Password

My First Norwegian Phrase =]

Password

My First Norwegian Phrase !

International Information: Public or Private?

In Western countries, the act of posting a comment or creating a blog on one’s discontent for concerning the outcomes of a certain political election will most likely just get swept up with the other thousands, if not million, similar comments posted every day. However, the idea of user-generated content allowing for the expression of ideas and beliefs is not quite universal.

In what is called Camp 22, situated in North Korea, approximately 200 000 North Korean who have committed political crimes as simple as speaking against Kim Jong-Il their current leader, are tortured and often killed. Individuals are used as guinea pigs for chemical gas testing and are forced to live in the poorest of conditions solely because they voiced their opinions (Barnett, 2004). As seen in North Korea and also in countries like China where Internet content filtering is implemented, the idea of a public good serving the public good is somewhat controversial.

For most countries, the freedom of speech and sharing of opinions and information is a natural right, which means mediums such as the Internet that facilitate the sharing of ideas, are considered public goods. These public goods serve the public good as they make knowledge and information accessible to all users.

Information is possibly the largest public good in the 21^st century as being a public good, it does not deplete the more it is used, and is accessible to all those seeking its contents. When applying information as a public good to the international sphere, however, it is evident that there are in fact many discrepancies on whom the information is a public good to, which is in many cases dependent on the culture and its respective leaders.

Not only is information as a public good susceptible to the rules and regulations of individual states, it is also in some cases such as in the DPRK, classified as state secrets that may be internally public but externally private. For example, information regarding the procedures of Camp 22 is private information of the DPRK, however as seen in The Observer article, this information has become a public good to the rest of the world, thanks to a brave escapee publishing his story.

Public and private information has been compromised due to the effects of globalization and the increasing accessibility the Internet allows for the generation and diffusion of user-made content.  Cyberspace is impartial to boundaries, impartial to culture and impartial to state leaders, therefore it is the regulations that individual governments impose, which govern and determine what is a public versus a private good.

Unfortunately, even governments have limitations on what they restrict, seen in the increasing instances of Internet hacking. Users must be aware that once uploading information to cyberspace, the information is not only reaping the benefits of cyberspace but also susceptible to its disadvantages as well. Taking South Africa for example, this year alone 57 African Government websites have been hacked (HackingStats, 2010).

Cyber space was created and is now governed by the way individuals use it, therefore with the right resources, any individual could access what is meant to be private information and make it public. By typing into Youtube.com the words ‘Internet Hacking” the everyday Joe will be fronted with endless tutorials on how to hack internet sites from emails to Facebook passwords and even the odd, how to get more chips on “Hold ‘em Poker”. In the 21^st century it is accurate to say that;

“Anyone who is savvy and wants information can get it” (Kluth, 2009).

Consequently, in regards to the international sphere and the use of the Internet as a medium to host both public and private goods in the form of information, it is essential to be aware of both the positive ad negative implications of cyberspace. Although leading officials of organisations and governments may attempt to censor certain parts of information, the lack of security in cyberspace can lead to the publication of once private information. On the flip side, user-generated content is increasing the availability of public goods, however, this availability is subject to those who govern the Internet itself. Essentially what we now is a vicious circle; users generate content and then this must be censored. Users must then generate more content to make up for the censored content etc. Where does it end?

The Chicken or the Egg.

Bibliography

Barnett, A. (2004). The Observer. Retrieved November 9, 2010, from Revealed: the gas chamber horror of North Korea's gulag: http://www.hrwf.net/north_korea/nkpdf/Humanexperimentation.pdf

HackingStats. (2010). Hacking Statistics. Retrieved November 9, 2010, from Hacking Stats: http://www.hackingstats.com/hacking-statistics.php

Kluth, A. (2009). The Perils of Sharing. Retrieved Novmber 9, 2010, from The Economist: http://ilearn.bond.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_2_1&url=%2fwebapps%2fblackboard%2fexecute%2flauncher%3ftype%3dCourse%26id%3d_22350_1%26url%3d

Participatory Diplomacy: Connecting Citizens to Other States

In a globalised world it becomes increasingly hard to ignore the influx of content and information that is being piled into cyberspace regarding anything about everything. However one of the most difficult new changes to the content of the Internet to push aside, is the continuous newsfeed from almost every part of the globe, connecting one side of the world’s disasters to the other via text, pictures and video.

This new exposure to countries, people, places and things is forcing the world to be more involved in the affairs of distant or not so distant places and increases the availability of information about, previously unknown, disasters, news and topics. But how has this sudden exposure come to be? Through citizen journalism aided by the globalization of new media.

Citizen journalism is neatly defined by Jay Rosen of PressThink as;

“When the people formerly known as the audience employ the press tools they have in their possession to inform one another” (Rosen, 2008).

The audience, being the people with first hand access to the information of the event, have a plethora of tools at their disposal to circulate the information they have captured and then with the help of the World Wide Web have the means to distribute this content to every connected user.

I have termed this new form of connectivity between citizens and states, Participatory Diplomacy. In a globalised world everyone can be a journalist and with diplomacy being the art of strengthening relations between two parties (mostly referred to states) then the relations created through citizen journalism create Participatory Diplomacy.

It is true that in recent years the world has seen a shift from the historical means of journalism to a contemporary form of journalism that through the use of new media and the interconnectivity of the Internet, allows the every day Joe to be the author of the top newsfeed in the world. This contemporary form of journalism has increased the world’s accessibility to information that would other wise be missed, as news-sharing is now as simple as taking a photo and uploading it from a mobile phone or tweeting an event as it happens.

Taking the notorious Twitter as an example, and how it has been used in the past as a political tool, it is possible to see how the role of participatory diplomacy is necessary in connecting the world when the world’s historical forms of journalism are halted. In the recent events in Iran with the elections, Iranian citizens were forced to find other form of media in order to report to the Iranian population and also the outside world of the incidents taking place, as the Iranian government had restricted news articles from circulating and whited-out newspapers as protests started to break out (The Times of India, 2010).

Twitter was then actually called upon by the U.S state department to delay the network upgrade that was scheduled during this time so as to protect the Iranian citizens rights and to assist in communication of the events being tweeted protesting against the Iranian elections (Grossman, 2009).

Not only has the events in Iran been affected by the use of citizen journalism but also such events as those being Tweeted right this moment to the website Breaking Tweets (Breaking Tweets, 2010). When one navigates to this website there are a range of categories under which Tweets are organized. For example the most recent Tweet under the heading Terrorism is:

“Voice of America reports, Afghan officials say suicide bombers targeted four different parts of the southern city of Kandahar, killing at least 30 people and wounding 46 others.  Authorities say they now have the situation under control” (Breaking Tweets, 2010).

Evidentially, it has become almost a necessity to have a medium or mediums (let’s not forget Facebook), to allow for people to share content online and engage in citizen journalism or participatory diplomacy. Why? Because the world has become more globalised and with the means to become more connected to those distance places or in Iran’s case to those seemingly unconnected places, people can participate, engage and benefit from the sharing of content that is made possible through new media.

The world is now exposed; it is up to the people to fill its gaps.

Bibliography

Breaking Tweets. (2010, November). Catergory Archive for Terrorism. Retrieved 2010, from Breaking Tweets: http://www.breakingtweets.com/category/politics/terrorism/#tb

Grossman, L. (2009, June 17). Iran Protests: Twitter, the Medium of the Movement . Retrieved 2010, from Times: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1905125,00.html

Rosen, J. (2008, July 14). A Most Useful Definition of Citizen Journalism. Retrieved from PressThink: http://archive.pressthink.org/2008/07/14/a_most_useful_d.html

The Times of India. (2010, May 21). After Facebook and Youtube, Pakistan blocks Twitter. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from The Times of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/After-Facebook-and-Youtube-Pakistan-blocks-Twitter/articleshow/5957939.cms

Collective Intelligence: United Nations

As technology picks us up and washes us away in its all its simplified complexity, it becomes an integral part of not only the life of the individual, but also the life of organisations and institutions; namely the United Nations. As countries in the United Nations become more and more dependent on the intelligence that the other countries had to offer, and as the United Nations itself saw an increasing demand for the intelligence of all its member states to be collected, categorised and stored, the overarching need for collective intelligence became apparent.

Taken from one of the most accessible collective intelligence mediums in the world is the definition of collective intelligence itself. Collective intelligence is the grouping and collaboration of information from individuals that creates consensus decision-making (Wikipedia, 2010).

In November 2008 the world saw another one of its large organisations, the European Union, adopt collective intelligence platforms via the creation of a shared computer network that allowed each member to brainstorm the given idea and then contribute their individual ideas to a shared database. This database filtered similar ideas and made those ideas that were more frequently put forward, the main concepts discussed during the conference. (EURActive.com, 2008) This use of collective intelligence makes the essential information more readily accessible and uses the minds of the individual to create, confirm and contribute to the collective ideas of the masses. In such a globalised and complex world psychologist Professor Peter Kruse puts it best,

"The complexity and dynamics in the world are increasingly overrunning the capacity of individual intelligence. The time for a single great mind solving problems is over" (EURActive.com, 2008).

It is true the individual thought is no longer favoured above the collective, therefore it is essential that institutions such as the United Nations, see globalization as an opportunity to network their intelligence and have taken steps to do so. A networked United Nations would increase stability, and also improve managerial functions within the institution. It has been suggested that through social networking the United Nations would have greater access to information concerning the international arena and therefore become more efficient in responding to conflicts, and have a greater impact in peacekeeping missions (Ekpe, 2009). By connecting the international arena and having an institution such as the United Nations governing this collective intelligence, troops would be deployed faster, aid would be collected and distributed more efficiently, conflicts would be addressed earlier and understanding between member states would concreted further.

Furthermore, the United Nations could benefit from not only an internal social network, as this may foster bonding social capital, but also from an external social network which promotes linking social capital (Flew, 2002). If all the member states of the United Nations contribute and have access to an internal social network, then the information that is pooled into this network would only be compiled of the intelligence of the United Nations. In order to increase the input of intelligence and therefore the scope and depth of the information, an external network that is accessible by other members of the international society would be essential. This would then in turn create more value to the information being pooled, as opening up the collective intelligence medium to be external would increase heterophily. For example, if intelligence of where to best distribute aid, where not to deploy troops and when or where conflicts are about to arise was immediately accessible to the United Nations, then if needed, resolutions could be passed quicker and actions could be made faster to avoid another United Nations failure. Naturally, the collective intelligence would have to be controlled and in some circumstances made inaccessible to the external contributors, however, technology makes anything possible.

To put collective intelligence in more simple terms, if the United Nations had a Facebook page, member states could become friends, populations could become fans, each country could ‘like’ a resolution and important wall posts from Iraqi citizens who need aid could be sent directly to their Iphones. Fans could even ‘send a gift’ and donate to peacekeeping missions and the United Nations could always update its status on the Millennium Development goals!

Social networking in the international arena has been utilised before and has been deemed very successful in decision-making. The United Nations would greatly benefit from the implementation of a collective intelligence platform as in the 21^st Century; readily accessible knowledge is indispensable especially in such a globalised world.

Bibliography

Ekpe, B. (2009). The United Nations and the Rationale for Collective Intelligence. New York: Cambria Press.

EURActive.com. (2008, November 12). ’Collective intelligence’ tool enters European Parliament. Retrieved October 25, 2010, from Euroactive Network: http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/collective-intelligence-tool-enters-european-parliament/article-177082

Flew, T. (2002). New Media. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gareis, S., & Varwick, J. (2005). The United Nations. New York: Palgrave McMillan.

Wikipedia. (2010, April). Collective Intelligence. Retrieved October 25, 2010, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_intelligence

Innovations In My Chosen Profession

As stated before my chosen profession lies within the sphere of international relations and diplomacy; a field in which innovations are no new customer. As seen in the long history of empires, states and organisations, innovations have shaped the way the international realm is created, moulded and governed. One of the most recent innovations is that of an international body of which 189 sovereign states sign their allegiance to when concerning issues of security, humanity, and territoriality; the United Nations (UN)(Dinnen, 2010).

The United Nations is the closest thing that the world has to a globally governing body. It has been the benchmark for many progressions and some unfortunate regressions in the international arena. One of the UN’s most ambitious innovations is the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which seek to increase the world’s standards of living by achieving things such as; cutting the number of people living under $1 a day in half by 2015, reduce child mortality and combat diseases like HIV/AIDS and Malaria (United Nations Development Programme, 2010). The diffusion of this innovation amongst the member states of the UN was quite quick, however when brought to the general population has proved to be much slower due to a number of factors.

When discussing diffusion of innovations it is necessary to first define what in fact diffusion means. According to the theorist behind the Diffusion of Innovations Theory, “Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time, among the members of a social system” (Everett, 1995). Innovations can be products, services or ideas and the MGDs are innovative ideas that have actually created both products and services.

The MDGs are new innovations not so much technology wise but more in the sense of knowledge, and decision to adopt. The pick up of celebrities to contribute to the MDGs has brought a new aspect to the diffusion process as these celebrities act as opinion leaders due to their high social status and make for good adopters (Flew, 2002). Some celebrities that are supporting the MDGs are Ricky Martin, Ronaldo and Maria Sharapova as stated in the United Nations press release this year in September (United Naitons, 2010). These highly regarded figures persuade the general population to contribute to the numerous organisations that have formed in order to collect donations and aid in reaching the goals.

The UN has recruited figureheads to increase the rate of adoption, as this innovation has been quite slow within the general public. This slow progression of diffusion is due to certain factors such as relative advantage, compatibility, complexibility, trialability and obersvability (Summers, Lamb, Hair, & McDaniel, 2009). The MDGs unfortunately do not hold a strong relative advantage to developed countries who also happen to be the main target market. This is because those that are benefiting from the goals usually live in undeveloped or developing countries. Therefore the adoption progress has been slow, as it is not directly applicable to those it is targeting. The UN has recently been successful in overcoming this through promotional videos such as the one below, to increase the relative advantage and also the observability of the progress; observability being another factor affecting adoption.

As for the other factors that help determine the rate of adoption of innovations the UN has not catered for, which consequently can be coined as the reason for the slow adoption rates of the MDGs.

Everett gives a five-step process for the innovation-decision that concentrates on the implementation and confirmation of the innovation to aid the adoption process (Everett, 1995). The implementation of the goals has been effective as this innovation was the seed that helped spring up other innovations like the Make Poverty History campaign in Australia (Australian Industry for International Development, 2005). With an effective implementation comes results, and with results, one can then seek confirmation. The UN has done an excellent job of confirming the ongoing success of the goals through sites such as the Millennium development Goals Tracker website, that allows the individual to go online and see maps of extreme poverty and how over time, this poverty has decreased. 

According to the maps on the website, in 1993 China had 28.4% of its population living under $1 a day, in 2000 the UN had reduced this to 17.0% and when last tracked in 2004 it was at the 9.9% mark (UNDP, 2007). Therefore, although the diffusion process has seen many laggards, newer innovations within the MDGs have helped speed up the process.

As 2015 looms closer, and with the goals still far from completion, it is expected that the UN implement new innovations to hopefully rush progress of the goals’ development. According to the theory of Diffusion of Innovations, all it takes is a good adopter to lead others in the same social system to adopt the innovation as well, and make sure that the variables affecting the rate of adoption are accounted for. The United Nations may not reach its Millennium Development Goals by 2015, however, they have introduced an innovation into the entire world sphere to adopt, regardless of their individual socio-cultural backgrounds and beliefs. In the world of technology the UN’s small success is a gigantic achievement.

References

Australian Industry for International Development. (2005, September). A Global Partnership for Development. Retrieved September 24, 2010, from 2005 Progress Report:

Dinnen, M. (2010, September 22). United Nations Lecture, Week 2.

Everett, R. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.

Flew, T. (2002). New Media. New York: Oxford University Press.

Summers, J., Lamb, M. G., Hair, J. F., & McDaniel, C. (2009). Essentials of Marketing. Ohio: South-Western College Publishing.

UNDP. (2007). Tracking the MDGs. Retrieved September 25, 2010, from MDG Monitor: http://www.mdgmonitor.org/map.cfm?goal=0&indicator=0&cd=

United Naitons. (2010). Celebrities join push for action on the Millennium Development Goals. Press Release.

United Nations Development Programme. (2010). What Are the Millennium Development Goals? Retrieved September 25, 2010, from The Millennium Development Goals: http://www.undp.org/mdg/basics.shtml

Introduction [from lack of vocabulary]

Having created a blog for a particular purpose I think it is only right that I explain its purpose so that this blog has the ability to be somewhat beneficial to the reader.

I have just started a new semester at my university and have, thanks to the compulsory subjects in my communications degree, enrolled in a subject that I initially thought to be taking me to far from the star I’m shooting at.

Fortunately after lecture 1, I realised that the furthest star from the right, second to the left, actually couldn’t be closer.

The subject book is ‘New Media’ by Terry Flew and my lecturer is Jeffrey Brand and the following entries are all pieces of assessment that I believe can back up my all-encompassing theory;

Technology is applicable to all things.

Technology –

The more we rely on it the more we need to create and the more that we create the more that we rely on it.

There are external factors like socio-cultural backgrounds, resources, availability and accessibility but the most determining I believe to be is time.

The time it takes for the technology to be essential to our daily lives and also the time it takes for the technology to be picked up, accessed and utilised by a substantial enough group of people to be able to define that particular piece of technology to be universal so to speak.

Digital Media and Society is not particularly a subject that I would seek out to study given my career path to be diplomacy and international relations, however, I am glad to be forced into what I see as a necessary opportunity.

The truth is, is that technology, no matter what path it is that you choose to take, is constantly present. And instead of avoiding the inevitable and allowing it to take over and make you powerless, it is essential that we embrace it, possess it and learn to manipulate it, in order to become powerful.

So let’s see where this course can take me...