#header-inner img {margin: 0 auto !important; #header-inner {text-align: Center ;} Fiji Coupfourpointfive: Big brother making a case to control the internet?

You can now comment as 'Annonymous'.


Friday, January 21, 2011

Big brother making a case to control the internet?

TRUTHBUSTERS: Rally to support Julian Assange who claims the sex charges are trumped up. Bottom: Bainimarama.

By Dev Nadkarni for the Indian Weekender
 
Nearly every major historical event has at least one popular conspiracy theory that fires the public imagination and lingers long enough to form the leitmotif of alternative lore, which manages to cast its telling shadow on some aspects of the generally accepted “official” record.

The assassinations of US presidents Lincoln and Kennedy, the “real” reasons for the sinking of the Titanic, the raft of UFO (unidentified flying object) sightings in the 1950s and 1960s, the moon walk of 1969, and nearer our times, the September 11, 2001 incident – all have the choicest conspiracy theories woven around them.

These theories have been preserved in hundreds of books and magazines – many of them bestsellers no matter how crackpot they may sound – dozens of films and television shows and of course countless YouTube videos and digital files on the internet.

The latest major event to spawn a juicy conspiracy theory is the WikiLeaks saga. Amid reports that catalogued the unfolding of the 250,000-document leak – more a torrent than a leak, really – and their publication by the media across the world, a convincing theory, as in the manner of almost all conspiracy theories, has surfaced.

There is a school of thought that believes that the whole WikiLeaks saga was a planned operation of a consortium of the big, bad, super secretive, completely opaque and ruthless, faceless intelligence organisations of the Western world.

A ploy to find the strongest possible justification to control the free flow of information in the world via the bugbear of all manner of secrets – the internet.

The argument here is that it would not have been possible for a disgruntled, lowly-paid soldier, now held in solitary confinement in a prison in Virginia, USA, to have had access to such a cornucopia of classified documents on such diverse matters at his station in the Middle East without help from higher officials who were responsible for the secrecy of the documents.


Like the 9/11 conspiracy theories or for that matter even those about the lunar landing and others, this theory too is sure to have its diehard believers and defenders.

The ingredients for a choice, spicily juicy recipe are all there: The internet has grown at the speed of light into an unbelievably big, amorphous beast.

In its wake it has dissolved political and geographical boundaries and is all but out of reach of brick and mortar jurisdictional authority, challenging every statute in every country’s ‘book of authority’ as it were.

Like nothing else in history, the internet has enabled the convergence of the flow of ideas, two-way communication, mass communication as in publishing, sound and visual broadcasting as well as commerce, besides much else in one single hand-held device, often independent of location.

The high barriers to the power afforded by the ownership and control over traditional media have not only been lowered but have been destroyed.

One does not need to have millions of dollars to become a broadcaster – any blogger will vouch for that.

Why, the man at the centre of the WikiLeaks saga, Julian Assange, is an acclaimed homeless individual with none of the trappings of a traditional media magnate or the halo of a celebrity editor.

Suddenly, the individual has been placed on an even keel with traditional big money, big power, big muscle authority.


Doublespeak
It is undoubtedly a nightmare for everyone that has something to hide. And governments and politicians everywhere have the most to hide, no matter how much democracy, fair play and transparency they may profess.

Doublespeak is the stuff of politics and it is abundantly evident in the leaked documents.
In fact, few of the documents would take the informed citizen by surprise.

But journalists, commentators and citizens who follow events closely, all along suspected what has been released. For instance, Fiji had been saying all along that New Zealand and Australia were spying on it. That has now been confirmed.

Last year, I wrote a piece in a New Zealand newspaper that the US was worried that Pakistan’s nuclear devices could easily fall into the hands of Taliban terrorists who were lurking ever closer to the country’s nuclear installations.

The US officially denied this saying the Pentagon was in close touch with Pakistan’s chain of command and there was no question of a worry.

The leaks though tell the real story. The US was worried as hell. And still is – as it should be.
So there is every reason for the authority to worry about the burgeoning, completely individualised, hard-to-pin-down, on-the-fly power of the internet.

It has the potential to leave governments bereft of the clothes they wear, exposing them for all to see. There is a very good case, indeed, to clamp down on it in the name of national interest, sovereignty, security and peace.


Regulating the internet
Whether the conspiracy theorists are right or wrong in their contention that governments initiated the leaks to gain control of the internet does not really matter.

But their belief has a grain of truth and that is what matters – rather disturbingly: we are beginning to see early moves in the world’s governments towards toying with ideas about, yes, you guessed right, regulating the internet.

There have been media reports that the United Nations is actually considering a consortium of an inter-governmental working group “to harmonise global efforts by policymakers to regulate the internet”.

The meeting, which took place in New York days before Christmas, discussed the possibility of forming a global body consisting of government representatives to create standards for policing the internet.

And it clearly states that this is specifically in response to the WikiLeaks phenomenon. At first instance, the world appears divided on this. There is one group of countries that is openly eager and another appears to be more cautious. 


No prizes for matching the countries to their respective groups. Their reputation or the lack of it – for upholding liberty, equality and egalitarianism in both letter and spirit is a dead giveaway.

India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia seemed to support the idea of a new inter-governmental regulatory body to police the internet.

The US, Canada, the UK, Belgium and Australia, as also community and business representatives, have raised the cautionary flag.
So, conspiracy theories notwithstanding, Big Brother does want to control at least some of the gates to the internet – the simplest, biggest and most potent purveyor of freedom ever known to mankind. (Editor's Note: Story by Dev Nadkarni, Pictures chosen by C4.5)

9 comments:

  1. Good essay Dev,but don'y you think every country has the right to remain silent on issues that affect national security?

    Furthermore, you did not expand enough on how this relates to Fiji and the coup.

    Mark:5/10

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's a given Fiji was being 'spied on' - that's what happens when countries become unstable. Australia and New Zealand were within their right to keep on top of events in Fiji. It's what happens to Pakistan, Iran, Afganistan etc etc and so on. The danger is if/when this information is used unethically. Major pwoer like the US and Britain have erred so in the Middle East, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq but we have seen nothing yet in the WikiLeaks releases that shows untruths about what was happening in Fiji. And if Fiji came out looking bad in the releases, there's a reason for that. The country was seized by Bainimarama illegally and he and Khaiyum have since decreed their way to 'safety.'

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Control the Internet".

    Good luck with that one.

    Disturbing aspect that Wikileaks has revealed is that if they (US) can't protect their own sensitive diplomatic cables - what does that say about their military capability in this area?

    ReplyDelete
  4. @ Stealth

    I agree. I also think the point is that honest and democratic governments have little to fear from the truth - especially where they are elected on a mandate.

    Remember that John Howard in OZ was elected BECAUSE he was so harsh on refugee policy - and when he was publicly attacked for his policy by the UN and other nations, he was still re-elected.

    I think Wikileaks presents a far greater threat to dictatorships and authoritarian governments because they are unable to face transparency or criticism in government.

    Democracy: it works.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @ RL.

    Only thing politicians have to fear from Wikileaks disclosures is truth - prime example current AUS FM Kevin Rudd - publicly tells Chinese & everybody else how much he admires understands them etc - then covertly tells US they have his backing if they attack them?

    As for democracy working - does have faults - but nowhere near as many as its authoritarian alternative. History have proven from Caesar to Musharif this form of dictatorial governance simply doesn't work - never has - never will.

    Trick with Bainimarama's of this world is getting rid of them before they inflict further damage - already wrecked military -judiciary - media - economy - banking - sugar - end will come inevitable - matter of patience - staying true - limiting damage.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes , for the delusional, it does.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Is this the same person who was part of the attempt to limit access to certain blogs (including C4.5) in Fiji?

    ReplyDelete
  8. RATU SAID.
    MEDIA AND INTERERNET FREEDOM IS VERY IMPORTANT .
    WE NEED ALL THIS GOVT AND TOP POLITICIAN EXPOSED FOR PLAYING DOUBLE FACE.
    GOOD WORK .FREE HIM.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anon @ 2:45pm - who? Which guy?

    ReplyDelete

Please verify to prove you're not a robot.