Reader Response, Draft 3

In ‘Who is the true enemy of internet freedom: China, Russia or the US?, Morozov (2015) urges the readers to take notice of the US’ slyly aggressive stance regarding technological sovereignty vis-à-vis China and Russia’s overtly aggressive outlook on the same. This article covers several pertinent issues that would not have reached the public sphere without a certain level of investigation. The United States of America is the country most often associated with freedom and human rights, often perceived as a place where every man is heard and every woe is solved. While China and Russia are vocal about controlling cyber data of their citizens, the US is indeed a silent player in the same game.

As a non US citizen, living in a US dominated world, I would have to agree with Morozov’s argument pertaining to the hypocrisy of the US government regarding cyber privacy. Time and time again, the US contradicts itself in its demands and actions. American run companies accuse and take actions against countries like Brazil and Russia for violating basic user data privacy (Morozov, 2015). At the same time, the US demands full control over private data of users of all US run companies, regardless of where data is stored (Morozov, 2015). I believe that one of the reasons behind these actions could be linked to how the US perceives itself relative to the rest of the world. Recently, when the US Department of Commerce announced that it would be relinquishing its control over the domain name system to other countries, Republicans reacted with hostility (Maher, 2014). The mere fact that the US thinks it controls the global web space to begin with serves as an apt description of their superiority complex in the domain of technological sovereignty. 

To be fair to America, it has been an economic superpower for over a century. During the third year of World War I, the Allied powers became hugely dependent on America for grain, oil and fleet purchases (Frum, 2014). By floating larger bond issues in dollars, Americans became more prosperous. As a result, America became a global economic giant, suppressing, instead of joining, its imperial rivalries. However, this does not serve as an excuse to undermine other countries, whose economies have grown to be comparable to or even better than the US’.

If you set aside the hard facts, perceptions of a country and its government play an important role in determining power. Russia and China are perceived as having controlling governments; a prime reason for mistaking their actions for censorship. The author defends this common misconception as a response to how the US treats freedom. If the US were to be granted access to cyber data of all US-owned companies, irrespective of country of storage, it would be a huge breach of privacy and basic trust. Why is it then that the actions of the former are seen as censoring, but not the actions of the ‘all mighty’ USA? 

What’s worse, American control of cyber space does not solely mean better welfare of its people. Blinded by its aim to extend its control, the American government often overlooks how its actions affect those under its direct grip- the tech giants of the Silicon Valley (Morozov, 2015). Even if these companies do not comply with their government’s demands, other countries view them as governmental pawns, thus compromising their businesses. This could have detrimental impacts on the US economy and every inter dependency it has with other countries. Politics muddled with business is never a good combination, and this case is no exception.

At present, the 'developing' economies, like China and India, pose a threat to America's economic status. However, it will take a lot more to challenge American ego-centrism than economic change. It is a mindset that must be altered, a theme that must be changed. For countries attempting to escape the tight hold of the West in cyberspace, it is just the beginning of a long journey to independence. 

(663 words)

References

Frum, D. (2014, December 24). The Real Story of How America Became an Economic Superpower. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/12/the-real-story-of-how-america-became-an-economic-superpower/384034/

Maher, K. (2014, March 19). No, the US isn’t ‘Giving up Control’ of the Internet. Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/control-of-the-internet-104830.html

Morozov, E. (2015, Jan 4). Who's the true enemy of internet freedom - China, Russia or the US? Retrieved Feb 8, 2015, from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/04/internet-freedom-china-russia-us-google-microsoft-digital-sovereignty

Woollacott, E. (2014, March 15). US Government Cedes Control Of The Internet. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2014/03/15/us-government-cedes-control-of-the-internet/

Reader Response Draft 2

In ‘Who is the true enemy of internet freedom: China, Russia or the US?, Morozov (2015) urges the readers to take notice of the US’ slyly aggressive stance regarding technological sovereignty vis-à-vis China and Russia’s overtly aggressive outlook on the same. This article covers several pertinent issues that would not have reached the public sphere without a certain level of investigation. The United States of America is the country most often associated with freedom and human rights. We often perceive it to be a place where every man is heard and every woe is solved. While China and Russia are vocal about controlling cyber data of their citizens, the US is indeed a silent player in the same game.

By recording and observing the actions of the US government, its hypocrisy in the matter of privacy becomes clear. US run companies accuse and take actions against countries like Brazil and Russia for violating basic user data privacy. Google shut down operations in Moscow after a law to store all Russian user data only on national servers was passed. At the same time, the US demands full control over private data of users of all US run companies, regardless of where data is stored. Hence, it is clear that the US contradicts itself in its demands and actions. Recently, when the US Department of Commerce announced that it would be relinquishing its control over the domain name system to the rest of the world, Republicans reacted with hostility (Maher, 2014). The mere fact that the US thinks it controls the global web space to begin with aptly describes how it views the issue of technological sovereignty. 

Blinded by its aim to extend its control, the American government often overlooks how its actions affect those under its direct grip- the tech giants of the Silicon Valley (Morozov, 2015). Even if these companies do not comply with their government’s demands, other countries view them as governmental pawns, thus compromising their businesses. This could have detrimental impacts on the US economy and every inter dependency it has with other countries. Politics muddled with business is never a good combination, and this case is no exception.

Russia and China are perceived as having controlling governments; a prime reason for mistaking their actions for censorship. The author defends this common misconception as a response to how the US treats freedom. If the US were to be granted access to cyber data of all US-owned companies, irrespective of country of storage, it would be a huge breach of privacy and basic trust. Why is it then that the actions of the former are seen as censoring, but not the actions of the ‘all mighty’ USA? 

To answer to this question, we must go retrace our steps, all the way back to World War I. During the third year of the war, the Allied powers became hugely dependent on America for grain, oil and fleet purchases (Frum, 2014). Britain paid for these investments by floating increasingly larger bond issues in dollars, instead of in their own currency. As a result, America became an economic superpower, suppressing, instead of joining, its imperial rivalries. 

At present, the 'developing' economies, like China and India, pose a threat to America's economic status. However, it will take a lot more to challenge American ego-centrism than economic change. It is a mindset that must be altered, a theme that must be changed. For countries attempting to escape the tight hold of the West in cyberspace, it is just the beginning of a long journey to independence. 

(592 words)

Works Cited

Forbes . (2014, March 15). US Government Cedes Control Of The Internet. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2014/03/15/us-government-cedes-control-of-the-internet/

Frum, D. (2014, December 24). The Real Story of How America Became an Economic Superpower. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/12/the-real-story-of-how-america-became-an-economic-superpower/384034/

Maher, K. (2014, March 19). Politico Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/03/control-of-the-internet-104830.html

Outline for Reader Response 1

This article covers several pertinent issues that would not have reached the public sphere without a certain level of investigation. The United States of America is the country most often associated with freedom and human rights. We often see or perceive it to be a place where every man is heard and every woe is solved. However, Morozov (2015) seems to think otherwise. He argues that even though China and Russia are more vocal about controlling the cyber data of their citizens, the US is a silent player in the same game.

By recording and observing the actions of the US government, its hypocrisy in the matter of privacy becomes clear. Firstly, US run companies accuse and take actions against countries like Brazil and Russia for violating basic user privacy notions. Google shut down operations in Moscow after a law to store all Russian user data only on Russian servers was passed. Secondly, the US demands full control over private data of users of all US run companies, regardless of where it is stored. Hence, it is clear that the US contradicts itself in its demands and actions.

Blinded by its aim to extend its control, the American government often overlooks how its actions affect those under its direct grip- the tech giants of the Silicon Valley. Even if these companies do not comply with their government’s demands, other countries view them as their pawns, thus compromising their businesses. Firms have to look at multi-dimensional approaches in tackling this problem. Google, one such Silicon company, opted to fund a cyberoptic cable under the sea to enhance the connectivity of Brazilian citizens.

Russia and China are perceived as having controlling governments; a prime reason for mistaking their actions for censorship. The author defends this common misperception as a response to how the US treats freedom. If the US were to be granted access to cyber data of all US-owned companies, irrespective of country of storage, it would be a huge breach of privacy and basic trust. Why is it then that the actions of the former are seen as censoring, but not the actions of the ‘all mighty’ USA?

For America, neutral internet space is equivalent to American controlled internet. Anything that slightly steers from this ideal is labelled as a move in the direction of ‘Balkanisation’. In reality, this is simply a move in the direction of technological sovereignty for Non American countries; an attempt to escape the tight hold of the West. 

Summary

In response to the title of the article, ‘Who is the real enemy of internet freedom?’, Morozov (2015) aims to bring the attention of the readers to the slyly aggressive stance of the US regarding technological sovereignty as compared China and Russia’s overtly aggressive outlook on the same. Although the Russian and Chinese governments merely seek information regarding user data of their own citizens, albeit for political agendas, Americans do the same for citizens and non-citizens alike. On one hand, American companies create expensive and complex interdependencies with countries all over the world. On the other hand, some companies, like Microsoft, have questioned the US government’s incredulous demands for access to user data. If any of these countries’ demands manage to carry through, the result would be detrimental to privacy and freedom.