We do not live in a perfect world. The implication of this statement is huge. I see this being brought to the fore in almost every chapter of MacKinnon’s book, Consent of the Networked. A central theme that I just could not get over are the many questions begging answers; the many instances where finding the balance between societal, political or technological options seems to be the only way to fix a country’s (and even the world’s) problems. The problem for me is the fact that nobody seems to know or be able to decide on what that balance looks like. And even in cases where we do decide on the balance the differences in opinion and outlook of the powers that be remain an impediment to proper execution.
- How do we use technology to deliver good and minimize evil?
We must agree that the Internet and digital technologies, while they empower citizens to express dissent and advance activism, do not automatically deliver democracy and good governance. Countries like Egypt are proof positive that it takes much more than the Internet to truly and ultimately liberate a people.
- How do we ensure that those who hold power over our digital lives do not abuse that power?
This is a tough one. The obvious answer would be to set up laws that are able to keep power in check. But this hasn’t totally worked. We all know the law can always be bought or manipulated when there are other priorities involved. On the other hand, authoritarian regimes make this question even more difficult. Those who make the law are the ones who have the power that we seek to control or keep from being misused.
- How do citizens make sure that private agendas and the pursuit of profit do not erode consumer choice and even democratic expression?
To some, government regulation seems to be the way to go here. To control the excesses of the private sector and ensure healthy market competition. But we also know that government interference sometimes does harm. It becomes easier to police public expression and stifle freedom when the government gets to decide how business is done and who gets to do business in the first place. This is obvious with government requests for surveillance of consumer communications as a prerequisite for some Internet companies to get or retain business licenses.
4. How do companies and corporations draw the line between the need to advance international markets and the responsibility of protecting their consumers and users from privacy and freedom violations?
The cases of companies like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft make this a very important question. While MacKinnon points out that it is simply irresponsible for companies to carry out their activities is such a way that human rights are violated just because the governments in countries where they operate demand it, she also recognizes the moral and ethical dilemma on these issues.
5. How do we prevent cases of online abuse and cyber bullying while keeping online access and speech free, open and uncensored?
Internet companies have been criticized for the abuse that go on on their platforms and have been called upon to take responsibility. But any action to prevent this will almost certainly involve some sort of online policing and surveillance or the requirement of real identities and the death of anonymity. What will this mean for free speech? For activists in authoritarian regimes? How do we keep it from being abused and misused against the very public we try to protect?
6. How do we keep those in power from making the right decision only when it is convenient or beneficial to the interests of certain groups?
There are so many questions to be asked.
Sometimes it seems hopeless to think of a world system that works for the good of all, governments and corporations that work for the real benefit of the public; ordinary people who do not hide behind their keyboards to abuse and harass other people.
MacKinnon said something really important in the text.
“Contrary to what some people may have hoped, the Internet does NOT change human nature. Power in cyberspace is as much as powerful and liable to abuse as power in the physical space.”
When we speak of governments, corporations and the public, these are made of people, human beings. People make the laws that suppress and oppress citizens; people make the decisions in corporations to put other interests above the interests, safety and well being of their users and consumers. It is people, human beings who exploit innocent children and upload illegal images of them on the Internet.
James Madison said, “…power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” (Pg. xxi)
This may sound quite reductionist but it really is the root of the problems with oppression, censorship, abuse of human rights. It is true that there are much more forces at play than an individual’s will in every given situation but as long as we exist we will always be faced with choices and we may not readily make the noble ones.
I like the way MacKinnon sums it up,
“The future of the internet age depends on the choices and actions of everybody on the planet who creates, uses, and regulates technology.” (Pg., xxiv)
I can only hope that those choices and actions take us in a positive direction as the powers that be make the public good their utmost priority and citizens continue to stand up for their rights when they do not.
Image Credits: www.mortisetenon.com
IntroOn3 