2015年2月16日 星期一
Reader Response Draft 3
The article, “Who is the true enemy of internet
freedom-China, Russia or the U.S?’’ by Morozov (2015)
claims that the U.S. is the true enemy of Internet freedom. Morozov gives
several examples to explain how the U.S obtains data from other countries by
cooperating with American-based Internet Companies, and how it further
challenges worldwide information sovereignty with its technology. On the other
hand, it seeks to justify China’s and Russia’s efforts in defending Internet security and protecting
citizens from Western culture influences, through the implementation of
Internet restriction policies.
As
Morozov’s article explores the reasons for Internet
restriction in China and Russia, it is more important for us to discuss whether
Internet restriction can be justified, instead of determining who the true
enemy of Internet freedom is.
China
has imposed restrictions on Internet platform services such as Google and
Facebook due to several reasons. Firstly, the Chinese government is trying to
protect its technological sovereignty. By reducing their people’s reliance on American-based Internet services, China lowers
their risk of leaking information pertaining to confidential matters of state.
Morozov states that U.S. companies cooperate closely with the U.S government so
as to obtain data from anywhere, as long as the country adopts American-run Internet services. It is demonstrated by the
ongoing squabble between Microsoft and the U.S government(Morozov,2005), which
is relevant to an investigation of Microsoft servers in Ireland, where the U.S
government claimed to have rights to access data regardless where it is stored
(Morozov, 2015). This shows that the U.S. is ambitious enough to control
information on a worldwide scale. In fear of data leaks from state, the Chinese
government has to restrict Internet services to protect its information sovereignty.
Therefore, in the sense of protecting national security, Internet restriction
can be understood and justified.
Secondly,
apart from the defence of nation security, Internet restriction can be seen as
way of nation governance in China. Frizell, (2004) argues that Chinese
government had concerted effort to limit information about the incipient
pro-democratic movement, such as Tiananmen Square Massacre and Xinjiang riots.
This shows the Chinese government is preserving its own political interest,
rather than protecting their citizens from Western influence and to defend
their Internet security. In my general opinion, citizens should have rights to
access information and have freedom of speech. However, the successful
attainment of Internet freedom is dependent on a nation’s
actual condition, such as the state system and level of civilization. As a
state with a large population, it is not easy for China to maintain peace and
unity among citizens; so Internet restriction can be seen as a way to maintain
state order. As Michael (2010) cited, laws in China clearly prohibit the spread
of information which subverts state power and undermines national unity. This
can be observed in the 2009 Xingjiang riot, where the Chinese government had
censored posts related to the riot caused by resentment between the Han Chinese
and Uyghur. This was to minimize the spreading of information which could
challenge the harmony between the two races. If censorship had not been
implemented, protesters from the two races may foment unrest, which could
further put the country at risk of civil strife.
In
conclusion, it is important for us to understand that there is no definite
right or wrong. In case of China, a state which has rather large population and
unequal development of education and social system, government has to restrict
any information which can challenge national unity and defend its information security,
by implement any relevant policies. As there is nothing more important than the
nation interest, Internet restriction can be justified in certain situation.
References:
訂閱：
張貼留言 (Atom)
沒有留言:
張貼留言