These questions came to mind after reading a post on my own FaceBook page concerning a petition drive entitled, Tell the ITU: The Internet Belongs to Us . The petition asks that we all stand against the International Telecommunications Union's plan to control the internet. These plans reportedly include "giving countries full control over the information and communication infrastructure within their state" and "license to inspect private e-mail". Fees have also been suggested which "would limit our ability to access sites like Google and FaceBook." The site asks readers to sign the petition to stop the
The first reaction most freedom loving people have to this reality is one of frustration. They are not terrorists so why are they being "watched" and why is information being controlled or kept from them? To members of a nation concerned about their government's leaning toward an ever increasing Police State, moves to control and contain our increasing dissatisfaction with their form of "representation", causes great concern. After all, we are supposed to be a free nation, right? We are supposed to be a Democratic Republic, represented by a government for the people; not against them.
The powers that be though, have taken notice of how the Libyan riots and other, "Arab Spring" protests were orchestrated by FaceBook interaction so it would reasonably stand they would want to control that interaction to avoid any further rebellion. To this end, many nations including the
In places like
Welcome to Reality
Try as you might to convince yourself that the Internet is "ours", the reality is quite the opposite. The internet is wholly owned by corporations through which our ability to search topics, interact with each other electronically and perform our jobs, is channeled. It is not a private entity where if our messages are read we have somehow become victims of intrusion into our private lives. Comments and activities within this corporate arena are essentially owned and therefore, open to sharing and censorship by those who control the site. Though it is discomforting to think postings are being used to profile users, the reality is that we have no right to privacy within a "public" forum. Posting words or articles on social media and expecting them to stay private is akin to standing in a public square, yelling out obscenities but thinking only your friends across the way can hear you.
It would seem that We the People may have lost our perspective in the areas of privacy and information disclosure. After all, never before in the history of mankind has the global community been so interconnected or informed of governmental and societal goings on as we are now nor have we ever have such diversity of media sources to gather information from. Not until the technological revolution of the 1990's did we even have access to the internet, e-mail or 290 channels on the television. When the internet became popular, we gained a new perspective; a new freedom of information. Before that time, our news was isolated to papers, radio and a few news channels. The information revolution via the internet and an ever expanding news media has changed that, quite significantly.
With violence raging across the globe, maybe we should be accepting and welcoming the monitoring of our sites and e-mails to assist our government and help them find those who would commit acts of hate here, in
For the sake of argument, just imagine what would happen if there was complete secrecy on the net as so many insist should exist: If a bomb went off in a downtown somewhere in America and your children were in the blast zone, would you not be among the first to shout out as so many did post-9/11, insisting that the government should have been aware it was going to happen and acted to stop it? But then again, there is the question of whether we should have some form of privacy or even, protection from unconstitutional laws like indefinite detention where words spoken in frustration could be used to wrongly accuse a person of plotting against the State and without charges, be held as the title suggests; indefinitely.
As seen of late, the
As has been said, Power corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. With the institution of the "Patriot" Act and National Security Act, SOPA, CISPA, CIA special operations and a Police State intended to dissuade any movement against the in-place oligarchy; our freedom has become a matter of perspective which is swiftly becoming myopic in the dusk of global, governmental control over our nation. In an ideal world ruled by the just, some monitoring would be acceptable to preserve our nations against those who would do us harm but anytime one gives a corrupt system power to pry into their lives, those entrenched within the bowels of it's offices will always want more and more until all freedoms of privacy become a distant memory and corruption takes the place of representation.
We the People have always had the wonderful ideal of freedom in the past. Now though, we are living in an increasingly dense collective. Given the inherent characteristic of population growth, violence and moral degradation increase in conjunction with over crowding and resource stresses, it would follow that an increased police force to control the violence in this crowded population would grow in conjunction with it. As evidenced of late, it has certainly done that.
1 | 2