Summary
Edit -5/2/15
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 -
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.
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
Aisyah & Sue Lynn
ReplyDeleteContent:
> 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!
Author of Reader Response: Boon Siang
ReplyDeleteReview 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