Diving Into the Bitstream

Chapter 4 Questions

Exploring your opinions

  1. Chapter 4 begins with two quotes. The first engages the idea that open flow of information is requisite to popular governments, a concept that doesn’t place value judgments on the worth or quality of information. The second, stated over six centuries ago, not only resorts to value judgments, but is still a common reaction to the development of new information technologies. Can you reconcile the two views? Should information flow be unfettered, regardless of value, validity, or merit?
  1. Everything has its limits, including the right to speak freely. Keeping in mind that the term “speech” has evolved to include every kind of expression, what limits, if any, do you feel are appropriate? How would you define those limits so that they are reasonably unambiguous, understood by the general populace, and suitable for courts of law? How would such limits be monitored? enforced?
  1. Commonly, the allowability and acceptance of words and other forms of expression depend on the context within which they are used. Is it possible to define useful, practical context-based acceptability criteria? After all, “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.” Take a crack at some definitions.
  1. One limit to the FCC’s regulatory power depends on whether or not the technology in question is an information service or a transportation service. The latter is akin to a common carrier, which is under the FCC’s purview; the former is not. As it now stands, the US considers the Internet to be an information service, which strictly limits the FCC’s regulatory ability. Do you agree with this classification of the Internet? Explain.What are its ramifications with regard to free expression?
  1. Humans, being a gregarious lot, yearn to communicate with each other. Free expression fits well with that predilection, while censorship is in direct opposition. At what point do presumably sensible limits on free expression cross over to overly restrictive limits? Where should the line be drawn? Keep in mind that your conclusion has to be practical, implementable and enforceable in real-world everyday practice.
  1. In the ongoing battle between restricting expression and circumventingrestrictions, the lead often changes. Some repressive regimes have been quite successful in controlling expression; others not so much. Do you see either side winning the battle, or is it bound to continue forever? Can autocratic regimes succeed without suppressing free expression? Will they be able to continue using information technology as a barrier to information flow?
  1. Privacy protection complicates the free expression picture. The stronger are privacy protections, the more restrictive are free speech exceptions, and vice versa. This is another “where to draw the line” question. How would you describe the conflict? Where would you draw the line?
  1. The more we are connected and the more we use Web-based services and cellular systems, the more we are tracked and the more data about us that is collected. That can be considered a rather blatant violation of privacy rights. Collectors claim that the routine access they provide to the data in their hoards as they monetize their collections is anonymized. Are you comfortable with that? Would you rather have more direct control over what is collected and how it is used? What changes would you like to see? Would those changes affect corporate bottom lines, perhaps along with their ability or inclination to provide various services cost free?
  1. Security is another factor that conflicts with free expression; it also conflicts with privacy. So we have a triangle of opposing ideals. Depending on world and national events, one or another of the three takes precedence. Currently, security is high on the list, being used to justify privacy intrusions and expression limits. How would you describe the situation? Where would you draw lines?
  1. Whistle blowers are both good guys and bad guys, depending on one’s point of view. No one is better positioned to reveal wrongdoings in the corporate or government sectors than those working in them; no one is more able to reveal misdeeds. Yet whistle blowers, heroes in some eyes, are villains in others.

Recent leaks of government secrets by US Army Pfc. Bradley Manning and former NSA employee Edward Snowden have brought the issue into sharp focus. Manning was convicted of six counts of Espionage Act violations, but acquitted of one count of aiding the enemy. Snowden, recently granted asylum in Russia, has yet to be tried.

Does the fact that government secrets were involved matter? Would there be as much attention and controversy if the whistleblowers were corporate employees and their revelations were business related? Consider Manning and Snowden’s cases against the backgrounds and outcomes of past whistleblowers, especially those in the private sector.

Stimulating your thinking

In considering the often conflicting goals of the free expression, privacy, and security triad, we come across the game changers of rapidly growing connectivity, enormous remote storage capabilities, and global wireless communications. As noted in the chapter,

“By hook or by crook, anything connected to the Internet is reachable and anything sent over the airwaves can be intercepted.”

System vulnerabilities can never be completely eliminated. Moreover, even assuming older systems can be securely patched up, new intrusion methods will come along to circumvent the protections. Then too, new systems are bound to have exploitable openings. As ever greater quantities of information are collected and remotely stored, the consequences of breaches grow right along.

Absent a technology apocalypse, returning to the days of limited connectivity and minimal exposure won’t happen. So will we lose all control of our choices simply by participating in and enjoying the activities that flow from information technologies? Will we ever be able to set parameters for how we choose to balance the triad? Will privacy become an archaic concept, a relic of the past? Will free expression fall to the thrall of security? What do you think?