple profiles that would be compatible with the women he was interested in. He ended up sorting women into seven different clusters of personality type, and created profiles that directly matched what these women were looking for. From these clusters he narrowed it down to two general types of women that he thought he would be most interested in. While this story seems like a nerdy hacker’s dream come true, his result show the limitations of technology in relationships.
While McKinlay had created a near perfect algorithm to find a women, he believed would be his soul mate, it wasn’t until date number 88 that he met the women whom he would marry. I think that this shows the true limits of technology in terms of relationships. Dating sites such as Match.com and Eharmony have created extensive systems for matching people based on multiple different categories of compatibility, but if McKinlay’s experiment proves anything, it shows that even when the science is tailored to meet the desires of a specific individual, that is not enough to make a true human connection. It took him nearly 100 first dates until he met a woman that he had a genuine connection with. After that many dates, a regular person who had not rigged the system most likely would have given up. There is something true and real about a physical connection between two humans that can only be experienced when meeting face to face. Technology has been used to make the searching process easier, but what truly matters with what happens after people have been paired. These sites can say you have 99.99% compatibility with a person, as it did for many people McKinlay was matched with, but it takes something more. It takes that spark that is described in movies and books, that can only be felt when people meet face to face.


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,
+

Occupy Wall Street: Misguided Movement?

// Posted by Piper on 02/24/2014 (10:58 PM)

While there is a lot go be said about how a global movement stemmed from one Tweet, after reading the article “Inside Occupy Wall Street” I began to think of how the “message” of the OWS movement could possibly be… Read more

+
2

While there is a lot go be said about how a global movement stemmed from one Tweet, after reading the article “Inside Occupy Wall Street” I began to think of how the “message” of the OWS movement could possibly be misunderstood. More specifically, I was interested in figuring out what different kinds of people were involved in this movement that had such a global influence. I was surprised, therefore, to discover that more than a third of the activists involved in the OWS movement in New York City had household incomes over $100,000. Further, a survey showed that the people involved in the occupation of Zuccotti Park were more affluent, whiter, younger, and more highly educated than the average New Yorker (Study: OWS Was Disproportionately Rich, Overwhelmingly White), a majority of them were college students from distinguished schools, such as Bard, as well. Therefore, the idea that the people of the OWS movement were the 99% and are taking on the 1% is not exactly valid…

Interestingly, it has actually been a historically common pattern for rich people to speak on behalf of the poor. And the fact that these people are involved doesn’t necessarily invalidate any of the specific claims that are made by OWS, but it makes us question the reasons as to why these rich kids show up in the first place. Is it their guilty conscious? Are they angry teenagers rebelling against their parents? Are they bored? Do they feel a sense of self-importance stemming from their wealth? It is troublesome for me to think that these rich kids are trying to get rid of the very class they came from.

 

This picture shows a self-proclaimed rich girl:  she inherited money at 21 and has had health and dental insurance all her life. Sure, her ideas of leveling the playing field align with the slogans of the OWS movement, but, I have trouble with her saying she wants to be taxed in order to help out with the movement. Why doesn’t she just donate her money to a good cause or a productive charity instead? That way her money is going directly to those in need… The government might not even use the money she gives from taxes to help the people who need it. It might be used to finance the NSA surveillance programs, for example. Additionally, this girl didn’t even earn that money– it was given to her. Is this her guilty conscious speaking? Would she feel the same way about higher taxes if she had earned that money herself? Questions to consider…

The article Occupy Wall Street: Children of the 1% out for  good time at the protests  displays pictures of college kids smoking pot, handling large amounts of money, flashing expensive wallets and wearing $300 jeans… I am not sure if I can take these kids seriously. Clearly they amount of enjoy the money they have. I think in some ways these displays destroy the “message” of OWS.

I am wondering if the fact that this has become such a global movement and the fact that many people from many different backgrounds and cultures are involved, that the message of the movement can become blurred. It seems like since the crowd has such a big range of people– from old and homeless to young and rich- that each individual has a different idea of what the movement means to them, if anything at all, which can potentially weaken the strength of the collective message.

 

 


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,
+

Emily & Molly Response to Samantha Lopez: Knowledge is Power

// Posted by Emily on 02/24/2014 (3:15 PM)

http://youtu.be/hEqVlxJn9O8

+
1

http://youtu.be/hEqVlxJn9O8


Categories: Uncategorized
+

I Pledge Allegiance to the Internet

// Posted by Mia on 02/23/2014 (8:04 PM)

In previous weeks, we’ve discussed how technology and the internet provides a global “third space,” an amorphous sphere for interaction between strangers from all over the world, without any real recognition of traditional nation state boundaries. We’ve discussed how the… Read more

+
1

In previous weeks, we’ve discussed how technology and the internet provides a global “third space,” an amorphous sphere for interaction between strangers from all over the world, without any real recognition of traditional nation state boundaries. We’ve discussed how the use of technology can challenge traditional nation states and their governments through hacking, leaking information and fueling IRL assembles, such as the Occupy Wall Street movement. We’ve also discussed the developing news surrounding Edward Snowden, and how this reflects the limited control that nation states have over the “third space.” With this new age tension between nation states and the “third space,” there comes yet another question: who will users/citizens align themselves with?

In Mark Poster’s Information Please, Poster describes a new kind of citizen; a citizen to the “third space”; a netizen. Using such a governmentally influenced term to describe an internet user sets up a clear divide between an individual’s relationship to the internet, and his or her relationship to a country. It implies a certain dichotomy, that a person can only align themselves with one entity or the other.

This idea is further emphasized with our reading on Stuxnet this week. As Symantec was trying to decode the complex and sophisticated malware that is Stuxnet, technical directors began to realize that the malware could be much more than just a technological nuisance. “Stuxnet could be the work of a government cyberarmy,” Kim Zetter writes in her Wired article. “The researchers risked tampering with a covert U.S. government operation.”

Once the governments of traditional nation states were possibly involved, the directors of Symantec had to question their allegiance between a specific country, or the global “third space” that technology provides. This has become a bigger and bigger issue as technology has developed. Both the nation state and the “third space” pose an inherent threat to one another, and a huge part of the threat stems from that fact that an individual can chose which sphere he or she wants to devote themselves to. In the case of Symantec, they “felt no patriotic duty to preserves [Stuxnet’s] activity. ‘We’re not beholden to a nation,” [technical director of Symantec Eric Chien] said. ‘We’re a multinational, private company protecting customers.’”


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,
+

This is What Democracy Looks Like

// Posted by Cora on 02/23/2014 (8:03 PM)

After reading Jeff Sharlet’s article, Inside Occupy Wall Street, it is obvious how much power and influence technology has in our society.  The product of a simple yet powerful tweet, the Occupy Wall Street demonstration proved itself to be… Read more

+
3

After reading Jeff Sharlet’s article, Inside Occupy Wall Street, it is obvious how much power and influence technology has in our society.  The product of a simple yet powerful tweet, the Occupy Wall Street demonstration proved itself to be much more than a mere protest as it inspired a media awareness that lead to Occupy movements worldwide.  After observing the movements growth over the period of a few months, Sharlet, someone whose spent years immersed in the right wing, refers to the OWS movement as “an incredible display of political imagination”.  Indeed, the movement was one-of-a-kind as it united diverse groups of people through technology, promoting a kind of shared voice while simultaneously creating a community that was truly unique.

It is not uncommon for one to as what was that something protesters were fighting for?  As Sharlet mentions, Adbusters had proposed a “‘worldwide shift in revolutionary tactics,’ but their big ideas went no further than pressuring Obama to appoint a presidential commission on the role of money in politics”.  Although they had initiated the beginnings of the protest, they were unaware that they had begun a movement that reached unimaginable heights.  What amazed me was the progression in size of the movement and protesters that loyally followed.  It had begun with around 2,000 individuals but quickly grew, attracting people from all over.  With the creation of a public clinic, library, and kitchen, the Occupy Wall Street movement had created a new whole.  It is almost as if they created a world within a world.  People committed to the cause considered this home and seemed to have this sense of shared generosity and spirit.  People were, undoubtedly, attracted to OWS for different reasons.  As protester Jesse Legraca admitted, he was first drawn to the park after seeing a topless girl.  And the addition of free food did not hurt either.  Fellow protester David Graeber, in contrast, was a radical anthropologist and anarchist who was committed to the cause and even created the theme to the overall movement.

This idea of unification is what drove Occupy Wall Street and allowed it to function for as long as it did.  As previously mentioned, Graeber created a theme for the movement, “we are the 99%”.  This movement was particularly different than past ones as there were no designated leaders or speakers.  People, rather, functioned as a large group and were excited by the idea that they were taking true advantage of democracy.  Thus, this feeling of genuine democracy is a significant aspect of the OWS movement.  As Shalret states, many Americans view “democracy as little more than an unhappy choice between two sides of the same corporate coin”.  With minimal agency, the chance to be part of a real decision—to make a change—is an exciting prospect. With no defined reasons or statements telling people why they needed to come to the OWS demonstration, it created this sense of liberation and open communication.  People came to the cause to decide as a whole what their aim was and what decisions to were to be made.  OWS protesters had one voice, literally, as they adopted a new form of amplification—the human microphone.  This only emphasized the idea that every individual could be heard and served only to further unify the community.

For a leaderless movement, Occupy Wall Street was an extremely unique demonstration of the power of technology in our society.  The movement in itself was created and further perpetuated through technology and media.  It is obvious that a movement like this could not have existed even twenty years ago and just highlights how quickly technology has progressed throughout the past decade.  The question is, what will come next?  How will protests or social/political movements function in a decade? How will technology continue to shape our world and will it be for the better?


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
+

Occupy Wall Street

// Posted by Eliza on 02/23/2014 (5:35 PM)

This week we read an article by Jeff Sharlet called, “Inside Occupy Wall Street.” Sharlet shed some light on what Occupy Wall Street (OWS) really is and the enormous impact it has made around the world. I was never educated… Read more

+
1

This week we read an article by Jeff Sharlet called, “Inside Occupy Wall Street.” Sharlet shed some light on what Occupy Wall Street (OWS) really is and the enormous impact it has made around the world. I was never educated or award of the magnitude of OWS and the amount of people involved in the movement. At first after reading the article and developing my knowledge on the situation, it is still difficult for me to really understand the whole purpose of the protest. Why are thousands of people camping out in this park for months trying to get Wall Street’s attention? Do they want business professionals to walk out of their building and hand these people jobs? I just did not see the end goal all of these protesters were aiming for. However after the class discussion, I am starting to put the pieces of the puzzle together a little more now. I understand that all they want is for them, “the 99%” to have a level playing field with the 1%, Wall Street businessmen and women. However, is that a realistic goal, to make everyone equal? How will the economy appreciate and grow overtime if no one is trying to work his or her way up the professional latter?

The first sentence of Sharlet’s article also blew my mind, as I was completely unaware that this global/universal movement came from one simple Tweet and hashtag, #occupywallstreet. It is events like this that truly show the world how incredibly powerful technology is becoming. Social media has changed the world forever. Would OWS been as big if people tried to form it in the 40s? There is no way. People around the world would not have heard about this protest without the type of technology we have today. It is due to things like Twitter, Facebook, online newspapers, etc, that these events get the media’s attention all throughout the world. With the knowledge of the movement through technology, more and more people began showing up to the park to help protest. Technology allowed Occupy Wall Street to reach the magnitude it did. Without it, the movement would not be talked about today and would have sizzled out long ago. It would not have become such a global sensation the way it did. Technology, with the help of social media allowed for all of these people to join together and be part of something larger than themselves. The dedication from these people, I will say, impresses me. I cannot believe some stayed for weeks, even months at a time to prove to the world things need to change. The efforts from these people are incredible.

After reading Sharlet’s piece and again seeing the powerful of technology and how persuasive it can truly be, scares me. Anyone has the capabilities to tweet whatever they want and develop millions of followers. This is exactly what happened when a male teenager posted on his Facebook page that he had a good idea to raid a mall and begin shoplifting and hurting people. The post received many comments and likes. Many of his friends and their friends began joining the group and were eager to help in his horrific act. Without the power of Facebook and the abilities it has to reach millions of people, this would never have happened. This is why when technology and social media falls into the hands of the wrong people it can become incredibly scary and harmful. But is there anyway of stopping it?


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
+

From “security” to manipulation

// Posted by Tec on 02/22/2014 (1:10 AM)

The United States has deliberately and publicly stated its intent to control the “third space”/cyberspace. Washington has used different arguments to do so mainly to attract support, or at least diminish opposition, from its citizens. Also, according to The Guardian… Read more

+
0

The United States has deliberately and publicly stated its intent to control the “third space”/cyberspace. Washington has used different arguments to do so mainly to attract support, or at least diminish opposition, from its citizens. Also, according to The Guardian one of the arguments stated by the National Security Agency (NSA) is that it needs citizens’ private data to maintain a secure country and help prevent another terrorist attack like 9/11. However in their process to maintain security the espionage policies the US has adopted have completely erased the line between citizens’ private and public information.

Apart from distinguishing between private and public citizen information, the use that the government has made of the information they share with their citizens is also a topic to discuss. Journalists such as Gleen Greenwald argue that through different programs, which have been reveled not just by Edward Snowden, but also by whistleblowers Daniel Ellsberg and Bradley Manning, the government has been able to control its population by manipulating public opinion through telecommunications in an attempt to preserve status quo as stated in The War on Wikileaks. This is why there’s a need to find alternatives to mainstream communicating channels where real journalists can disclose valuable information for public opinion like in the case of Wikileaks.

The Washington administration has also been able to control the “third space” internationally. They have succeeded in breaking political frontiers and establishing channels of interaction alongside politics, in homogenizing their “western culture” and democratic values in countless countries and in interfering in other countries national interest by upholding their security flag.  However, as stated in Farrell and Finnemore’s Foreign Affairs article “The End of Hipocracy” the last thing the United States has done is follow what it preaches. The United States has always kept in mind the interest of its elite, and this can be seen in how it has been reacting to current revolts around the world.

The President has publicly condemned the use of force in Ukraine, but is apparently less interested by the revolts in Venezuela. The Monroe Doctrine of America for the Americans seems to have been forgotten as no security or democracy flag is being taken to the Caracas administration even though human right violations are more than evident. Its hard to imagine but the control that Chavez and Maduro had over it citizens in regards to access to information and the control of such is not that different from the control of cyberspace that Bush and Obama have been exercising over their citizens in the last decade. Maybe this is the reason why international security seems to have taken a back seat in the United State’s agenda, its more convenient for Obama to have a population with little or no opinion regarding protests for government unconformity.

Sofia Potes

A00811281


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

Internet privacy debate

// Posted by Tec on 02/22/2014 (12:50 AM)

The internet has become an essential tool for our daily lives, from education and negotiation activities to leisure and recreation. Thousands of information is shared in this media, such as passwords, pictures, and of course, conversations. Nevertheless, in the recent… Read more

+
1

The internet has become an essential tool for our daily lives, from education and negotiation activities to leisure and recreation. Thousands of information is shared in this media, such as passwords, pictures, and of course, conversations. Nevertheless, in the recent years, that hasn’t been an impediment for the states to violate the citizens’ right to privacy. In the interest of national welfare, states have begun taking actions, such as espionage and unwarranted investigations, which although justified as security measures, had come to attack one of the most essential rights.

Recent events have become the trigger for manifestations, debates and the fight to regain the internet privacy. But what is to be done? Terrorism is, for example, a major threat to national security, and it could be prevented by investigating the information circulation in the cyberspace. Therefore, the real question is: to what extent national security may be above the individual rights of citizens? Apparently, you cannot have both.

The lack of regulation in cyberspace has led to ambiguity for users and governments, dispelling the lines of permissiveness for one and others. However, although the regulation of this space would reduce the abusiveness of the states, the user would also be highly limited, contrary to the advantage that characterizes the internet.

Personally although I think there is some information that governments should keep for their own in order to protect the State and the citizen’s security, I also think that people should be able decide what is and what isn’t private information, and to keep it that way. This has obviously, completely and worldwide violated by the governments. I don’t think I would have done the same as Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, but drastic actions must be taken to resolve the problem and these two men have shown that we can’t under the limits of what is permitted when such legality is becoming into injustices.

Therefore, it seems like citizens will have to lose some of their freedom in the internet in order to regain their privacy. Regulations are vital for solving the problem, so we must demand them, because right now the governments seem to me much more powerful rather the pressure that the regular citizen can put into the State.

World governments are supposedly ensuring our security. However, the process has damaged us enough as citizens. Is the price of our security worth? Is this the only way to be protected? Which is more dangerous: terrorism or a State with unlimited power?


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

Information is power.

// Posted by Tec on 02/21/2014 (11:57 PM)

Information is power, information is knowledge.
According to the actions committed by Edward Snowden by filtering confidential USA documents and Julian Assange’s filtered governmental documents on the Wikileaks website, I must say that I am on their side because… Read more

+
1

Information is power, information is knowledge.
According to the actions committed by Edward Snowden by filtering confidential USA documents and Julian Assange’s filtered governmental documents on the Wikileaks website, I must say that I am on their side because I also think that internet and personal privacy is vital for global society. States do not have the right to interfere in our business just by alleging that they are taking care of their national security. The only matter here is that the United States does not want any other governmental actor to be aware of its -not very political- international actions, which include acts of spy and suborns. What about the fact that USA made sure that Wikileaks could not sustain itself and operate by just making banks do some sort of boycott? What happens with our rights to express ourselves? Did they disappear already just because states do not want us to be aware of its actions? Internet was made for us. It’s our right to have it. No rules should apply and therefore I do not agree with creating some sort of boundaries, since these ones are established to determine the sovereignty of States, and Internet has no queen or king that rules it. If I were Snowden or Assange I would have done the same actions, but I am pretty sure I would have given every single name of the list. We have the right to know what do our states and politicians do. Why would we permit them to know about out personal stuff? Why can’t we do, read or write our personal opinions? The United States have to understand that we are free to do whatever we want to, obviously only those things that are correct and do not harm any individual. I am pretty much aware that national security is very important for every single State that is part of the international system, but so are our rights. All those persons that were implied in the documents have to know that whatever happens to them or any negative commentary that they receive from the society is because they deserve it. I think that this world des desperately needs people like Julian and Edward because they know what matters and what is good for the society. They want us to be aware of what is going on. They know that information is power and that with it the world will be full of knowledge, and therefore there would be no questions or bad actions towards us.

Maricarmen Estevez A01195258

 


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

USA National Security

// Posted by Tec on 02/21/2014 (11:49 PM)

At the first moment, I would dare to think that USA government might be exaggerating its actions of the great surveillance of the Internet under the argument of protecting their citizen’s security. However, I might be watching the situation only… Read more

+
0

At the first moment, I would dare to think that USA government might be exaggerating its actions of the great surveillance of the Internet under the argument of protecting their citizen’s security. However, I might be watching the situation only from my citizen position. If I start thinking from USA position as a State, its actions might be understandable till certain extent, even if it implies to seek an enemy everywhere. First of all, NSA’s mission is already stipulated (as it is shown in its website): this organization will be in charge of protecting “America’s vital national security information”, whatever it takes. Besides, it is stated in the 4th Amendment of the Constitution that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”. Emphasizing the part of “but upon probable cause”, actions carried on by Snowden and Assange are totally a reason to “violate their right to be secure”, as the State is acting supported by “reasonable searches”.
Of course that, from our citizen position, NSA’s interference is definitely against the moral and our right to privacy. However there have to be limits on what is published in the Internet and what is not. For example, according to an article by Glenn Greenwald, it was said that, among all of the documents disclosed by WikiLeaks, there were some that could uncover USA military plans in the Middle East. In this case, seek for national security is well supported. Let’s take into account that the State is acting to preserve itself, if we analyze the situation from a realist position, where power is the only thing that matters. In that case, WikiLeaks does represent a threat for USA national security, even if that was not their promoters’ intention, as, maybe, they just wanted let Americans get notice of the invasive actions of their government.
Despite of everything, I consider that Assange and Snowden were very brave by challenging USA government and its agencies, even when they knew these were really powerful. By that reason, I don’t think I would dare to do something like that, also because I wouldn’t have the courage to leave my family and friends due to my exile from the country (and not knowing if I will ever come back).

Karina Cantú
A00811472
Tec de Monterrey


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

The Internet Privacy

// Posted by Tec on 02/21/2014 (11:48 PM)

https://www.wevideo.com/hub/#media/ci/152720745

+
0

https://www.wevideo.com/hub/#media/ci/152720745


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

About the government controlling the Internet

// Posted by Tec on 02/21/2014 (11:33 PM)

About the government controlling the Internet by Mauricio Vega

 

Thanks to Wikileaks and whistleblowers like Edward Snowden we have now definitive prove that the U.S. government, among others, is spying on citizens, organizations, organisms and other governments of all… Read more

+
0

About the government controlling the Internet by Mauricio Vega

 

Thanks to Wikileaks and whistleblowers like Edward Snowden we have now definitive prove that the U.S. government, among others, is spying on citizens, organizations, organisms and other governments of all around the globe. This brings into the discussion an old debate between privacy and security. I first would like to address the issue from an American perspective. The U.S. has had this debate within probably since it was founded. On one side, freedom has always been a key pillar in the U.S. mindset but also in its legislation. As, Tocqueville said in his analysis of the American democracy, the type of political liberty lived by in that country had never been seen in Europe. He also claims that it was more than just the constitution, it was a way of living. On the other side we have an arguably equally important value: security. Due to the nature of the independence movement that led to the foundation of the USA, security has always played a mayor role. From the civil war to the Vietnam War, security has always driven foreign and domestic policy.  This is why, I think, even though the revelations of the NSA scandal were outrageous, the US population has not had an aggressive or loud enough reaction. Recent polls like the one made by Anzalone Liszt Grove Research (Jaycox, 2014) in January of this year, shows that 63% of Americans disapprove the government spying on them, that means almost 40% agrees with the measure. For a freedom fight population, this is, at least, surprising. I think Americans know that what their government is doing is morally wrong, but the benefits that come with their action i.e. peace of mind, makes it worth it.

 

From the rest of the world’s perspective, myself included, I think it is becoming very clear how dangerous can be the lack of Internet regulation in an international level. Normally, as consumers, we would be against regulation since it translates in more freedom for the users but we can now begin to realize that this “freedom” comes also with a price. We tend to forget who has the real tools and power to profit from the lack of regulation: the government, especially the American government since most of the Internet’s infrastructure is in their territory and under their supervision. Being classified as potential threats and being spied on by a government, specifically a foreign one, is not a good situation for the population since it can quickly escalate into human rights violations and arbitrary decision-making. That is why I would like to make a proposition (if not a provocation), in order to be debated. I think a general relatively fast solution would be to create a multilateral, international, interdisciplinary organization, conformed by ONGs, OITs, and States that regulates, legislates and holds power over the Internet. I realize it is an ambitious and dangerous endeavor in this anarchic international system, but the situation requires it. President of Brazil Dilma Rousseff has already talked about a similar idea, but nothing has been done. I would like to see what you think about this idea.

 

Works Cited

Jaycox, M. (2014, January 14). Polls Continue to Show Majority of Americans Against NSA Spying. Washinton, Washinton DC, United States.

Tocqueville, A. d. (2003). Democracy in America. Washington: Penguin Classics.

 

 


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

Privacy vs National security

// Posted by Tec on 02/21/2014 (11:16 PM)

The internet is a tool that came into this world to revolutionize it. It has had a positive side in it: the internet can be a medium which gives the opportunity to talk to other people, do homework, etc. However,… Read more

+
2

The internet is a tool that came into this world to revolutionize it. It has had a positive side in it: the internet can be a medium which gives the opportunity to talk to other people, do homework, etc. However, it is a double-row because the freedom of this service can be used for bad purposes such as pornography and theft, among others.

The internet can be used by all people around the world, giving us the opportunity to create accounts with passwords and freedom to use it according to our needs. But what happens when someone starts to get into your account, review your information and what you’re doing? What if it is the government who are doing it? Would you accept it or would reject it?

After the attacks of 9/11 United States looked to increase their safety. It began to do research to discover terrorist and possible terrorist suspects who attacked its. However, in my opinion that does not justify the fact that the government is in the networks of its citizens who had never been involved in any trouble for being “suspicious”.

Checking the internet was something that the government was not difficult because nobody knew about it, but at the moment this was released ,not only affect the USA for the other countries that found that espionage was being done to them , as Mexico , who discovered recently that the U.S. government had been reviewing their phone calls. This information was released by Snowden and draft hack President Calderon was authorized by the NSA (Lara , 2013) . Moreover people also must have felt anger and distrust of the government know that they were not getting information from the government for all documents were exposed, but this (the government) had the information  about them because of the espionage.

It is understood that probably all governments around the world use some kind of intelligence to maintain their position in front of others, to know what plans against them and ensure which is on its side.

“I’m willing to sacrifice all (…) because I can’t in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building” (Snowden)  The government U.S. should have no rights of abuse of his power to investigate people who have done nothing against him.

It is clear that the government is playing with a double face. This is because it is not considering their society, which makes it a non-democratic country. Likewise, the facts show a crafted way to getting other governments to support the war in Afghanistan is wrong.  WikiLeaks has shown through the exhibition of documents that have been violations of human rights, military attacks on civilians, among others;  Where is the American country that wanted to be the example for everyone else?

The rules are essential in everything. That’s why they should be placed on the internet and it would continue being free. Applying standards could prevent child pornography and trafficking online. In the same way, citizens should be able to ask the state for information and receive it. I support Snowden in his position that in need to be two-way communication between citizens and government, likewise, should not be able to investigate the information from someone else unless there is an approve letter from a judge.

WikiLeaks and Snowden are an example of knowing and doing the right thing and injustice. Clearly, the got into trouble with the law, but did so because they want the U.S. government is as it was before:“ The example of all other countries, not a corrupt one”.

 

FERNANDA RODRIGUEZ ALEJO

A00811495

 

Lara (2013) “Calderón dio aval a espías. y lo espiaron; EU intervino su correo electrónico” Excelsior. Disponible en http://www.excelsior.com.mx/nacional/2013/10/21/924495 obtenido el 20 de febrero de 2014.


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

Link to our Video.

// Posted by Tec on 02/21/2014 (10:31 PM)

 

Maricarmen Estevez

Lucia Sanchez

Ezequiel Palacios

Maria Mora

Sofia Potes

Karen Nuñez

Alessandro Giorgi

Claudia Resendez

+
1

 

Maricarmen Estevez

Lucia Sanchez

Ezequiel Palacios

Maria Mora

Sofia Potes

Karen Nuñez

Alessandro Giorgi

Claudia Resendez


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

Security or privacy?

// Posted by Tec on 02/21/2014 (9:34 PM)

After the terrorist attack in 9/11  the word security and privacy have taken another meaning. It is understandable that the U.S. government has taken measures necessary to prevent terrorist acts and to keep his country safe. One of these measures… Read more

+
1

After the terrorist attack in 9/11  the word security and privacy have taken another meaning. It is understandable that the U.S. government has taken measures necessary to prevent terrorist acts and to keep his country safe. One of these measures has been the use of espionage, although from time before the U.S. government has used these measures to make foreign policy decisions, this time have focused not only on terrorists but also on their own citizens violating  their privacy.

However contrary to the public opinion, according to a CBS News survey only 36 percent of the country felt that government spying had ” gone too far ” . Similarly, a Pew survey – Washington Post found that 62 percent (including 69 percent of Democrats ) deemed fighting terrorism a higher priority than protecting privacy.

Understandably the citizens prefer their security and not take so much importance to their  privacy by not having anything to hide and with the fact that today with the internet, the television and the social networks are expanded increasingly more tools  to know personal information about everyone. However it is important to clarify the true use the government does with the information obtained through espionage due that some of the disclosures provided by Snowden for The Guardian show that there have been times when the goverment blame any citizen to be a potential suspect modifying the personal information and showing false information about that citizen.

On the question of whether restrictions should exist on the Internet  I consider that not necessarily, because the Internet is currently used for communication and dissemination of information , among many other things . But  being such a large network is a tool of certain actors to achieve theirs objectives and  this ones not necessarily are ethical or good, so the Internet becomes a double-edged sword. But USA  is a democratic country, which has always characterized by “defend” freedom in every way, so I don’t consider that putting restrictions on the Internet matches very well with that speech of freedom.

As mentioned above, the United States is a democratic regime where must exist a real relationship of trust between the government and its citizens, and for that reason is so the citizens voted for they. It’s necessary that the government inform the society about their decisions  and do that with  transparency in the published information. If the government makes decisions in the place of the society in the  long-term the trust will lost and social problems arise.

It’s understandable that States must ensure their national security, but violating the privacy of individuals and institutions is not the most ethical way to do it. I think that people like Snowden are citizens committed to their society. In the particular case of Snowden he had the access to confidential information and saw that this information was not necessarily the same as the United States government made known, so he decided to inform the public the truth of what is happening, giving them the option to start doing something about it or just let it go. Such leaks are a new way to encourage citizens to participate and become more involved in issues of public agenda to achieve the common good.

 

Karen Núñez

A00812195


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

The real threat.

// Posted by Tec on 02/21/2014 (9:28 PM)

Attacks occurred on September 11 of 2011 triggered a new urgency to predict threats to the United States and every other nation. Although the headlines of the news were principally oriented to geopolitical strategies, the necessity of a better-prepared country… Read more

+
0

Attacks occurred on September 11 of 2011 triggered a new urgency to predict threats to the United States and every other nation. Although the headlines of the news were principally oriented to geopolitical strategies, the necessity of a better-prepared country didn’t end there.
Experts on Nation’s Security turned their sight to the Internet. Therefore, in a decade of dependence on technology the fear of digital attacks began to rise in the Congress of the United States, who believed that the camouflage provided by the cyberspace could set the perfect scenario for what they called “cyber-terrorism”, which included espionage programs leaded by terrorists organizations targeting the United States.
What really happened since 9/11 is that World’s politics failed to reach the gigantic steps of telecommunications and virtual space. Therefore they didn’t identify the real threats and intending to protect national security, government violated the freedom of speech and the privacy prior given by the Constitution of the United States of America.
In that matter, Chris Clymer, manager of advisory services at SecureState affirmed “terrorist have focused on doing physical damages to the United States instead of cyber-wars”.
On the other hand, smartphones, tablets and such devices didn’t exist as popular as they are now back in 2011. Nevertheless, the real threats were not, are not and probably will not lay in the communication established via daily used apps (“angry birds”, Hotmail, whatsapp, and so). Instead, they will hide in the dark corners of the “deep web”, which is a space away from any controlled or regulated site of the Internet. In that place; hitmen, weapon traffic and human trade are a common practice. As a result, violating the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution by searching everyone’s data without a warrant and with no logical or sustained suspicious will only break the trust of citizens in their government and will not prevent the real threats of the cyberspace to explode.
Finally, if Internet continues being used as a way to complete unjustified investigations on innocent people and prohibiting the freedom of speech given by the Constitution what will happen is that the monster of anger and distrust will spark in the citizens and a more horizontal (and less vertical) communication between the government, the media and the people will be demanded resulting in real “sneak-leak” attacks not committed by other countries but by the local press and the average citizen, as already happened with the Snowden issue.

 

Itzel Hervert 888568


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,
+

Freedom?

// Posted by Tec on 02/21/2014 (9:23 PM)

Classifying the internet as a HUGE amount of information that MUST be completely accessible to all the users around the world, belongs to a very liberal way of thinking, and crashes with realist approaches of international relations, or theories, depending… Read more

+
0

Classifying the internet as a HUGE amount of information that MUST be completely accessible to all the users around the world, belongs to a very liberal way of thinking, and crashes with realist approaches of international relations, or theories, depending on the analitical context this issue is treated with. Uploading information to a well-known digital space where possibly every person with access to the internet can reach, is an act that should require entire understanding and resposability towards from the people that use this information media. In other words, the internet, and the option people have to make use of it, is merely a service, not an obligation, and since it’s not a requirement for  almost anything, complaining abut the lack of security or privacy is just pointless. Human interaction tends to be hypocrite, thanks to its nature, and that implying the physical condition, conversations, points of view, arguments, even private agreements, why, then, is it a susprise to the human race, to be abused by the use of the technology, in a process of unknown data exchange, where no longer physical barriers are set by other humans?

thinking that the human race would have at least a hint of privacy to deal with information of other people in digital spaces which do not have the slightest restriction on most cases, is part of an issue of principles including even philosophical matters : not trying to say that the internet is a weapon of destruction, the information that makes people blame either the government or private transnational actors, belongs to a series of services that are part of an economic, political, and social system, and to think otherwise is to attempt against the principles of the Western model of politics , urging a trend of revolutionary nature , exaggerated to the problem of privacy.

Yes , it is true that political elites maintain their interests and more sensitive to other activities in an attempt to safeguard the national sovereignty of country, and even security, under the assumption that other nations , rival ideological blocs, to contextualize some events of past decades ( United States against the Soviet Union and viceversa) tried to take advantage of the weaknesses of the States , however , this does not give the right to the citizens of a country have to know each methodologies or mechanisms of action of governments, Understanding that these are collectively part of the decisions that political structures (formed by individuals) taken from certain criteria in order to defend their nation, and citizens do not share this logic to reveal the privacy of their private data.


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

Passenger 17A, thank you. Our privacy comes first.

// Posted by Tec on 02/21/2014 (8:52 PM)

The United States of America’s government has alleged that not only Wikileaks is an organization that leaks confidential information of governments, including USA’s, and institutions but that it harms sovereignty, integrity, human rights, and national security. I cannot stop thinking… Read more

+
1

The United States of America’s government has alleged that not only Wikileaks is an organization that leaks confidential information of governments, including USA’s, and institutions but that it harms sovereignty, integrity, human rights, and national security. I cannot stop thinking that such arguments sound sort of hypocrite since USA is only concerned in eliminating Wikileaks because that would mean that other States won’t be able to read USA’s plans and espionage acts to other countries. Also, the same applies to the arguments against Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, since USA alleges that all the documents that his website filtered damage the lives of those whose names were said, which I think is only a big excuse to make sure that United States’ national interests are not damaged.
On the other side, Edward Snowden has been accused by the United States of espionage acts and betrayal. But… What happens when you discover that people all over the world are being spied against their will? As Snowden said, leadership is about being the first one to act, and I am pretty sure that he did was what he knew and thought was correct. I think it is pretty shameful the fact that he did not leak every single document, but I have to respect his point of view, which is not harming the integrity of any individual but showing what is the government doing against us -and our human rights-.
I always thought that we had internet in order to express ourselves and be able to search and read any topic that was of our personal interest, but nowadays such thing is questionable because not every government admits it’s citizens to enjoy the facilities that internet and its social networks offer. We have territorial borders… Do we also have internet boundaries? I really hope that the answer is NO, but sadly governmental and institutional actions prove me wrong and tell me that we do have them. Internet was born in order to be free and it should remain the same way. I am aware that not every single individual knows to behave and use this tool for our common wealth, therefore the rules for internet should be designed in order to preserve the integrity and human rights of its users. But acts, such as Snowden’s or Assange’s cannot be tagged as incorrect! Because what they did was to communicate people what is really going on with their governments and lives.
I would love to say that if I were Snowden or Assange I would have done the same thing but I am sure that such acts need a lot of strength. Changing the world is a very tough task. There is one thing that I am sure about: we were not born to live in a society such as Orwell’s. The state has the obligation to show us every single movement that it does, remember that it represents us in the international community because we chose it.

 

Lucía Sánchez

A01195196


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

Internet, democracy and national security

// Posted by Tec on 02/21/2014 (8:01 PM)

I agree with the ideas of Edward Snowden concerning the injustices committed by the U.S. authorities. Clearly the secret actions of the American government have violated human rights and national sovereignty of numerous States in several occasions, situation that must… Read more

+
0

I agree with the ideas of Edward Snowden concerning the injustices committed by the U.S. authorities. Clearly the secret actions of the American government have violated human rights and national sovereignty of numerous States in several occasions, situation that must be stopped somehow. Additionally, the actions taken by the authorities contradict the principles of freedom and democracy on which the structure of the nation rests.

 

Equally interesting is the fact that one of the major concerns of Edward Snowden would be the international impact exerted by the actions of the United States. It is also important to note that before the exposure of any CIA material, Snowden weighed the benefits and harms caused by the actions committed by the authorities, thus deciding that he was being part of a system that does more harm than good, besides to consider that this structure proved to be a major threat for democracy.

 

On the other hand, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and other whistle-blowers have endangered the national security of the United States. Despite the injustices committed by the U.S. authorities, the movement that Snowden has done is wrong because he didn’t think that the secret information spread endangers the welfare of the American people, who aren’t responsible for the faults and injustices committed by the authorities. The consequences could be severe since the information released by Snowden clearly can be used to meet the national interests of other States, thus endangering the lives of Americans, which invalidates the moral legitimacy that Edward Snowden has given to its decisions and actions.

 

The Snowden and the Assange case, case show that the media, especially Internet, are becoming a strong tool of pressure to the policies and actions of states. I think that the use of technology and information exposure can lead to much more transparent and humanitarian government administrations, however, I think this great flow of secret information can also endanger the national security of any country being exposed. I also consider that control of the Internet by the State itself is necessary, nevertheless, this must be done within the territorial borders of every country, that is, the control of information from other countries violates the concept of sovereignty and runs disadvantage to other states, besides of threaten national security. Moreover, authorities intervention in the private information of cybernauts and the government harassment of “whistle-blowers” contradicts the principle of freedom of expression so characteristic in democratic societies. The phenomenon of the Internet, the vast amount of information and the speed with which it travels, is relatively new and is why it has not been developed a strong regulation of their use; it is necessary that a set of rules regulate the handling of this powerful tool, both for civilians and for government authorities.

 

Claudia Reséndez


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

national security, freedom of speech and privacy

// Posted by Tec on 02/21/2014 (7:38 PM)

Estefanía Garza A01139092

After the statements by Edward Snowden about espionage and surveillance operatives of the National Security Agency United States (NSA ) , the exposure of secret CIA information shown by Julian Assange and Daniel Ellsberg’s leaked information of… Read more

+
0

Estefanía Garza A01139092

After the statements by Edward Snowden about espionage and surveillance operatives of the National Security Agency United States (NSA ) , the exposure of secret CIA information shown by Julian Assange and Daniel Ellsberg’s leaked information of the Pentagon in WikiLeaks a great debate was generated that splits into different positions, both for and against the “whistleblowers”. The problems or questions I personally see from this are: how far can we exercise our freedom rights as a citizen and deliberate information the government does not show in a transparent manner? Is it right to question and ask for an accountability system that ensures your interests and your security when it is not given? Also, I consider important to analyze the concepts below as complementary factors and not entirely exclusive. The concepts are the national security and freedom of expression and privacy over the Internet. First of all, I should mention that with this post I ‘m not justifying or present a position in favor of spying and surveillance activities that the United States uses in order to protect the interests of the nation and citizens. However, it is important to question and analyze the difference between what is politically correct for a government and what is morally wrong for a citizen. To discern between the two is difficult when the two positions are not simultaneously occupy.

The interview that The Guardian made where Edward Snowden asked to disclose his identity regarding the NSA leaked information, openly declares that he knows he will be persecuted by the U.S. government, but that comes in second when rights is about, because he knows that what the government does is intrusion and manipulation of private information of users in Internet for government own interests, and treats citizens as alleged suspects which is morally wrong. “I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions” but “I will be satisfied if the federations of secret law, unequal and compelling executive pardon powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant.” But who decides or really judge what a government can and should do to protect the interests and maintain the security of its population? Are they public officials themselves who have the power to decide what is right and what is wrong for most, once we choose representatives (who are and not elected)? It’s easy to disagree with the government and the decision is made in regard to our well-being, but it is not easy raising our voice showing our disagreement, knowing that could have major implications in challenging our discontent with a much larger power than us.

The concept of national security versus privacy and individual freedom is present in both the role of the government and the unhappy citizen. We must criticize about both sides of the paradigm if we try to understand all this. Article Leaky Geopolitics shows WikiLeaks’ case and is mentioned as a page in a medium of information (internet) that surpasses the geopolitical control limits that countries have, since they are not entirely covered the ways in which information is handled, and has an apparent freedom of expression and privacy of people who surf the World Wide Web. However, the U.S. has found a way to use the internet to their advantage by spying and surveillance, and being aware of threats to the nation. But once the internet is used against U.S. interests- the example Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon released documents- , the people who communicate the information are sanctioned and sentenced as delinquents because that info affects the image and credibility of the U.S. government, but above all, information also shows the abuse of power government has and negatively affects citizens for political decisions that benefit them.

Here the paradigm is: How far reaches national security? How far can adversely affect the government to protect the national security of its own citizens, or even how far can citizens come through freedom of expression by the internet to refute the words of the government? What if one of the threats to the population is the government itself, to deprive us of information for political ends and personal interests? I personally would have done the same as Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Daniel Ellsberg , if I knew that the State, the one who swears protection and safeguard to the collective interests, is violating my rights as a citizen and as a human to generate strategies that benefit the State ‘s and not the population itself. My problem or what I would question here is what I think is right for me and for others, coincides with what is right for someone else, for another group of people or the government? The subjectivity gap between what is good for the government and what is good for one person is great. Hence comes the disputes and defenses by the State to say that measures are taken to ensure the safety of everyone in your nation, but the right for security of everyone does not agree with the right of freedom of expression and privacy of the citizen as an individual.


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

Response to Samantha Lopez: Knowledge is Power

// Posted by Emily on 02/21/2014 (5:43 PM)

Emily & Molly Video Response

+
0

Emily & Molly Video Response


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

Response to “National Security vs. Internet Privacy”

// Posted by Mia on 02/21/2014 (4:49 PM)

+
0


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,
+

Digital America: knowledge is power

// Posted by Tec on 02/21/2014 (4:46 PM)

Samantha Dalaí López

The internet being relatively new is rapidly becoming a political ground where the absence of physical frontiers allows the spread of data at incredibly fast rates. The appearance of organizations such as Wikileaks… Read more

+
2

Samantha Dalaí López

The internet being relatively new is rapidly becoming a political ground where the absence of physical frontiers allows the spread of data at incredibly fast rates. The appearance of organizations such as Wikileaks where people can share information that otherwise would be kept secret by the governments and institutions that control it all is a necessity. Why are things kept in secret in the first place? Well, because the government doesn’t want you to know what they’re doing to say it briefly. They say that it’s because then national security would be threatened but when you look at the information that they don’t want the public to know it becomes obvious that rather than being issues of security they are issues of politic and economic interest.  Whistleblowers, wikileaks and this information sharing centers, have uncovered many documents that report of the abuses committed by the governments which include human right violations such as the conditions at Guantanamo bay facilities, civilian deaths at Afghanistan and other places where U.S. has deployed military forces, the reports also include environmental crimes and economic corruption such as the practices that lead to Iceland’s bankruptcy and NSA’s illegal practices and overspendings. Of course this is to name a few, but obviously knowing this does not threaten ‘national security’ but instead reveals the abusive acts committed by governments.

 If the civilians cannot know what their governments are doing and if they knew and wouldn’t approve then there’s something wrong. Government is acting against the will of their people.

One of the questions that arises from this unjustified secrecy and lack of transparency on part of the government is, whose interests are they acting for?  Some of the organizations vouching for dismantling Wikileaks include banks and credit card companies…. That means economic entities that in no way should be that linked to government issues.

This is one side of the issue, the lack of transparency on part of the governments, but the exact opposite happens on part of the civilians. The NSA and the government in general have total access to civilian information. One of the recent leaks revealed how the U.S. government has access to a grand part of online information.  This is rather unjust, they won’t give away information but are capable of saving every single conversation on the internet, organize them, search for keywords and then spy on you because your conversation topics aren’t of their pleasure.  I’m not saying that they’re doing that to everyone, but they have the ability to do so and in my opinion that represents a threat on liberty and freedom of speech.  I believe that discussing ideas and sharing them with others that think the same way is a way of organizing but with governments watching over there’s no real freedom. There’s also the issue that the internet does not belong to a country, so the NSA can spy all over the world and not be stopped because they contract non-government companies (to whom they pay a lot) to do so. Recently it was confirmed that the US government spies on other governments which caused anger on part of many presidents and governments, so the threat is real. So civilians can’t know this information but entities outside of the government can do so and use the information in their favor. On the bright side, this is how information gets to us by whistleblowers.

I believe that the inequality on access to information is the main problem with this issue, while governments and secret organizations have all the information (and hence the power to use it for their own benefit), civilians have zero access to it, are being spied on and have no real liberty of organization or action. For example the boycott of wikileaks from these huge organizations like banks is an abuse and simply means that they don’t think people deserve to know what is really happening in the world, power is concentrated in a few hands and they’re not willing to give it over a bit.

 I believe in transparency and freedom, governments and their actions should be subjected to the will of the citizens and serve their interests.  If there’s any form of censorship on the internet and access to information it’s as if they were blindfolding and ignoring us. On the other hand I believe in privacy, the government shouldn’t know all what their citizens do because as an institution it has a lot of power that could be used against the individuals that don’t conform and this threat diminishes freedom of action and speech. In conclusion, the internet giving us access to information and the opportunity to organize ourselves offers a great weapon against the abuses of power. All of us should be watching over the powerful not the other way around.


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , ,
+

Freedom of speech, internet privacy and national security

// Posted by Tec on 02/21/2014 (4:29 PM)

 

The recent troubles induced by the publications of secret documents on Wikileaks have generated a new dilemma: Whether liberty is the principal priority or if is the national security.

Recently the webpage Wikileaks have revealed to secret documents of… Read more

+
2

 

The recent troubles induced by the publications of secret documents on Wikileaks have generated a new dilemma: Whether liberty is the principal priority or if is the national security.

Recently the webpage Wikileaks have revealed to secret documents of the NSA and the Unites States government about how the administration has been manipulating the European public opinion related to the Afghan war and other confidential information (Greenwald, 2014). This provoked new debates between the citizens and the government.

Analysts and public opinion has gone between if Wikileaks is good or bad for society, o if it is the government. In this sense I, personally, considered the statement of Springer et al (2013) who says that this shouldn’t be the real debate.  The real issue is to define what are the merits of wikileaks and the sovereignty and national security role.

In my opinion, I think that both actors have their pros and cons. First, Wikileaks defends itself by saying that it about freedom of speech. Snowden wants to “reform civilization” (Snowden in Greenwald, 2014), I agree that people needs information in order to make decisions, and that a democratic country should work in freedom and press plurality basis.  But, I also think a country may hide some information in order to maintain the sovereignty and the stability of the State.

But, what is happening in the United States? , this information revealed that the war against Afghanistan, and other governmental, might not be totally justified. And for me there is a special issue on this debate, the problem besides if this webpage affects national security is that national security is not totally justified.

Another great question that has emerged is the limits of the internet, and how can it be regulated if it needs to be regulated.  In this sense, many countries not only U.S. have been having troubles.  Many social strikes have been organized by social networks on internet, people has the possibility to be listened around the world. For me, the internet has been an effective civilian “weapon” against the government decisions, but, ¿why should it be a “weapon”? , may be it could be an interlocutor. This goes in the sense that many riots have ended in violence (in other countries) , this makes me think that some people doesn’t know how to react at some news or some information, that would make it difficult for  both, the society and for the government .

Yes, I think that freedom of speech is important for a democratic state, but also are the obligations. I support this freedom with the condition that people don’t react with violence.  Finally, I think that in the debate between liberty and security, the role of the States is to protect the security of its citizens; in that case security goes first than the liberty. But the problem here is that the “national threat” is, now, not totally justified with the publication of these documents.

Jessika Juárez Rangel


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

Response to Tec Blog: “Freedom of Speech vs. National Security”

// Posted by Deirdre on 02/21/2014 (4:21 PM)

By: Deirdre O’Halloran and Cora Andryc

 

 

Snowden Quotes:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/27-edward-snowden-quotes-about-u-s-government-spying-that-should-send-a-chill-up-your-spine/5338714

+
0

By: Deirdre O’Halloran and Cora Andryc

 

 

Snowden Quotes:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/27-edward-snowden-quotes-about-u-s-government-spying-that-should-send-a-chill-up-your-spine/5338714


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
+

Response to National Security vs. Internet Privacy

// Posted by Piper on 02/21/2014 (3:27 PM)

http://youtu.be/Z1inc1yaWPg

+
0

http://youtu.be/Z1inc1yaWPg


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

Response to Aranzazu at Tec

// Posted by Rachel on 02/21/2014 (3:15 PM)

Sorry about the terrible sound quality! It was recorded on my phone.

+
0

Sorry about the terrible sound quality! It was recorded on my phone.


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , ,
+

Response to Tec: The Regulation of the Internet

// Posted by Claire on 02/21/2014 (3:07 PM)

+
0


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,
+

Response to “National Security vs Freedom of Speech”

// Posted by Sarah on 02/21/2014 (3:06 PM)

By Sarah Crawford

 

+
0

By Sarah Crawford

 


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: ,
+

Response to TEC: Freedom of Speech vs. National Security

// Posted by Alexandra on 02/21/2014 (3:03 PM)

+
0


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

Response to National Security vs. Internet Privacy

// Posted by Eliza on 02/20/2014 (8:37 PM)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLG58k8r6dk

+
0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLG58k8r6dk


Categories: Video
Tags: , , , , , ,
+

National Security vs. Internet Privacy

// Posted by Tec on 02/20/2014 (8:05 PM)

Raúl Ochoa

A00811852

In my opinion, the internet is double-edged sword, both security and privacy are affected. The citizens will always want to be safe; it’s something the State has always been protecting, its national security. Now, that we face… Read more

+
1

Raúl Ochoa

A00811852

In my opinion, the internet is double-edged sword, both security and privacy are affected. The citizens will always want to be safe; it’s something the State has always been protecting, its national security. Now, that we face this new domain, the internet; as everybody has access to it, so do people who might be a threat for one State. If one State has the chance to have control over all this information, it will not let that opportunity go away without taking advantage. We have seen the same situation in different times through history; during the colonialism, the great powers wanted to have control over territories, with the imperialism happened the same but with economics, and now with the internet it is not unexpected the States want to control it to ensure their security. Saying this, I’m not implying it is a justified action, but it is hard to make the governments not to do it. I believe that if the States want to control the internet, it could be understandable, but as I already said, not justifiable. If the State won’t set free some secret information, I think it should respect the privacy of the citizens.

The fact that Wikileaks has been targeted by US as a threat (Greenwald, 2010) doesn’t mean Wikileaks by itself can act against one State to damage it, but it allows other threats to take advantage of this information. On the other hand, what Snowden made could be also catalogued by US as a threat, but it could actually be linked to the principal with which American society was settled, trying always to do the right things. As Snowden mentioned in his interview (The Guardian, 2013), he took that decision of disclosing all that information because he didn’t want to live in a world where privacy is threatened by the government, which is going against democracy principals.

The difference is that in this case he showed that the NSA spied on their own citizens and political leaders. States that haven’t been affected by secretive files will not support these actions, instead they will continue recruiting and hiding information to ensure their security; no matter if they have to spy on their own citizens, the bi-directional dataveillance (Springer, 2012) will keep going as long as the State get benefits from not disclosing that information.  Now that Snowden has asylum in Russia, it represents a threat for US, because they (Russia) could get infiltrated in the NSA data through Snowden giving this country advantage in information arena. The fact that Russia will not give asylum again if Snowden gets out of Russia’s territory is being seen as an action that keeps him captive from liberty (The Guardian, 2014).


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

Freedom of speech vs National security

// Posted by Tec on 02/20/2014 (5:49 PM)

In this post, I will discuss how freedom of speech must be more important than national security.

There are countries in the world where censorship is systematically applied to citizen. One of them is China. In the Internet, the Chinese… Read more

+
0

In this post, I will discuss how freedom of speech must be more important than national security.

There are countries in the world where censorship is systematically applied to citizen. One of them is China. In the Internet, the Chinese Google search system is not showing anything like “Tiananmen Protest”, and they will hunt you down if they know you searched for it. Also, if you publicly show any type of support to Tibet, as for a flag or a t-shirt, you get immediately and arbitrarily arrested.

Sadly, the United States is going towards this way. Resembling like an authoritarian government, even communist. I cannot get how, from one side, they can predicate the Bush Doctrine and go around the world spreading democracy and freedom, while on the other side they try for example to blackmail Swiss bankers in order to breach in something that is invaluable for Switzerland, that is Banking Secrecy. As the same Edward Snowden said:

“I realized that I was part of something that was doing far more harm than good.”

I cannot imagine, then, what they are doing with poor countries in Latin America or Africa. Thank God there is people that is telling us. The document by Greenwald, “The War on Wikileaks”. states that even in the European Union the US is manipulating people like puppets to make us believe we are supporting the war. Shame to our European governments too, but more and more people, like the Dutch showed, is highly concerned about who and what is happening around them; and like Julian Assange and the same Edward Snowden are willingly not to give up to make transparency effective.

Not only, I can cite the furious attempts of the US governments to try to take in Julian Assange from London, trying to apply extradition at any cost and even violating international law and diplomacy rules. You can say what you want about Assange’s crimes of sexual harassment or the principles of WikiLeaks, but the documents that they revealed are not invented, and those things happened while politicians on the U.S. were acting like hypocrites proclaiming freedom to the world. The article “The end of Hypocrisy”, by Farrell and Finnemore, is sharing my point of view on this.

Please, don’t take my opinions as only negative toward the US government. I honestly think that, what Assange and others showed to the world, is just one side of the medal. In the other side, I see how a country is trying to make the world a better place, and to give the holy rights of freedom and democracy to who is being oppressed. As the article about Leaky Geopolitics says, the bad guy is not only the US Foreign Policy, but also the whistleblowers are risking the security not only of nations, but also of people, when exposing secret documents.

But, if the costs are to completely ignore and even damage the principles of self-determination of people, privacy and freedom of speech, then well I admire all the whistleblowers everywhere in the world. Transparency in the actions of governments is a fundamental concept in 2014, and we cannot change it in the name of the democracy.

 

Alessandro Giorgi, A01224123, ITESM


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

Response to “The Regulation of the Internet” Post by Tec

// Posted by Kevin on 02/20/2014 (2:32 PM)

+
0


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

The regulation of the Internet

// Posted by Tec on 02/20/2014 (5:09 AM)

By Aranzazu Ballesteros/Tecnológico de Monterrey/A01138247

In the last couple of years, evidence that the State spies on its citizens through cyberspace has become real and quite relevant. These situations have brought on a debate about human rights regarding the Internet. … Read more

+
1

By Aranzazu Ballesteros/Tecnológico de Monterrey/A01138247

In the last couple of years, evidence that the State spies on its citizens through cyberspace has become real and quite relevant. These situations have brought on a debate about human rights regarding the Internet.  As the article number 12 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” (UN)

The fact that the State is aiming towards the control of the cyberspace is a violation of their citizens’ privacy and, therefore, it should not be permitted. However, it is important to remember that a State’s priority is to ensure its own safety, therefore, throughout history; secrecy has been allowed and encouraged. Nevertheless, safety and freedom should not be set as binary concepts. The State’s duty is to ensure both of these things happen at the same time, without having to sacrifice one for the other.

This is why the Internet cannot be a completely free space. The lack of regulations means there are no rules, therefore, any country can do anything they want without any further consequences. Now, this issue, as a topic, has emerged because of the fact that as a society we are now aware we are being spied. The people that made this happen, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, amongst others, are nowadays suffering the consequences of living between persecution and political asylum. But, why is this happening? Because there is no legislation that limits the power of the State in matters of secrecy and gives the citizens the right to know what is going on with their taxes. What these men did is a matter of accountability, however, because there are no regulations, it can be considered a crime.

Aside from the individual rights, these cases of cyberspace spying can also be viewed as violations of the sovereignty of the countries being spied. In 2013, Edward Snowden revealed that the United States spied on Mexico and Brazil, without any further consequences. These types of conducts are unacceptable given that they could cause more harm than wealth. If the spying continues, diplomatic issues could arise, even threatening global order and peace.

Finally, it is important to reiterate that in order to eliminate these problems, an international committee should establish these regulations; always considering that violating an individual’s right to privacy is a violation of their human rights.


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

The State vs. the People? The dilemmas of the Internet for both the State and the Civil Society in the 21st Century.

// Posted by Tec on 02/19/2014 (8:50 PM)

Joshua Hurtado Hurtado

A01139119

Being an IR student in the globalized, internet age, I find it deeply necessary to stop for a moment and think about how this new era in global politics can change the dynamics between the forms… Read more

+
2

Joshua Hurtado Hurtado

A01139119

Being an IR student in the globalized, internet age, I find it deeply necessary to stop for a moment and think about how this new era in global politics can change the dynamics between the forms of political organization and the civil society. Having access to the internet means us, as citizens, have access to more information than ever before. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean that we are better informed, but it does mean that there is more information at our disposal.

Information, I believe, is power. Knowing about yourself and others mean you know what you are able to do and what your limits are. The same could be said for others. This is why the actions of Julian Assange and his collaborators at Wikileaks and the actions of Edward Snowden against the NSA espionage program will have a profound effect on making us, global citizens with internet access, question the limits of State surveillance.

I should start by discussing the Wikileaks case. As Springer et al. tell us in Leaky Geopolitics (2012), what is important to analyze regarding the Wikileaks case is not whether it is works for good or for evil forces. The analysis should instead revolve around two central questions: “What are the merits of the material published by Wikileaks? It is often claimed that this material is already known – but we might ask, known to whom? There are multiple levels of information asymmetry. Second, what does the varied response to Wikileaks tell us about the nature of power and sovereignty?” (Springer, et al., 2012, p. 688). The argument posed against some of the revelations from Wikileaks was that it was already known information. The question, however, was to whom it was known. Many of those revelations were known only to government officials and to certain analysts, but they were certainly not known to the general public. Had the general public known the information released, most likely there would have been a sector from the civil society that would have raised complaints against the government for violations of human rights.

This argument is sustained in the old debate of security vs. freedom. Violations of human rights in other parts of the world, the US government would argue, were necessary to protect the population from harm. That is indeed an understandable argument, especially as the fear of terrorism in the wake of 9/11 made the general public willing to sacrifice some comfort and privacy in the name of security. But, personally, I consider it would be a blatant lie to its population if the US government said it does so only to protect them. Another reason, complementary if not more important than security, has to do with staying as the hegemonic power in the international system. There are other reasons, of course, but they will be addressed when the Snowden case is discussed.

The other question raised, about the nature of power and sovereignty, must be disussed now. There are some authors, like Milton Mueller in his book Networks and States (2012) that indicate that states have started to acknowledge the power the internet can give to perceived threats (whether in the forms of terrorist groups or simply civilian protests). As such, decision-makers have begun to consider forms of internet governance, which Mueller classifies as follows: protection of intellectual property, cyber-security, content regulation, and critical control of the Internet (Mueller, 2012). The revelations from Wikileaks are useful because they raise the possibility that the civil society can become empowered and can make more demands to those in government.

The access to internet and to the use and spread of knowledge is very important as it opens channels of communication to more people. Authoritarian states, such as China, could potentially be harmed by giving more freedom to its population and it could provoke civil unrest, which the rulers in China definitely do not want. States are becoming very wary of this issues. Happenings such as the Arab spring, which toppled authoritarian regimes (even though the subsequent regimes were not much better) have demonstrated political leaders around the world the possibilities of what can happen when civilian protesters have access to information and channels of communication. But even democratic states are considering more regulation, because leaks such as those by Wikileaks prove that some actions and misinformation are done purely for political reasons (Springer et al., 2012). Wikileaks, as such, represents a threat to both governments and corporations, who wish to keep some information secret from the public eye and are attempting to destroy Wikileaks by cutting off methods of financing and by suing the organization (Greenwald, 2010).

If hiding information relevant to the public so they can make an informed choice is already unethical, then the effects are much worse when the government is actively trying to gather all data from all people, even its own population. This is why the revelations made by Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor, have made such an impact. Not only did the NSA gather information from foes or possible threats, but they also spied on political allies and they gathered any information they deemed could give the United States an edge. In other words, they also took part in industrial espionage.

What changes this revelations will make in public perception remain to be seen. But as long as there is a public debate, one in which the civil society is engaged in, the revelations of the NSA will not have been in vain.

References:

Greenwald, G., MacAskill, E., & Poitras, E. (2013, June 10). Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations. The Guardian. Retrieved on February 10, 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

Greenwald, G. (2010, March 27). “The war on WikiLeaks and why it matters”. Salon.com. Retrieved on February 10, 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.salon.com/2010/03/27/wikileaks/

Mueller, M. (2012) Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance. United States: The MIT Press.

Springer, et al. (2012). Leaky Geopolitics: The Ruptures and Transgressions of Wikileaks. Geopolitics, 17. 681-711.

 


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

Response to “Internet Security: Privacy vs. National Security” by Ana Isabel & Sánchez Meléndez

// Posted by Cassaundra on 02/19/2014 (1:56 PM)

 

+
0

 


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,
+

Internet Privacy

// Posted by Tec on 02/19/2014 (12:04 PM)

Arturo Alejandro Cruz M.

After reading the texts assigned, I realized the importance and the key role that internet privacy will play in the near future not only for governments but also for the common citizen, the internet war between… Read more

+
1

Arturo Alejandro Cruz M.

After reading the texts assigned, I realized the importance and the key role that internet privacy will play in the near future not only for governments but also for the common citizen, the internet war between countries has blurred the line of the geographic frontiers and invade one of the most essential rights of every person, the right of confidentiality. It has always been the suspected, even before the internet era, that governments have been trying to control and review communications between countries and people that play an important role in the political decisions or people that could threaten the security and stability of the country, but these couldn’t be confirmed until the recent media exposure that the US government suffered through the leaks making it not only an international scandal of what have always been suspected, but as Farrell and Finnemore said “Their danger lies not in the new information that they reveal but in the documented confirmation they provide of what the United States is actually doing and why.”

The exposure that the US government suffered made us question about the coherence between their international stand and speech and the reality of their actions and how this exposures can affect international relationships among affected countries. Thanks to people like Snowden or Assange, I realized the need of two things, first the need of international agreements to establish cybernetics rules or boundaries, to preserve the sovereignty of all countries and second the need of local regulations to establish what could be consider a violation of the personal privacy and the role and scope of the government about what could be consider a national safety matter. It is understandable that every country stands for a speech about liberty and security of their nation, but the real question here is if this gives them the authority to violate the personal privacy related to cybernetic information? From a personal point of view, I think that it doesn’t, every citizen have the right to have a private life and the freedom of will, no government or organization have the right to violate that privacy unless the person in matter is suspicious of crime, felony or act that could risk the safety of the country, but even in that case, this person should be notified that is under suspect of a crime and that will be investigated.

There is always going to be a controversial dispute about if what Eduard Snowden or the site Wikileaks did was right or wrong, I consider that was right and that I would do the same, I don’t justify the act as an honorable act because at the end, this information also was private property, but this act opened our eyes to the fact that is an urge to regulate and establish boundaries about how people and governments behave on the cyber space and what could be consider or not as a violation of the personal privacy.


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+

Internet’s private sphere: a tale of secrecy and sovereignty

// Posted by Tec on 02/18/2014 (7:30 PM)

- Roberto Alviso

Regarding the relationship established between the state and a citizen, two spheres of action could be identified in the liberal democracies: the private and the public sphere. This division outlines the space of action in which the… Read more

+
0

- Roberto Alviso

Regarding the relationship established between the state and a citizen, two spheres of action could be identified in the liberal democracies: the private and the public sphere. This division outlines the space of action in which the state is competent and where it should not interfere. Civil, political and social rights help to define the mentioned division. However, the virtual space that the Internet has shaped since the spread of its usage to the non-specialized user lacks of regulation to establish this division.

To sustain that the Internet should be kept off of any regulation is a two way street. Going uphill this means that users can enter any site freely, share the information they want and express their opinion without any threat at some point they get bounded. The downhill road has a different scenery. This road gets us to the discretional agency of governmental institutions. As there is no legislation billed, the State can manage to articulate intricate justifications about how privacy violations are a fair cost to assure national security.

The rhetoric of United States’ had turned around its foundational idea of being a nation that will set the standards for the entire world. However, nothing mystical or divine should be interpreted by a nation’s foreign policy. Based on solely evidence that leakers such as Snowden and Assange’s team at Wikileaks have made public, proving what was already evident, it is established that the United States’ foreign policy is based on secrecy directed to its citizens and the international community.

Farell and Finnemore’s pointed it out well in Foreign Affairs’ article titled “The End of Hypocrisy”1, the United States has been acting incoherently at the international scenario. In a crusade to spread liberal values and democracy all over the world, the United States has started breaching the standards they want to defend by violating human rights, attacking civilians and ignoring any right to privacy. Its capability to maintain this two-faced impersonation emerges from the so protected, justified and mystified secrecy.

A strong position is to say that secrecy and datavaillance are needed to maintain national security. I am not arguing otherwise. What I remark is that one thing is to protect citizens from foreign attack and other is to turn our own people into constantly spied “potential enemies”. The discretional activities of the intelligence offices and the national security departments have articulated an institutional apparatus that is oiled by constant lies thrown at the faces of their nation’s citizens and those of the foreign community.

As Greenwald’s “The war on WikiLeaks and why it matters”2 article stresses, Assange and the organization he leads strengthen the fight for transparency. While dozens of private companies have authorization to access our personal data and to execute datavaillance, citizens are kept in the dark, allegedly to protect them.

The whistleblowing activities are a way to reduce asymmetry of information and return the citizens the power to know and criticize current governmental practices. Following this logic, citizens are again empowered to demand a change in these practices if they consider it appropriate. In a rough and general fashion, this is the recognition of people’s sovereignty over their country’s destiny.

Last Saturday, John Kerry, U.S. Secretary of State, visited China and held a meeting with President Xi Jinping. During the visit, Kerry declared that the United States supports the reduction of Chinese government’s blockage practices to monitor and filter Internet activity3. The argument is that freedom of the Internet will strengthen Chinese economy.

While the Internet should be sustained as an open access and surfing space, there is also the need to regulate its usage. As a tool, the Internet should not be used for criminal activities nor should the state have discretional attributions. The correspondent normative should be billed in order to protect citizen’s rights on the Internet (referred sometimes as digital rights) and prevent the state to incur in activities that violate them. Chinese government Internet regulation could be overwhelming for people at the United States. But how different is Chinese monitoring system from the surveillance system that the United States has built on the Internet?

At last, secrecy should not be used as camouflage for the government’s dirty practices. Democracies are based on the idea that sovereignty resides on the citizens of a country. The government should understand that by keeping citizens in the dark they are violating the entrustment they have received from them.

References

1Farrell, H. & Finnemore, M. (2013, December). “The End of Hipocrisy”. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140155/henry-farrell-and-martha-finnemore/the-end-of-hypocrisy

2Greenwald, G. (2010, March 27). “The war on WikiLeaks and why it matters”. Salon.com. Retrieved from: http://www.salon.com/2010/03/27/wikileaks/

3The Associated Press. (2014, 15 February). “U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry urges Chinese leaders to support Internet freedom”. CTVNews. Retrieved from: http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/u-s-secretary-of-state-john-kerry-urges-chinese-leaders-to-support-internet-freedom-1.1687974


Categories: Uncategorized
Tags:
+