Spurred by my readings in Networked Publics, (Varnelis, 2008) I concentrated on researching issues in politics and mobilization with new and emerging technologies. With the frequent headlines of Edward Snowdon and just how much is out there for anyone to know about, you can easily see that new and emerging technologies can be seen as liberators, tools for freedom, freedom of expression, freedom to mobilize and coordinate forces to communicate new ideas and movements easily to the masses, but the flip side is also true; these same technologies can be used to to track both individual and political movements. This paradox is the heart of the controversies of recent weeks and months. Just how much information is out, who has access to it and how can it be used?
The book mentions several examples of internet lead political movements within historically oppressive regimes where individuals were able to capitalize on the viral public nature of the person to person (p2p) messaging of internet communications which cannot be as easily squelched in an opening society. The Free Burma movement is one example given where individuals were able to organize a coordinated effort on a larger scale than had been possible before the internet. (Varnelis, 2008, p89). Blogging, political art and activism have brought quick results and exponential growth to many movements partly due to the multimedia coverage and broadcast video these types of movements can attract which further disseminates the message to even larger audiences.
This is however where the paradox comes in. The very access to this virtual network can also be turned against the organizers. This has been seen in many movements and more recently in connected with the Arab Spring as well as freedom movements in China. Yahoo, in partner with it's Chinese affiliate Alibaba, turned over its metadata information to the Chinese government allowing them to track down the organizers. Yahoo later denied handing of the information and recently cut all ties with the Chinese internet but the damage was already done. (VOA, 2013)
With state run internet, and even in countries where the internet is not fully state run like the US, access to the metadata means access to virtually everything about an organization, and the individuals within it. Although according to a Pew Research Study conducted in June, 45% of American’s were okay with the Government reading their emails if they were told it might prevent future terrorist acts there is a large and vocal group of American’s adamantly opposed to this. In recent months the scope of our own NSA data-mining program have come out revealing that social networking sites have been targeted for obtaining data about American’s. NSA analysts can and have monitored social network sites such as Facebook chats using a top secret program called XKeyscope. In an article in the Guardian from July 31, 2013, slides from a training presentation for the XKeyscore program explaining the NSA’s data-mining capabilities depicted the ability to search HTTP activity by keyword permitting the analyst access to what the NSA calls “nearly everything a typical user does on the Internet”.
XKeyscore provides the capability to collect and store data on any person, including American’s if they know their email or IP address. Although a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant is supposed to be obtained when all the targets of surveillance are American’s, if one of the parties in a communication is not an American then a warrant is not needed. Queries can also be done on the database, much like the graphing capabilities many people utilize when using social networking to find friends and family on the internet.
This essentially means, that despite laudable efforts at net neutrality keeping any one company or government in total control of what is on the internet, the end result is that, perhaps your access is not controlled but you are controlled by what, how, when, how and with whom you interact. In countries where the state runs the Internet and access to new media, access can and is taken away when the government views it to be too destructive to orderly society. Like with the many revolutionary movements seen in many countries where greater access to information through the Internet and Computer Mediated Communications (CMC) has brought about revolutionary movements that in turn have brought about the shutting down of access to the very technology that created the means to organize and disseminate information in the first place. Free access to emerging technologies is not free and I’m sure we will see increasing examples of how these two dichotomous forces will play out in the future.
Neuman, S. (2013, June 09). Bush-era nsa chief defends prism, phone metadata collection. NPR News. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/09/190092800/bush-era-nsa-chief-defends-prism-phone-meta-data-collection
Shaikh , N. (Performer), & Goodman, A. (Producer) (2013). Nsa collection of metadata hands government sweeping personal info [Television series episode]. In Goodman, A. (Executive Producer), Democracy Now. New York, NY: Truthout.org. Retrieved from http://www.truth-out.org/video/item/16954-nsa-collection-of-metadata-hands-government-sweeping-personal-info
Varnelis, K. (2008). Networked publics. (Ed ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://networkedpublics.org/
VOA News. (Photographer). (2013, September 08). Rights Group: China Releases Prominent Dissident Early [Print Photo]. Retrieved from http://www.voanews.com/content/china-releases-prominent-dissident-early-says-rights-group/1745531.html
