Internet, Democracy, and Hypocrisy

John Markoff in NYT wonders if we need a new Internet –

There is a growing belief among engineers and security experts that Internet security and privacy have become so maddeningly elusive that the only way to fix the problem is to start over.

What a new Internet might look like is still widely debated, but one alternative would, in effect, create a “gated community” where users would give up their anonymity and certain freedoms in return for safety. Today that is already the case for many corporate and government Internet users.

I’m deeply disturbed that such noises are becoming increasingly louder in democratic Western countries like the United States, United Kingdom and Australia. These discussions start off as a plea for security against malware, fraudsters and sexual predators but quickly degenerate into a plan to centralize and control the internet by limiting online anonymity and end point generativity.

These discussions aren’t only misguided but also hypocritical. On one hand, the West holds up the Internet as a symbol of the open, transparent and participatory nature of their democratic political systems and insists on highlighting the censored and controlled nature of the internet in closed societies like China and Iran. On the other hand, it simultaneously seeks to close down the internet.

The West needs to realize that moves to control the internet will not only kill the innovation and creativity it fosters, but also undermine the democratic values it symbolizes. The hope that the Internet will aid democracy in China and Iran will not be realized unless the West sets the right example at home.

We usually think of democratic countries on one side and authoritarian countries on the other side and hope that the internet will move the authoritarian countries towards democracy. However, based on evidence so far, it seems that both sets of countries are moving towards the center and we’ll end up with a middle of nowhere gated internet.

Cross-posted on MSFS 556: Social Media in Business, Development and Government.

Published on February 23, 2009 in Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , .. View Comments
  • Meh, take the shrill rant down an octave or two, dude. You are reading this in a vastly exaggerated fashion.

    John Markoff isn't in any position to actually make such a "gated community" and I'm not aware of any significant enough or powerful enough lobby anywhere that could bring this about in the U.S. Just not happening. You really need not worry that your propensity for moral equivalency between actual Chinese control and theoretical U.S. discussion of security is going to be implemented.

    However, what I do think is increasingly the case is that people will want gated communities -- plural -- where they can go and have verification of identity and protection of IP theft and security against not only malware, but peace of mind from griefers and stalkers. They want this; they will get it. You can argue they shouldn't impose this on you; they can argue you shouldn't impose your concepts on them, either.

    The mistake the leftist hippies and geeks make with all this is believing that there was something horribly 'wrong" and "backward" and "not evolutionary" about AOL and Compuserve. GASP! The horror! Imagine! Whatever the merits of these very well-worn truisms the first time around, what if the next iteration of the web did NOT follow that well-grooved geek mantra, that AOL and Compuserve=Fail? Could you stand it?! What if lots and lots of walled gardens were the wave of the future, kinda like real life?!

    The next iteration or two of the web will have not only social media but more ubiquitous virtual worlds. And it is in these worlds that people might get the walled gardens they wish, or in subscription social media or at least locked down proprietary Facebook like media that makes widgeteers rant all the time becaues they don't get to flog their widgets and scrape data.

    Too bad. The Internet does not have to be all one way and serve only your ideals. The market will drive it. Some people will have the totally open sandbox you want and can suffer the malware and endure the democracy as it should be endured, with lots of noise. That's fine. Others will retreat behind firewalls and gardens. And they should be able to do that. You can no more mandate an anarchic Internet any more than you can mandate a closed corporate Internet and frankly, governments like they have in Russia and China are perfectly capable of controlling either form supremely, and mainly they accomplish this by the outsourcing of hate and control to things like the official fanboyz in the 50 Cent Party in China.
  • @Gregory: That's precisely my point. All over the world, there are moves to close down the internet. These tendencies started with closed societies like China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, but have now spread to open, democratic countries like India, United States, United Kingdom and Australia. We usually think of democratic countries on one side and authoritarian countries on the other side and hope that the internet will move the authoritarian countries towards democracy. However, based on evidence so far, it seems that both sets of countries are moving towards the center and we'll end up with a middle of nowhere gated internet.
  • ever try to use an internet cafe in india lately .. sign in please, government rule ... surfed in beijing lately? welcome to the great firewall ... you outrage is geo-tarded ...
blog comments powered by Disqus