On August 28 at 10:39am, Eric Muragana posted a poll question in his Facebook page - "Should the world of internet allow monitoring of Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, blogs and other social networking websites by global governments in tackling internet crime and terrorism?
Mark Weinberg responded to say that Facebook is partly owned by a front company for the CIA. So the question is not "should we allow monitoring", but "how should we respond to monitoring?" One response is to make your web surfing anonymous: www.torproject.org.
In responding to Mark Weinberg’ comments of the post, I took the angle to look deep into what constitute surfing anonymous and whether it limit the world of internet before we even think of internet justice? Anonymous surfing allows internet users not to take any risks due to its nature of surfing anonymously in our personal computers and IP addresses we are using from visited servers.
As you probably might be aware, every email contains much information about its sender, including Internet service provider (ISP) and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. Having an IP address, everybody can find information about our ISP under certain circumstances. I think that we should make our providers reveal our names, postal addresses, and other details. We are told not to take any risks, but to surf anonymously.
I subscribe to Mr. Weinberg’ comments to consider surfing safely by not leaving information about computers and IP addresses on visited servers. I also subscribe to the view of not sending emails that contain no header information about our computers. I think it is a common trend that we should create complex and secure passwords to remain within our domains.
Despite Facebook as partly owned by a front company for the CIA and in a view that all social networking media have some sort of ownership, much of all these steps we can follow as always. I am not so certain on how we should be marketing our products, brands and activities if we are to subscribe to anonymity holistically.
Those of us who subscribe to plurality, freedom of expression and other media freedoms, the notion of censorship might find these views different. Perhaps anonymous can be categorized as a form of censorship in part.
In the 20th Century, censorship was achieved through the examination of plays, books, television and radio programmes, films, news reports, and other communication forms for the purpose of suppressing and altering ideas found to be offensive or as part of an objection. The rationales for censorship have different angles. Other forms of censorship target material deemed to be seditious or treasonous, indecent or obscene. Ideas have been suppressed for the seek of protecting three basic social organisations - the state, the market and the family or the church.
To understand censorship and the impulse to censor is necessary to strip away the shock value attached to the word when we first utter. Society must recognize that censorship and the ideology supporting it go back to history times, and that every society has customs and laws by which speech, dress, alcohol, religion and even sexual values had been part of various regulations around the world.
In a global context, governments have used powerful arguments and techniques to support censorship at its broadest term. Censorship in a form of intimidation. This has been commonly used in apartheid South Africa and can be in any form of threats against individuals to a government with a view to monitor activities online. It could be a corporation that wheels power over a government. We have seen such examples in Russia, Nepal, Zimbabwe, China and other parts of the world. Truly speaking, if citizens feel their own activities online will be selected and screened by government agencies in a particular country, there will be incline to engage or express in less than if their government shove-off.
Economic censorship is another notion we need to consider, but it cannot be define with easy. The actions and reactions of large corporations to the World Wide Web have to be factored into any discussion of economic censorship. Major global industries have paid search engine companies for placement in subject categories when internet users submit online search inquiries.
One wonders whether information tainted because someone has paid for it or should the standard be that as long as responsive information displayed to users, placement should be considered irrelevant.
For World-Wide Web or rather Internet to succeed achieving its fundamental goal of a free flow of information to bridging the digital divide for a knowledge society, the normal approach of free expression in various covenants and declarations should be followed to enhance freedom and human rights as enacted in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the United Nations Charter (1945), the Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966), the UN Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (1966), the Helsinki Final Act (1975), the European Convention on Human Rights (1953), and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (1978).
Mark Weinberg responded to say that Facebook is partly owned by a front company for the CIA. So the question is not "should we allow monitoring", but "how should we respond to monitoring?" One response is to make your web surfing anonymous: www.torproject.org. In responding to Mark Weinberg’ comments of the post, I took the angle to look deep into what constitute surfing anonymous and whether it limit the world of internet before we even think of internet justice? Anonymous surfing allows internet users not to take any risks due to its nature of surfing anonymously in our personal computers and IP addresses we are using from visited servers.
As you probably might be aware, every email contains much information about its sender, including Internet service provider (ISP) and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses. Having an IP address, everybody can find information about our ISP under certain circumstances. I think that we should make our providers reveal our names, postal addresses, and other details. We are told not to take any risks, but to surf anonymously.
I subscribe to Mr. Weinberg’ comments to consider surfing safely by not leaving information about computers and IP addresses on visited servers. I also subscribe to the view of not sending emails that contain no header information about our computers. I think it is a common trend that we should create complex and secure passwords to remain within our domains.
Despite Facebook as partly owned by a front company for the CIA and in a view that all social networking media have some sort of ownership, much of all these steps we can follow as always. I am not so certain on how we should be marketing our products, brands and activities if we are to subscribe to anonymity holistically.
Those of us who subscribe to plurality, freedom of expression and other media freedoms, the notion of censorship might find these views different. Perhaps anonymous can be categorized as a form of censorship in part.
In the 20th Century, censorship was achieved through the examination of plays, books, television and radio programmes, films, news reports, and other communication forms for the purpose of suppressing and altering ideas found to be offensive or as part of an objection. The rationales for censorship have different angles. Other forms of censorship target material deemed to be seditious or treasonous, indecent or obscene. Ideas have been suppressed for the seek of protecting three basic social organisations - the state, the market and the family or the church.
To understand censorship and the impulse to censor is necessary to strip away the shock value attached to the word when we first utter. Society must recognize that censorship and the ideology supporting it go back to history times, and that every society has customs and laws by which speech, dress, alcohol, religion and even sexual values had been part of various regulations around the world.
In a global context, governments have used powerful arguments and techniques to support censorship at its broadest term. Censorship in a form of intimidation. This has been commonly used in apartheid South Africa and can be in any form of threats against individuals to a government with a view to monitor activities online. It could be a corporation that wheels power over a government. We have seen such examples in Russia, Nepal, Zimbabwe, China and other parts of the world. Truly speaking, if citizens feel their own activities online will be selected and screened by government agencies in a particular country, there will be incline to engage or express in less than if their government shove-off.
Economic censorship is another notion we need to consider, but it cannot be define with easy. The actions and reactions of large corporations to the World Wide Web have to be factored into any discussion of economic censorship. Major global industries have paid search engine companies for placement in subject categories when internet users submit online search inquiries.
One wonders whether information tainted because someone has paid for it or should the standard be that as long as responsive information displayed to users, placement should be considered irrelevant.
For World-Wide Web or rather Internet to succeed achieving its fundamental goal of a free flow of information to bridging the digital divide for a knowledge society, the normal approach of free expression in various covenants and declarations should be followed to enhance freedom and human rights as enacted in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the United Nations Charter (1945), the Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966), the UN Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (1966), the Helsinki Final Act (1975), the European Convention on Human Rights (1953), and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (1978).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment