Access Denied*

*with respect and credit to Ronald Deibert

This entry was inspired by last week's class discussion about internet censorship/restrictions - the question was raised whether it was better to have limited internet access or no access at all. Our discussion focused mainly on content control exercised in China and the general consensus was that limited access was better than no access. But, there was a voice in the back of my head that kept asking, "Really?" I thought about it all the way home - something about that stance didn't seem to align with a cry for human rights, with holding a firm position for what you believe in. By the time I got home, the question in my head had changed to...

"What if Rosa Parks had said a seat at the back of the bus was better than no seat at all?"

What if gays and lesbians in Canada had said they would settle for civil unions instead of equal rights to marry?

Second best simply isn't good enough.

Coincidentally, our in-class discussion also related to the topic I am interested in studying for my final paper - the impact of internet censorship or filtering. So I eagerly made my way to the library to pick up Ronald Deibert's book, Access Denied. It provided my with my first "what the heck?!" moment. There on the back of the book, the summary informed me that inside I would find reports on internet regulation in forty different countries....FORTY COUNTRIES?! Have I been indignantly shaking my finger at China while ignoring the regulation of so many others?

Fair enough - China was among the reports, with Deibert noting that the country "continues to expand the largest and most sophisticated filtering system in the world". But he also noted that Uzbekistan is "the undisputed leader in applying Internet controls." The book also lists many southeast Asian and African countries, and suggests Venezuala as a country to watch, as their telecommunications are nationalized under Chavez. Hmmm...who else may surprise me? A quick Google and there was Australia.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24568137-2862,00.html

If I say restricted internet access is better that no access at all, am I not indirectly saying it is okay for my government to decide what I read, what I know?

How can I realistically expect to advance human rights, to sustain the human rights in place now, if my information is regulated by the few in power?

Money Talks.

In the presentation last week, I was struck by the willingness of Google, Microsoft et al to limit/restrict/share information in order to appease governments and gain access to their countries. And Sherida made an intriguing comment - that these companies could very likely be the next "superpowers" of the world, as their income eventually outpaces many countries' GDP. I wonder how fast unrestricted access would be provided if people in the forty countries described in Access Denied responded with, "No thanks. I'll take full access or none at all". If everyone decided to get off the bus and walk?

With Friends Like These

With friends like these, who needs enemies? That’s an old expression that has taken on a new meaning with social networking.
Recently I was discussing Facebook with a friend who is an avid user, who has tried often to get me to join in. I was very curious about the nature of his online relationships – his 150 Facebook friends. Did he feel those friendships were as close, as reliable, as his “in-person” friends. If he needed help, found himself in a bind, and reached out through Facebook, how many responses did he feel he would receive. He felt that at least half would come forward with offers of assistance. Not bad. And what he really emphasized was how much more “connected” he is now, thanks to Facebook. Now, with a quick sign on, he can find out what’s going on in his friends lives – in New York, Vancouver, South Africa – and provide them with updates of his own life. He excitedly told me that during his recent trip to the US Virgin Islands and Costa Rica he was able to keep people informed of what he was doing. To this, I of course offered up – rather cynically – “so, isn’t Facebook really just an outlet for people who aren’t so much interested in the lives of others as much as they are interested in making sure people know about the fabulous things they themselves are doing?” Needless to say, this notion was greeted with dramatic indignation. And this is what I anticipated blogging about this time around – how connected people really are as a result of social networking sites. And how much of it is really just a series of self-interested soundbites.
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/nf/20090225/tc_nf/64928

But then, I came across another article.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2009/02/26/8538881-sun.html
It described a University of Ottawa student who had committed suicide and the man (who was posing as a young woman online) who had tried to convince her to do so online with a webcam. In the article, the woman’s brother comments on the “kind of world that’s out there on the internet” and how the type of conversation between his sister and this man would never have happened face-to-face.
I was intrigued. What could this mean from a legal perspective? I mentioned the article to my friend – the Facebook fanatic – suggesting that the man should be charged with something like negligent homicide and his feeling was that “nobody forced her to do what she did”. Yes but, should his lack of preventative action be taken into account? Or worse – his encouraging of her to end her life? It brought back the still fresh memory of Lori Drew and the case related to her fraudulent Myspace account that was linked to the suicide of Megan Meier. In that case, jurors were only able to convict her of misdemeanor charges related to the phony account. Nothing related to the “cyber-bullying” that pushed an already emotionally fragile girl over the edge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeU6BMfPMfc&feature=related

So, where do we go from here? I don’t believe there is any doubt about the wonderful aspects and tremendous benefits associated with this new world of online social networking. The ability of people in remote locations to connect to the world and the education it can deliver. The opportunity to bring people together who have lost touch, who want to connect with others. One could even argue that social networking allowed Megan Meier – who was said to have had emotional problems from a young age – to connect with people in a way she never had before.
But, where is the safety net? Who is making sure that those most vulnerable are protected in a world that now allows for much faster, much farther reaching and completely anonymous access for individuals with the worst intentions. And to what extent should they be held accountable for their actions?