Monday, November 8, 2010
The Digital Disruption
After reading the Foreign Affairs article enitled Digital Disruption (November/December 2010), please evaluate and discuss the role that technology will play in the world and what impact this exposure to liberal ideas will have on authoritarian countries like China and/or Iran.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
"Governments will be caught off guard when large numbers of their citizens, armed with virtually nothing but their cell phones, take part in mini-rebellions that challenge their authority."
I think that just about sums it up. Technology, especially cell phones and the internet, allow people to exchange ideas on a more massive scale than ever before. Not only can information reach larger numbers of people, it can reach them instantaneously.
The governments of countries such as China and Iran are trying to limit their citizen's exposure to liberal or Western ideas, but this is becoming increasingly difficult as people find ways around government restrictions. There is also a difference between restricting citizens access to other information, and restricting the citizens from putting out their own information and communicating with each other. The first full paragraph on pg. 4 offers some good examples of how citizens are acting out against their governments.
China is mentioned on pg. 5: "The regime's goals are clear: to control access to content on the Internet and to use technology to build its political and economic power... But... Beijing has learned that its attempts to establish total control...will not always work"
China is willing to welcome technology to the extent that it will help them economically; they are trying to "leak" the internet in like they did with Capitalism. However, the internet represents the exchange of ideas, which I believe will be much harder to control than the economy. You can take people's money away and you can create circumstances in which they cannot use their money, but it is impossible to remove an idea from someone's head once it's been put there; and it is very hard to completely control communication.
In Iran, the government wants to have a monopoly on the culture of their people as a whole. I don't think that a group of people anywhere in the world could ever have a completely uniform worldview, and that's what Iran's government is trying to impose. Technology helps to proliferate ideas that the government may not be comfortable with, and as the younger generation makes use of this new forum of communication, the government will find itself unable to control society.
Whoops. Sorry for the length :/
Agreeing with Cecile, the quote on the first page basically sums up the entire article. A lot of legitimate points were brought up throughout the article along with some good points of view about how different types of countries will be affected by this 'digital disruption' Obviously, the impact of technology is going to most negatively affect the countries with "weak or failed central governments, underdeveloped economies, and populations that are disproportionately young and unemployed, as well as cultures that lend themselves to opposition and dissent" This makes sense, because citizens are only going to use technology to make a change if they are unhappy. When citizens are really unhappy with there government, such as in China or Iran, technology can be the most dangerous weapon. On many occasions, facebook posts, twitter updates, and youtube videos have caused the government to make huge changes such as overturning elections or trying to stop a terrorist group (see page four) The government in China is slowly trying to let citizens have more technological freedom because it is a country that is developing so quickly citizens are going to recieve that control some way or another. The trick is to give it gradually to keep the citizens happy but not overwhelm them with freedom all at once. China is being extremely careful in letting this control go, because again it is much harder to control ideas than things like money. In Iran, I think the revolutions are being driven mostly by the citizens than the government. I think the government really does not want to give up control, but the citizens are demanding it. There are all sorts of black markets and ways to get around the censors and people are figuring out how to do it. Although a lot of this is good in that it helps change the government for the better, it can also be bad. Terrorist groups like Al Queda have used the cell phone to detonate bombs, terrify populations, threaten democratic intitutions, and coordinate attacks. Governments need to "find the balance between protecting dissidents and enabling criminals" which will be incredibly difficult. This 'digital disruption' will and does already have positive and negative affects, the governments of the countries just need to learn how to handle them in the best way possible.
"find the balance between protecting dissidents and enabling criminals"
Agree with Rachel, it's going to be hard for a country like Iran to figure out how to do this.
Both of you have made some great points that are definitely validated by the article as well as my own views. Communication through common, cheap, and accessible technology will definitely change the way all governments (totalitarion to democratic)express their legitimacy. Countries like China or Iran are finding that controlling the masses just isnt as simple a task as it was in the 30's, 60's, and 90's.
With the entrepenuerial business that is communication, comes a global market that may possibly overcome the powers of some governments. Interest groups are obviously expressed through social networking in the forms of twitter, facebook, blogspot, etc. These groups are moderate ones. They express ideas, gain attention and popularity, and shake the structures of their opposition usually. Cecile was right to put an emphasis on the immortality of ideas. Once they spread, they can prove impossible to control.
That level of moderance through internet interest groups can be effective, but what about a more extreme level? Rachel mentions the use of cell phones to detonate bombs.This kind of remote usage is more physical than other extreme forms of communication. If rebel groups around the world could utilize communication through the internet the phone, is it possible that underdeveloped governments will be no match for them? I think that the waging of modern guerrilla warfare will no longer be sparked through the use of bullets, but the use of words and conepts, and the speading of them.
I definitely agree with Rachel and Cecile in that technology definitely presents a problem for the governments of both China and Iran because they can not completely control technology in the ways that newspapers or even television can be controlled. I think this brings about the point in China of why capitalist ideas were leaked into the economy first. The economy is much easier to control and monitor but no government has successfully monitored the spread of ideas. On page 7 the article mentions what we read about in another China article on how economic freedom has lead to political freedom. "Those nations faced with the task of restarting or maintaining stagnant or slowly growing economies are more likely to allow their citizens and businesses to adopt new technologies" (7).
This article also brought up the other side of technology which I hadn't really considered and Rachel pointed it out too, but technology can expose corruption and empower citizens who are being abused but like everything else it depends on who's using it. Technology is being used by terrorist groups and as propaganda and controlling this may be up to the companies instead of governments. I thought it was a little ironic that Google who is part of an organization to promote "free expression online and protect privacy" signed a contract with China which prevented their citizens from these rights.
I also thought it was interesting that on page 2 it says "Dealing with this dilemma will pose particular challenges for democratic nations that share common principles of openness and freedom. Their ideals will clash with well-founded concerns about national security"(2). I never considered the problems technology would cause in democracy, I always figured dictatorships and unitary systems would face more problems with monitoring technology than a democratic system would. It seems like it would correlate with principles of freedom and transparency but I think they have a point. Will citizens in democratic systems allow restrictions for security?
And I think Liam makes a great point about technology changing the role of governments and that monitoring technology can't be done by governments alone. Governments will have to be more transparent and honest to maintain their legitimacy obviously a problem for a government structured like China's.
Technology has always transformed governments and given more knowledge and more power to the individual. Today’s technology will enable people everywhere to have a form of freedom of speech (governments can’t track every anonymous post) and to inform their government and the rest of world how they feel and of what they want.
I agree with Cecile that Iran will have problems monitoring the technology use by its citizens; I do not however believe that China will have a problem with this. The CCP is extremely talented at watching and learning from other countries. I believe they are watching Iran and know that the citizens of Iran are not content with their government. I believe China will give in and lessen its monitoring on technologies and begin to flood the internet with propaganda. Instead of having internet police they will employ people to make websites with the CCP’s versions of the past, answering the question on page six.
To address Melissa’s question, we currently let the government do quite a bit of monitoring. Just look at the bottom of emails “Be advised that the Attorney General has ruled that communication by E-mail in the public domain is not confidential” Democracies peacefully give up certain freedoms in order to feel more secure.
It is weird to think of a cell phone, something that we use everyday to keep in touch with friends and use to find out the latest news, as a weapon. In connected nations, cell phones are one of the few new ways for “normal” citizens to voice their opinion. The people use modern technology as a way to generate “mini-rebellions” threatening the government, making officials very nervous. In places like China and Iran, the government has tried to control the use of these technologies, but it has proven to be very, very difficult. The government in China has created a cyber police force to try and regulate the internet, the government let Google into the country, but on certain conditions (as for what Melissa said about being surprised that Google did this, it is a little shocking, but you have to remember that they are trying to make money. Their main goal is to be (more) successful, and by being introduced at least the people have access to more than they did before). However, the government cannot keep its people in the dark forever, at some point things will leak in and/or people will find ways around the blocks that have been put up. Cecile made a great point when she said an idea cannot be erased from a person’s mind, you cannot just take it back. The world is becoming a smaller and smaller place. People in opposite areas of the world can connect through social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Phone calls can be made from different countries and citizens can relay important news with the press of a button. I liked when Liam said “warfare will no longer be sparked through the use of bullets, but the use of words and con[c]epts, and the sp[r]eading of them.” I could not agree more. Although the government does not favor these “negative” uses of technology, it is better for the people. They are embracing these new technologies and using them to better not only their lives, but the lives for future generations. As for the people Rachel mentioned, the people using technology to trigger bombs and “bring on new recruits” (the Mafia, drug cartels and al Qaeda), they are using technology for personal gain. The way these people are using technology is what the government should be concerned with, instead of trying to remain in power.
Regarding the “connecting nations” and the “open by default” areas, I believe that some countries will use modern technology to advance their country and make it a better place, even if this means that the government will have to become more liberal. Officials are eventually going to realize that it would be better to accept liberal ideas and change the way the country is being run, than to loose control over the people. Unfortunately, some countries will not want to become more liberal and they will try and regulate what happens in the daily life of their citizens. They will end up being like China and Iran- facing large amounts of unhappiness in the people, citizens loosing legitimacy and faith in their government, a sense of disconnectedness between rural and urban areas, and groups protesting for change.
I misplaced the article so sorry for posting late, but better late than never.
All of you bring up great points regarding China and Iran. They are losing control over their technology and therefore their people. But what I thought was really interesting regarding Iran was the quote, "Iranian communication officials-- employing anonymous engineers and addresses-- created Web sites encouraging people to post pictures of the protests. They then used the sites to identify, track, and in some cases, detain protesters."
This is sort of the flip side of the issue. Governments can find ways to use technology against their citizens as well. It's just a matter of whose better at manipulating it- the citizens or the government.
Iran and China might have an easier time controlling technology for now because their citizens are used to a nontransparent government. In the US, I think that people would have more of a problem with the government controlling technology because people see it as an open domain, not something the government has the right to control. The authors state that this will, "pose particular challenges for democratic nations that share common principles of openness and freedom." I highly doubt that the United States will ever succumb to high levels of technological censorship.
raising dead post! yea!
To think we have about 7 billion people on the planet and 5 billion of those people are carrying cell phones that can broadcast anything and everything at anytime. Its pretty extraordinary, but its scary. Scary for governments that is. Don't take that in the wrong way, I mean not all countries are afraid of this. The majority of countries look to it as growth in opportunities for growth and development. Like others have said before me, countries like China and Iran are looking to govern this aspect for political power, to keep the power and do wrong to their government. The acts of the internet are compared to the invention of the printing press, some countries used it to feed information to its citizens, and other countries used it to feed propaganda and sometimes untruly stories to its citizens. Although all these governments are looking to control the airwaves and what people hear and see, they can't stop people from getting friends on Facebook or fallowing people on twitter. Therefore it makes it virtually impossible to see what major events are happening. When the citizens who see things via Facebook or twitter, they are intrigued and most likely will Google it. When things don't show up and the places the people received their information from is reliable. Who's to say they will not turn on their governments or have a digital revolution. What will stop people from requiring that freedom after they have seen what the government kept from them then. "What else are you keeping from me" "what else is up you're sleeve or behind your back?" Although technology is not everywhere, it one day will likely be. When that day comes, battlefields will change, world war III may likely have the title the www... w- the world wide web... war.
Post a Comment