Sunday, February 8, 2015

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

2 comments:

  1. Aisyah & Sue Lynn

    Content:
    > Addresses the main points brought up by Morozov well
    > But slightly messy... putting together the many different resources into your reader response
    > Lacking personal perspectives in the reader response though your resources are substantial enough!

    Organization:
    > References are not cited properly
    - Remember to use APA format!

    Language:
    > Traditionally, ethnic laws have been in placed
    - "... have been established..." (?)
    - "Been in placed" - weird phrasing
    > "In the larger picture of sovereign integrity, States will choose to sacrifice the need to uphold human rights."
    - Who are you referring to? The United States or "states"?

    Good read yay good job Boon Siang!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Author of Reader Response: Boon Siang
    Review Team Members: Shu Ying
    Article responded to: “Who’s the true enermy of internet freedom- China, Russia or US”

    Content:

    1. No citation of article name
    2. Clear thesis of writer’s stand
    3. Opening summary of author’s main points is mixed together with writer’s response in the introduction
    4. Lack of reference to article, based too much on other readings
    5. Outside sources not correctly documented

    Organization:

    1. Thesis contains a focused controlling idea, appropriate in relation to the article
    2. Maybe should not use the word Nation states in the thesis as last supporting point talks about giant technological companies
    3. No transition sentence/paragraph between the summary and the response
    4. Supporting ideas in the response seem well connected with the thesis

    Language Use:

    1. Take note of subject-verb agreement
    2. “Such characteristics directly clash with the interest…”
    3. Comma Splice
    4. No need for comma behind “Such characteristics”, comma is required after “national and internal security”
    5. Rich usage of vocabulary
    6. Inconsistent verb tense used throughout reader response
    7. Appropriately presented ideas for an academic audience


    ReplyDelete