Reading the Wall Street journal today, I was struck by how accepting an article and the companies involved seemed to be over the state control of these 2 rights - the right of free speech and free press.
It begs questions....are those rights really inherent in the people?
Do governments (barring national security issues - a subject for another day) have the right to control what people say, what they see ? (click on article title for link)
European Gear Used in Vast Effort to Monitor Communications
The Iranian regime has developed, with the assistance of European telecommunications companies, one of the world's most sophisticated mechanisms for controlling and censoring the Internet, allowing it to examine the content of individual online communications on a massive scale.
In America, when the PATRIOT Act and other warrant-less wiretapping was initiated there was an outcry about the violation of our civil liberties. There were outcries that the Constitution protected even the rights of citizens of other countries against our government's intrusion.
The ability to control something gives a government great power, the ability to extensively control something gives it the ability to hide massive wrong doings.
Herbert's Dune uses "spice" a mind altering, life expanding drug as an analogy for oil, but it can easily be adapted for information --
"He who controls the Spice controls the universe"
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing."
Iran and China both strive to control information, both flowing into their country and out. Most repressive regimes try to control information.
Human-rights groups have criticized the selling of such equipment to Iran and other regimes considered repressive, because it can be used to crack down on dissent, as evidenced in the Iran crisis.
I usually don't see eye to eye with such groups because of their extremism but in this case, they are right
If our government shouldn't invade the privacy of people in other countries, doesn't that mean the
individuals have an inherent right to privacy?
Does that right to privacy include restricting governments ability to read what is written online, what is said via cellphone?
The monitoring center that Nokia Siemens Networks sold to Iran was described in a company brochure as allowing "the monitoring and interception of all types of voice and data communication on all networks
Deep packet inspection involves inserting equipment into a flow of online data, from emails and Internet phone calls to images and messages on social-networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Every digitized packet of online data is deconstructed, examined for keywords and reconstructed within milliseconds. In Iran's case, this is done for the entire country at a single choke point, according to networking engineers familiar with the country's system. It couldn't be determined whether the equipment from Nokia Siemens Networks is used specifically for deep packet inspection
Not only is a national government implementing control of what its people can read, see online or even email but they are doing it easily because they control the telecommunications within the country. The dangers of a state monopoly on any industry becomes apparent when the scale of this is seen. Every email, every cell call, every phone call is routed through a government controlled and monitored center. The technology exists and probably, likely is use by just about every country. Iran is just blatant in its use and intrusiveness to a degree few other countries would be.
Instead, in confronting the political turmoil that has consumed the country this past week, the Iranian government appears to be engaging in a practice often called deep packet inspection, which enables authorities to not only block communication but to monitor it to gather information about individuals, as well as alter it for disinformation purposes, according to these experts
Think about that, not only can the Iranian government know what you are saying...but they can alter it. It would be difficult to criticize a government that intrusively monitors all communication. It would be difficult to report on governmental activities, especially crimes and repression if every word is read and controlled by the state. Not impossible as the recent events have shown, but difficult.
Iran is doing/has tried many things to limit free speech and freedom of the press; including licensing bloggers
has been grappling with controlling the Internet since its use moved beyond universities and government agencies in the late 1990s. At times, the government has tried to limit the country's vibrant blogosphere -- for instance, requiring bloggers to obtain licenses from the government, a directive that has proved difficult to enforce, according to the OpenNet Initiative, a partnership of universities that study Internet filtering and surveillance. (The partners are Harvard University, the University of Toronto, the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford.)
Do these two rights really stand as a control on tyranny and oppression?
Even the United Nations seems to think so:
Article 12.
- No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 19.
- Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
(emphasis mine)
Today's world relies on information. Shaping our perception, our very thoughts and ideas, it boggles the mind that a government is so intrusively controlling speech and press.
So, back to the questions at hand.....are there inherent rights in the world? Should people tolerate government intrusion in those rights?
A question to those that support gun control, if you agree that these two rights -- these two individual, personal rights are vital to society....why not the right to keep and bear arms?
Why not the right to defend ones self against criminal action -- be it from an individual or be it from a government?
