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.
Hi Naina! Here are some feedback for your reader response:
ReplyDeleteYour overall flow is smooth, and your stand is very clear throughout the whole response. However, while your points are clear, there are some places where it gets confusing.
Your summary and references are missing from your response (Though I'm assuming that they are missing because this is not the full draft for your reader response, since you titled this as the outline).
Content:
-"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."
-->I am confused about which problem you are talking about (I’m assuming the companies’ compromised business), and how exactly does the funding or even the enhancement of connectivity of Brazilian citizens actually solves/tackle that problem. Also, how is the funding/enhancement multi-dimensional?
-“Russia and China are perceived as having controlling governments; a prime reason for mistaking their actions for censorship.”
-->Honestly, I think that rather than being perceived as having, Russia and China do really have controlling governments [Looks like you are suggesting that the two don’t really have controlling governments, just that they are seen as such]. Also, censorship (which is what the two governments are actually enforcing) is one of the main reasons why Russia and China are seen to have controlling governments, not the other way round [Looks like you are suggesting that the two governments are doing something else that is not actually censorship].
-“The author defends this common misperception as a response to how the US treats freedom.”
-->“this common misperception” suggests that you are referring to people’s misperception, but how/why is this a response to US’ treatment of freedom? ("misperception" is not a word. Perhaps you were referring to "misconception"?)
- “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?”
-->You are comparing between “the former” and the “all might USA, but with the word “former” placed there, it would be referring to what is written in the previous sentence, which would be “privacy”, and not Russia and China, which I assume is who you are really referring to.
Language:
-"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."
-->The Google part is an example to your point, thus the full stop between the two sentences could be changed to : to show the relationship between the two sentences better.
-"Even if these companies do not comply with their government’s demands, other countries view them as their pawns, thus compromising their businesses."
--> Which “their” are you talking about? The companies, the government or the other countries? [Looks like the 1st “their” refers to companies, 2nd to government, but the 3rd is unknown.]
-“Russia and China are perceived as having controlling governments; a prime reason for mistaking their actions for censorship.“ & “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.”
-->The semicolon should be changed to a comma instead.
-->“Non American”: “non” doesn’t need to be capitalized, and there should be a hyphen between the two words.
-Ivy
Hey Naina,
ReplyDeleteSorry for the late comment, just a few things to add on.
1. Your summary is really very well paraphrased, just that the article's title is omitted.
2. References for the article is required at the bottom.
3. In-text citation or reference to Morozov is needed in your response for information cited from the article.
4. I feel that your article is very well written and develops well, but overall it seems mainly to be expounding on the article. Your question, "Why is it then that the actions of the former are seen as censoring, but not the actions of the ‘all mighty’ USA?" is a good opportunity to inject your thoughts into the response.
5. I am not really sure what "For America, neutral internet space is equivalent to American controlled internet" means. Do you mean that internet that is not censored is internet controlled by America since they claim right of access to the data?
Hope the comments help!
- Russell
Hi Naina,
ReplyDeleteShu Ying and Sue here! :D
1) "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."
We feel that it is better to replace "even though" with "while".
2) "We often see or perceive it to be a place"
We think it is sufficient to just use "perceive".
We think that your reader response consists of mostly points from the article and it is lacking personal perspectives.