Reader response draft 3

In the article "Who is the true enemy of the internet? Russia, China or the US?” Morozov (2015) asserts that, contrary to popular belief, the US has infringed on the autonomy of the Internet. The widespread reliance on the Internet has given technological companies access to vast amount of information. Reacting to this phenomenon, states have imposed various degrees of censorship. This infringement of human rights has been criticised, even by the US. Yet actions by the US, which claim rights to all data processed by American companies, undermine its integrity. As countries compete in staking their dominance in the cyber-world, the Internet will not be neutral.

(106 words)

Morozov (2015) was right in claiming that in is in the interest of all states to regulate the Internet . The neutrality of the Internet was not and will never be possible. A neutral internet is one that is both unregulated and free from any form of surveillance. Such characteristics clash with the interest of governments, companies and even society. To ensure national and internal security, governments are often motivated to restrict and in other cases monitor their citizen’s usage of the Internet. Similarly for companies, who invest a great amount of capital in building infrastructure, it is in their interest that the Internet be regulated so as to recoup cost and increase profits. Given such a relationship, it impossible that the Internet remain as a free agent.

 Internal stability is imperative to any governments. For countries with many ethnic groups this poses an even greater challenge. Ethnic conflict remains till today a major ‘headache’ for states. The author asserts that the raison d’être for Russian and Chinese’s censorship is primarily for preventing social unrest (Morozov, 2015). If kept unchecked, individuals with malicious intent will abuse the Internet. Anonymity over the net has created leeway for radical individuals to incite social and political discord. The net has changed the symbiotic relationship between law enforcers and citizens. Regulating the Internet allows governments to regain control over their citizen's actions and gives them the option to intervene before any tensions escalate. The “Great Firewall of China” is one of the more prominent examples, which showcases how the Chinese government, through the use of censorship, maintained stability within a country that has 56 official ethnic groups.

Another major concern of nation-states is that of sovereign integrity. In today’s globalised world, most countries are complexly intertwined into the global system via international organisations and international trade. This has redefined how states view their security boundaries. Countries measure their level of defence relative to neighbouring states in the region. Morozov (2015) claimed that actions by the US to extend control over data processed by the technological companies would exacerbate censorship practices by the Russians and Chinese.. The Guardian (2014) reports that spying has been an age-old practice between states, but the Internet has revolutionised the way and scale of this practice. Countries, while trying to obtain strategic advantage over each other, practice hacking and spying over the net. No state will abolish spying activities, for the sake of “human rights”. To countries, national security takes precedence over the need to respect human rights. Edward Snowden’s shocking revelation of NSA’s global surveillance aptly illustrates the point. The US had monitored calls of 35 world leaders, to obtain strategic intelligence from both its allies and enemies (Guardian, 2013).

Snowden’s revelation also revealed cosy relations that existed between technological companies and the US. It is contradicting that companies would cooperate with governments in regulating the Internet, since a neutral Internet would attract more users, and hence generate greater profits.  Chambers (2015) at the Davos World Economic Forum valued the Internet industry at US$19 trillion. He also accurately postulated at the same conference a year ago, in a speech titled “The Internet Of Everything”, the ubiquitous role of the Internet in daily life. Morozov reckoned his view by attributing the over reliance on the convenience brought by the Internet, as an inducement for government surveillance and censorship (Morozov, 2015). Currently the cost of Internet usage has been relatively affordable for the general public. This is incompatible with high set up cost that is incurred by Internet service providers (ISP), who spend billions on laying the infrastructure for Internet connection (white house, 2011). For the accounts to balance, technological companies have turned to other companies as a source of income. Major Multi-national companies globally are always interested with consumption habits. Many will gladly pay a premium for such information; Forbes (2012) has estimated the data mining industry to be worth $50 billion USD by 2017. ISPs have also turned to the regulation of Internet broadband speeds as a form of income generation (white house, n.d.). By charging a premium for both faster surfing speeds and consumer data, ISPs and technological companies are able to charges companies for the usage of the internet rather then the users. In fact, ISPs and technological companies can earn more from charging companies for their data. This strategy diversified the source of income for the ISPs and technological companies by retaining their existing subscribers and adding companies onto their list of existing customers. Creating and maintaining the Internet came at a costly price, and it is in these companies greatest interest to regulate it. As long as companies continue to be profit oriented, the future of Internet neutrality is bleak.

785 words

References

Arthus, C. (2014, Dec 14). China tightens 'Great firewall' internet control with new technology. Retrieved Feb 8, 2015, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/dec/14/china-tightens-great-firewall-internet-control

Ball, J. (2013, Oct 25). NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders after US official handed over contacts. Retrieved Feb 8, 2015, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsa-surveillance-world-leaders-calls

Chambers, J. (2015, Jan 28). What does the internet of everything mean for security ? Cisco chief John chambers explains. The Straits Times Feb 4, 2015, from http://www.straitstimes.com/news/opinion/more-opinion-stories/story/what-does-the-internet-everything-mean-security-cisco-chief-

Furrier, J. (2012, July 2). Big data is big market & big Business - $50 billion market by 2017. Retrieved Feb 8, 2015, from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/siliconangle/2012/02/17/big-data-is-big-market-big-business/

Kampfner, J. (2013, Nov 7). US spooks play into the hands of Russia, China and others who want control over global digital citizens. Retrieved Feb 8, 2015, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/07/us-spooks-russia-china-internet-authoritarian

Morozov, E. (2015, Jan 4). Who's the true enemy of internet freedom - China, Russia or the US? Retrieved Feb 8, 2015, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/04/internet-freedom-china-russia-us-google-microsoft-digital-sovereignty

White house. (n.d.). ‘Net neutrality: President Obama's plan free and open internet.’ Retrieved Feb 8, 2015, from White House official page: http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality

The Guardian. (2014, Dec 11). The Guardian view on the freedom of the internet: it's under attack around the world. Retrieved Feb 8, 2015, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/11/guardian-view-freedom-internet-under-attack-around-world

White House. (n.d.). ‘Technology’. Retrieved Feb 8, 2015, from White House official page: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/technology

Reader response draft 2

In the article "Who is the true enemy of the internet? Russia, China or the US?” Morozov (2015) asserts that, contrary to popular belief, the US has infringed on the autonomy of the Internet. The widespread reliance on the Internet has given technological companies access to vast amount of information. Reacting to this phenomenon, states have imposed various degrees of censorship. This infringement of human rights has been criticised, even by the US. Yet actions by the US, which claim rights to all data processed by American companies, undermine its integrity. As countries compete in staking their dominance in the cyber-world, the Internet will not be neutral.

(106 words)

            Morozov (2015) was right in claiming that all nation states have interest in wanting to restrict the freedom of the Internet. Yet the neutrality of the Internet was and will never be possible. A neutral  internet is one that is both unregulated and free from any form of surveillance. Such characteristics clash with the interest of governments, companies and even society. For reasons such as national and internal security, governments are often motivated to restrict and in other cases monitor their citizen’s usage of the Internet. Similarly for companies, who invest a great amount of capital in building infrastructure, it is in their interest that the Internet be regulated so as to recoup cost and increase profits. Given such a relationship, it impossible that the Internet can remain as a free agent.

While the Internet has been lauded to be the greatest social mobiliser of our time, it does has its fair share of woes. Stability is imperative to any government, especially for countries with many ethnic groups. Maintaining peaceful relations between the various ethnic groups has and will continue to be a problem that plagues governance. This view resonates with the author.  In his article, he asserts that the raison d’être for Russian and Chinese’s censorship is primarily for preventing social unrest (Morozov, 2015). The Internet in this aspect acts as a double-edged sword and, if not handled carefully can result in social anarchy. Traditionally, ethnic laws that are in place, serve to enforce social cohesion. However, the Internet has hampered enforcement efforts. Technological advancement has allowed for exchanges to occur between individuals at an unprecedented scale, albeit one that occurs many a times in anonymity. Anonymity over the net has created leeway, for radical individuals to trespass the boundaries of the law. The symbiotic relationship between law enforcers and individuals has drastically changed. By regulating the Internet allows them to regain control over their citizens and gives them the option to intervene before any tensions escalate. The “Great Firewall of China” is one of the more prominent examples, which showcases how the Chinese government, through the use of censorship, maintained stability within a country that has 56 official ethnic groups.

Another major concern of nation-states is that of sovereign integrity. In today’s globalised world, the idea of autarky seems absurd and foreign to many. Most countries today are complexly intertwined into the global system via international organisations and international trade. This has redefined how states view their security boundaries. Morozov (2015) claimed that actions by the US to extend control over data processed by the technological companies would exacerbate censorship practices by the Russians and Chinese. The Guardian (2014) reports that spying has been an age-old practice between states, but the Internet has revolutionised the way and scale of this practice. Countries, while trying to obtain strategic advantage over each other, practice hacking and spying over the net. No state will abolish spying activities, for the sake of “human rights”. To countries, national security takes precedence over the need to respect human rights. Edward Snowden’s shocking revelation of NSA’s global surveillance aptly illustrates the point. The US had monitored calls of 35 world leaders, to obtain strategic intelligence from both its allies and enemies (Guardian, 2013).

Snowden’s revelation also revealed cosy relations that existed between technological companies and the US. Why would companies that are predominantly concern about profits bother with data that is exchanged over the net?  Chambers (2015) at the Davos World Economic Forum valued the Internet industry at US$19 trillion. He also accurately postulated at the same conference a year ago, in a speech titled “The Internet Of Everything”, the ubiquitous role of the Internet in daily life. Morozov shared his view by attributing the over reliance on the convenience brought by the Internet, as an inducement for government surveillance and censorship. Today it is unimaginable to carry out daily activities without the usage of the Internet. Yet the cost of such usage has been relatively affordable for the general public. This is incompatible with high set up cost that is incurred by Internet service providers (ISP), who spend billions on laying the infrastructure for Internet connection (white house, 2011). For the accounts to balance, technological companies have improvised an ingenious method, of selling data. Companies globally are always interested with consumption habits. Many will gladly pay a premium for such information; Forbes (2012) has estimated the data mining industry to be worth $50 billion USD by 2017. ISPs have also turned to the regulation of Internet broadband speeds as a form of income generation. This allows ISPs to charge a premium to consumers or companies who wish to enjoy a faster experience (white house, n.d.). Creating and maintaining the Internet came at a costly price, and it is in these companies greatest interest to regulate it. As long as companies continue to be profit oriented, the future of Internet neutrality is bleak.

(831 words)

REFERENCE

Arthus, C. (2014, Dec 14). China tightens 'Great firewall' internet control with new technology. Retrieved Feb 8, 2015, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/dec/14/china-tightens-great-firewall-internet-control

Ball, J. (2013, Oct 25). NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders after US official handed over contacts. Retrieved Feb 8, 2015, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsa-surveillance-world-leaders-calls

Chambers, J. (2015, Jan 28). What does the internet of everything mean for security ? Cisco chief John chambers explains. The Straits Times Feb 4, 2015, from http://www.straitstimes.com/news/opinion/more-opinion-stories/story/what-does-the-internet-everything-mean-security-cisco-chief-

Furrier, J. (2012, July 2). Big data is big market & big Business - $50 billion market by 2017. Retrieved Feb 8, 2015, from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/siliconangle/2012/02/17/big-data-is-big-market-big-business/

Kampfner, J. (2013, Nov 7). US spooks play into the hands of Russia, China and others who want control over global digital citizens. Retrieved Feb 8, 2015, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/07/us-spooks-russia-china-internet-authoritarian

Morozov, E. (2015, Jan 4). Who's the true enemy of internet freedom - China, Russia or the US? Retrieved Feb 8, 2015, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/04/internet-freedom-china-russia-us-google-microsoft-digital-sovereignty

Obama, B. (n.d.). Net Neutrality: President Obama's Plan Free and Open Internet. Retrieved Feb 8, 2015, from White House official page: http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality

The Guardian. (2014, Dec 11). The Guardian view on the freedom of the internet: it's under attack around the world. Retrieved Feb 8, 2015, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/11/guardian-view-freedom-internet-under-attack-around-world

White House. (n.d.). Technology. Retrieved Feb 8, 2015, from White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/technology

Outline for read response

Summary

In the article "Who is the true enemy of the internet? Russia, China or the US?” Morozov (2015) asserts that, contrary to popular belief, the US has infringed on the autonomy of the Internet. The widespread reliance on the Internet has allowed technological companies access to vast amount of information. Reacting to the phenomenon, states have imposed various degrees of censorship. This infringement of human rights has been criticized, even by the US. Yet actions by the US, which claim rights to all data processed by American companies, undermine its integrity. The internet which rightly is a borderless international agent, should retain its neutrality.

Edit -5/2/15

(104 words)

Outline for reader response 
Thesis - 

The internet was and will never be neutral. 

Neutrality -
Morozo (2015) was right in claiming that all Nation states have a role to play in restricting the freedom of the Internet. 

Morozo (2015) was right in claiming that all Nation states have a role to play in restricting the freedom of the Internet. Yet the neutrality of the Internet was and will never be possible. A neutral – internet is one that is both unregulated as well as free from any form of survellience. Such characteristics, direclty clashes with the interest of governments, companies and even society as a whole. For reasons such as national and internal security governements are often motivated to restrict and in other cases moniter their citizen’s usage of the Internet. Seemingly for companies, who spend a great amount of capital setting up the infrastructure, profits are often the foremost priority and the regulation of the Internet is the most effective method.

While the Internet has been lauded to be the greatest social mobilizer of our time, it has also brought along its fair share of woes. Stability has always been imperative to any government, and this is especially true for countries that comprise of diverse ethnicities. Maintaining peaceful relations between the various ethnic groups is and will continue to be a problematic “weed” that plagues governance. The Internet in this aspect acts as a double-edged sword and, if not handled carefully can result in social anarchy for such countries. Traditionally, ethnic laws have been in placed, to ensure that citizens comply with responsible behaviours. However, the Internet has impeded efforts for enforcement for the law. Technological advancement has allowed for exchanges to occur between individuals at an unprecedented scale, albeit one that occurs many a times in anonymity. The symbiotic relationship between the state and individuals has drastically changed. As such governments, especially in repressive regimes, will strive to regulate the Internet. The “Great Firewall of China” is one of the more prominent examples that showcases how the Chinese government ensure stability within a country that has 56 official minority groups.

Another major concern of nation-states would be that of sovereign integrity. In today’s globalised world, autarky seems like an absurd idea. Countries today are complexly intertwined into the global system via international organsiations and international trade. This has redefined how states view their security boundaries.  The Guardian (2014) reports that spying has been an age-old practice between states, but the Internet has revolutionised the way and scale of this practice. Countries in a bid to obtain strategic advantage over each other, hack into the server systems globally to moniter on activities that happen over the net. Given the widespread usage of the internet, no state will give up spying activities, in the name of “human rights”. In the larger picture of sovereign integrity, States will choose to sacrifice the need to uphold human rights. Edwards Snowden’s shocking revelation of NSA’s global surveillance aptly illustrates the point. The US had monitored calls of 35 world leaders, so as to ensure it was in full knowledge of what was happening around the globe (guardian, 2013).

Snowden’s revelation also revealed cosy relations that existed between giant technological companies and the US. Why would a company that is primary concerned with profits be concerned with the data that is exchanged over the net.  Chambers (2015) at the Davos world economic forum starkly pointed out that the Internet industry is valued at US$19 trillion. He also accurately postulated at the same conference a year ago, in an article The internet Of Everything, that ubiquitous role of the internet in daily live. Today it is unimagineable to live our daily lives without the usage of the Internet. Yet the cost of such usage has been relatively affordable for the general public. This seems to be incompatible with high set up cost that are incurred by Internet service providers (ISP), who spend billions on laying the infrastructure for Internet connection (white house, 2011). To recover the cost, technological giants, have managed to improvise with an ingenious method, of selling data. Companies global are always concerned with consumption habits and demands and are willing to pay a premium for such information, forbes (2012) has estimated the data mining industry to be worth $50 billion USD by 2017. Techonological companies have also tried to regulate the speed of which indivduals can access the Internet. This allows ISPs to charge a premium to consumers or companies who wish to enjoy a faster experience (white house, e.d). As such the existence of the internet came at a costly price, and it is in companies greatest interest to regulate it.

Reference

http://www.straitstimes.com/news/opinion/more-opinion-stories/story/what-does-the-internet-everything-mean-security-cisco-chief-

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/11/guardian-view-freedom-internet-under-attack-around-world

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/dec/14/china-tightens-great-firewall-internet-control

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/07/us-spooks-russia-china-internet-authoritarian

http://www.whitehouse.gov/net-neutrality

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsa-surveillance-world-leaders-calls

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/technology

http://www.forbes.com/sites/siliconangle/2012/02/17/big-data-is-big-market-big-business/

Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom - China, Russia, or the US?

Summary

In the article "Who is the true enemy of the internet? Russia, China or the US?” Morozov (2015) asserts that, contrary to popular belief, the US has infringed the autonomy of the Internet. The widespread reliance on the Internet has allowed technological companies access to vast amount of information. Reacting to the phenomenon, states have imposed various degrees of censorship. This infringement of human rights has been criticized, even by the US. Yet actions by the US, to claims rights to data processed by American companies, undermine its integrity.

(89 words)