Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Guardian | Thanks to corporations, instead of democracy we get Baywatch
Guardian | Thanks to corporations, instead of democracy we get Baywatch
Guardian columnist George Monbiot discusses the disparity between the dream of digital democracy toppling dictatorships and the reality of how some IT giants are assisting governments limit the free exchange of information. After reading the recent Reporters Without Borders report on the role of Yahoo in the arrest of Shi Tao in China, Mr Monbiot concludes: "So much for the promise that the internet would liberate the oppressed." Monbiot is arguing against optimists like Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. He sets up Friedman's The Lexus and the Olive Tree as typical of this type of technological cheerleading. Discussing Friedman, Monbiot writes:
Monbiot's assertion that commercial interests will favor freedom in some countries and repression in others seems to be borne out by recent events. A question remains: will an alliance of a powerful centralized government (in this case china) and powerful commercial interests (Yahoo, Google, Cisco, etc.) be strong enough to actually maintain control over the flow of disruptive information in the long run? Forbidden word lists will just lead to the use of euphemisms in endless permutations slipping through the filters and over the walls. That does nothing to belittle the fact that in the short run commercial interests will be very useful in managing IT for repressive regimes.
"We had the dream that the internet would free the world, that all the dictatorships would collapse," says Julien Pain of Reporters Without Borders. "We see it was just a dream."
Guardian columnist George Monbiot discusses the disparity between the dream of digital democracy toppling dictatorships and the reality of how some IT giants are assisting governments limit the free exchange of information. After reading the recent Reporters Without Borders report on the role of Yahoo in the arrest of Shi Tao in China, Mr Monbiot concludes: "So much for the promise that the internet would liberate the oppressed." Monbiot is arguing against optimists like Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. He sets up Friedman's The Lexus and the Olive Tree as typical of this type of technological cheerleading. Discussing Friedman, Monbiot writes:
"Thanks to satellite dishes, the internet and television," he asserts, "we can now see through, hear through and look through almost every conceivable wall. ... no one owns the internet, it is totally decentralized, no one can turn it off ... China's going to have a free press ... Oh, China's leaders don't know it yet, but they are being pushed straight in that direction." The same thing, he claims, is happening all over the world. In Iran he saw people ogling Baywatch on illegal satellite dishes. As a result, he claims, "within a few years, every citizen of the world will be able to comparison shop between his own ... government and the one next door".
He is partly right. The internet at least has helped to promote revolutions of varying degrees of authenticity in Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Argentina and Bolivia. But the flaw in Friedman's theory is that he forgets the intermediaries. The technology which runs the internet did not sprout from the ground. It is provided by people with a commercial interest in its development. Their interest will favour freedom in some places and control in others. And they can and do turn it off.
In 2002 Yahoo! signed the Chinese government's pledge of "self-regulation": it promised not to allow "pernicious information that may jeopardise state security" to be posted. Last year Google published a statement admitting that it would not be showing links to material banned by the authorities on computers stationed in China. If Chinese users of Microsoft's internet service MSN try to send a message containing the words "democracy", "liberty" or "human rights", they are warned that "This message includes forbidden language. Please delete the prohibited expression."
A study earlier this year by a group of scholars called the OpenNet Initiative revealed what no one had thought possible: that the Chinese government is succeeding in censoring the net. Its most powerful tool is its control of the routers - the devices through which data is moved from one place to another. With the right filtering systems, these routers can block messages containing forbidden words. Human-rights groups allege that western corporations - in particular Cisco Systems - have provided the technology and the expertise. Cisco is repeatedly cited by Thomas Friedman as one of the facilitators of his global revolution.
Monbiot's assertion that commercial interests will favor freedom in some countries and repression in others seems to be borne out by recent events. A question remains: will an alliance of a powerful centralized government (in this case china) and powerful commercial interests (Yahoo, Google, Cisco, etc.) be strong enough to actually maintain control over the flow of disruptive information in the long run? Forbidden word lists will just lead to the use of euphemisms in endless permutations slipping through the filters and over the walls. That does nothing to belittle the fact that in the short run commercial interests will be very useful in managing IT for repressive regimes.
