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