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
No comments:
Post a Comment