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 21st 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 21st 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
No comments:
Post a Comment