I know privacy is not a subject of this class. It seems to me, though, that arguing copyright issues would be rendered moot without privacy. As the rampant misuse of copyrighted material on the web clearly illustrates - though for different reasons than those I will address - there is room for some regulation. The question, of course, is who regulates and then how is that regulation implemented.
Since I do not intend to necessarily publish on the Internet, I see no reason for personal concern. As for what constitutes digital authorship, I hope to gain some understanding of what than means from this class. What does concern me is eavesdropping, and particularly the kind of eavesdropping reminiscent of Big Brother. The kind of eavesdropping in fact that has led to these kinds of measures [see http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955
I have no idea what the authoritarians in Congress mean by "facilitating" radical ideology. Hell, in America, radical ideology might mean something such as universal health care or finding homes for those trying to survive -3 temperatures. Nevertheless, if Congress has passed measures to catch anyone "facilitating" terrorism, the first target will be the Internet. If our own government agencies are willing to broadcast invading our privacy in some ways, can we even imagine the ways they will do so without telling us?
I would also advise looking into one's Internet Service Provider. Some of them lean over without even being asked - Google, I believe, is one of them, even if it is not an ISP.
Beware the Ides of March . . .
2 comments:
Who ever heard such a vulgar phrase as "homegrown terrorism"? Where do they come up with this? However, I have to agree (with the Senators McCarthy, aaah!) that the Internet does need policing. It cannot be allowed to be a self-policing section of society. If a crime is committed using the Internet, it's as serious and real as any other crime. Analogously, should we stop policing pedophile websites or trying to catch pedophiles in chatrooms or on popular blog sites? I don't want to invade privacy (wiretapping, library records, etc.) unless there's warranted (literally) reason, but most of the Internet is pretty much public . . . many blogs, websites, etc.: a communal environment by nature. If you want it to be private, aren't you in the wrong sphere? Or you could very simply institute a password protocol to protect your site or blog (although the corporate entity owning the site is not to be expected to protect you if the government thinks you might be a seditious traitor). Then that particular spot could be regarded as a private residence (like a house) not to be invaded without warranted just cause. Not sure any of this has any basis in legal reality. Good old Nigeria . . . just live outside the bounds of Western law, and you can swindle everybody you want. (Not you you, just a general hypothetical you.) ;)
I can't believe that I'm actually about to speak up in defense of a government initiative, but believe it or not, Walter, I'm as concerned about privacy issues as you are. But shouldn't we be clear about what exactly the Bill you cited is actually doing? If I understand it correctly, all we're talking about here is the creation of a commission to study the causes of domestic terrorism (I agree that the epithet "homegrown" is problematic) -- a commission apparently made up primarily of academics and which will be dissolved 30 days after the submission of its final report. Now, we can certainly express concern over just what Big Brother's response to the recommendations of such a commission might be, but I don't think we're there yet. I don't actually have a problem with the idea of gathering information -- I'm not so cynical yet that I assume the worst about the motives of the people behind such an initiative. "H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" strikes me as less invasive and un-Constitutional than, say, the Patriot Act.
Having said that, I must admit that I'm still conflicted about ehrengard's observations. On the one hand, I'm old enough to remember all the anti-regulation rhetoric of the early '90s, and idealistic me tends to agree with it. On the other hand, the Internet is fundamentally a tool -- for communication and for disseminating information -- and (as ehrengard points out) an overwhelmingly public one. Should we expect to be exempt from the legal ramifications of our actions (our speech, if you will) simply because we express them in an electronic environment where, safely hidden behind our various noms de plume, our very identities become fluid? Actions (or speech) have consequences in the material world; why shouldn't they in the virtual?
Post a Comment