_id
stringlengths 23
47
| text
stringlengths 70
6.67k
|
|---|---|
training-culture-amcghbmgvaw-pro04b | The music is not the reason for the lack of respect for women; rather it is a much broader problem that cannot be prevented simply by targeting music. Within the part of that culture that is music the problem is not that music depicting violence toward women provides negative role models but rather that there are no positive role models to balance this. Banning music depicting violence towards women would not solve the problem as it still would not provide positive role models in order to replace the previous depiction. Therefore rather than putting energy into banning music depicting violence towards women, we should create a counter culture of strong, independent women who will not stand by domestic abuse or violence. |
training-culture-amcghbmgvaw-pro03a | It would be easy to apply restrictions on music. We already give films, DVD's and games an age appropriate rating. In the United States, the Motion Picture Association of America is charged with the responsibility of providing ratings to consumers [1] . It would seem that it would be simple to stretch these criteria to a similar music body. Therefore people would only be subjected to violent lyrics when it is deemed they are old enough to hear or buy this material, and it would stop younger people from being exposed to this kind of music. This also means that no new state-run institution needs to be created; it would operate, like the MPAA, independently of government control. As such, claims that any form of music censorship would suffer from practical problems are short-sighted, we simply need to extend the medium that already exists. [1] Motion Picture Association of America |
training-culture-amcghbmgvaw-con03b | However, while freedom of expression is definitely an important concept to consider, such freedoms can only go so far. When it comes to language that promotes violence then freedom of expression is no longer sufficient reason not to ban something as a physical harm outweighs the right to freedom of expression. Many countries such as Canada, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India ban hate speech because it has severely damaging effects injuring people's dignity, feelings and self-respect and potentially promoting violence.1 Similarly, if we accept the arguments in the proposition arguments above, and we believe that this type of music can be harmful, then it seems that perhaps freedom of speech can be over ridden in order to protect those that this music injures (i.e. some women). Furthermore the banning of music which glorifies violence towards women may perhaps overtime lead to people's attitude toward this style of lyrics changing, and therefore any harmful attitude that arise from it may begin to be unacceptable by the majority. 1 Liptak, Adam, ‘Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.’, The New York Times, 11 June 2008 |
training-culture-amcghbmgvaw-con01b | None of these arguments pose a significant problem. While setting criteria may be difficult and there will always be cases where it is a matter of interpretation this is not a reason not to create a strict and detailed set of criteria. There could be an appeals process to make sure that a song is not banned based purely on one individual's opinion. That a ban on recording and selling the music could be avoided through pirating or songs being passed down orally does not matter as if this was happening the ban would already have enough of an impact. The ban does not have to be totally comprehensive in order to have the desired effect of reducing violence towards women simply that it prevents many people listening to the music. The audience would be reduced to a tiny minority and those who remain would be aware of the lyrics as they would have to specifically seek out the music rather than simply being exposed to it with little thought of what it may contain. Finally there is unlikely to be a large forbidden fruit effect, some people may want to try it in order to find out what it is like. But unlike for example drugs there are direct substitutes that would be almost exactly the same but without the violent lyrics so there is little point in going to the extra effort to get illegal versions. |
training-culture-amcghbmgvaw-con02a | To ban this type of music encourages the viewing of women as helpless, victim figures. Many feminists criticise the idea of banning music that glorifies violence against women, as they perpetuate the idea of women as helpless victims who cannot cope with male criticism or violent language. One such group of people are 'power feminists'1 These power feminists believe that by complaining that men are depicting violent language towards women, and attempting to get this banned, the gender stereotype of women as a victim is reinforced; thus undoing any feminist progress that tries to assert men and women are equals. Power feminists believe that instead women should take this language in hand, assert/ defend themselves and retaliate in order to state that women are equals to those who produce this violent music. 1 Campbell , R. L. Part I: Power Feminist or Victim Feminist? 24 March 2004. |
training-culture-amcghbmgvaw-con04a | The 'Slippery-Slope' Argument Banning music that glorifies violence is at risk of the 'slippery-slope' of censorship, which occurs on two levels. Firstly that while music depicting violence towards women may be banned for the best intentions, this censorship may end up extending to other unpopular pieces of art, literature, film or news stories. It may follow that once music depicting violence is banned, that definition of violence may be expanded, afterwards that it is easier to ban songs that contain a political message as there is already precedent. While it is unlikely that it would ever be carried to such an extreme this could continue, until simply anything that is disliked by those in control of the banning is prohibited. It may also discourage people to say or publish expressions of their own for fear of them being considered pornography and being prosecuted1. Equally likely would be the spread of such bans to other forms of media as mentioned in opposition argument one.The second concern of the 'slippery slope' argument is that banning this type of music may cause a stagnation of creative output as people are scared to produce any music that might be considered offensive. This might result in no new styles of music being created and thus styles of music may begin to become torpid. 1Schauer, Frederick F, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982) |
training-culture-amcghbmgvaw-con03a | To ban music that encourages violence against women would be done with the intention of protecting women; if it is necessary to paint them as the victims of violence that they are, that is a small price to pay. Furthermore, bans on child pornography would Many of those who argue that censorship of music depicting violence towards women would be a bad thing do so on libertarian grounds. That is, they believe that to restrict the creation, circulation and consumption of this type of music would result in a restriction of people's freedom of speech/ expression. As some people enjoy and relate to the type of music that depicts these images, to deny people the right to listen to this music is to unfairly restrict their enjoyment and marginalise their tastes. Some people take this further to say that morbidity is part of the human condition. A consequence of our highly developed brains is that we become very conscious of our mortality, we become fascinated with violence as well because it is so closely linked to death, and we all want to understand death, we all want to know what happens after we die. So people end up seeking different ways of dealing with their fear of death, and one common way is desensitizing ourselves to the idea, perhaps through subjecting ourselves to an environment awash with death, i.e. music that depicts violence. This obviously extends to the creative aspect of humanity as well. We all spend a lot of time thinking about violence, so it is not really surprising that the most creative of us end up making art about it. From paintings, to music, to theatre, we are obsessed with violence in our entertainment, even gratuitous violence. We have famous painters like Francisco Goya who invoke gruesome violence for effect1 and who also receive critical acclaim; Stanley Kubrick won an Oscar nomination for directing A Clockwork Orange, a movie rampant with violence, sexuality and misogyny. Both these examples show violent art which have had both critical and commercial success. Therefore for the proposition argument to successfully defend the banning of music depicting violence towards women it would seem that we would equally have to ban films and paintings that display similar themes. This would result in a huge restriction of expression and society would potentially loose a vast amount of creative output. Furthermore from the examples given above it would seem that a ban would go against popular desire. 1 Francisco Jose de Goya. 'Saturn Devoursing his Son.' Wikipedia. |
training-culture-amcghbmgvaw-con04b | No 'slippery slope' situation exists. It would be clear that the ban only applies to music that glorifies violence. This is not a justification that could be infinitely expanded to cover more and more music and art. It could not be considered a precedent to ban music with a political message as most political messages do not promote violence. Far from stifling creativity it is likely to stimulate it. Artists would need to find new styles of music and would attempt to find ways around the ban while still keeping their music as near to its previous style as possible. |
training-culture-amcghbmgvaw-con02b | To ban music that encourages violence against women would be done with the intention of protecting women; if it is necessary to paint them as the victims of violence that they are, that is a small price to pay. Furthermore, bans on child pornography would not be met with claims that their ban merely encourages the view of children as victims (as an argument against the practise). Why is that any different in this case? improve this We desire freedom of expression. |
training-culture-aeuhbdcaal-pro02b | This argument is just specious. There have been plenty of times in history when medicine was ‘learnt on the job’, it didn’t make it a good idea. However, and medicine is an excellent example, we now realise that there is a huge benefit to having students acquire a theoretical underpinning of their discipline before going on to get some hands on experience. Of course there is some need for practical training but there is little reason why universities cannot offer this rather than individual artists. |
training-culture-aeuhbdcaal-pro02a | The Arts should be learnt on the job – it’s a craft The idea that the best place to learn an artform is a classroom is fantastically modern. The idea of teaching them at all is fairly recent. If ever there were an example of ‘those who can, do; those who can’t, teach’, then it’s the arts. Novelists, poets, painters, dancers, composers, musicians and others have been learning from each other as they practiced their art for, quite literally, millennia. Practitioners learning by doing has worked perfectly well for most of history and produced, for example, the extraordinary works of the renaissance or classical art mostly without the benefit of a university degree. All a degree in this area does is extend the period of delusion that an individual is good enough to cut it as a professional artist [i] . [i] Goldman, Jeremy, ‘Actors dilemma: Theatre major vs. No theatre major’ USA Today, 25 June 2012. |
training-culture-aeuhbdcaal-pro01b | Very few go into the arts expecting a high income, they do so because they enjoy it. Likewise, the very fact that people pay for the arts – both through their own purchases and social funding, suggests that the pleasure that performance - and other creative arts – gives is recognised by wider society. The output of the Arts sector provides entertainment and pleasure to others in a way that really cannot be said of, for example, banking or derivatives brokerage. By the by, it would also be interesting to see how any graduates in, say, the humanities are likely to match the earning potential of a movie star or an ‘it’ artist. |
training-culture-aeuhbdcaal-pro03a | Arts degrees limit opportunities for Universities to offer other courses Universities have to provide a range of courses, some of which are going to be more financially viable than others, that fine. However, investment in one area inevitably means that there are resources not being focused elsewhere. It’s not a huge factor but some subjects – creative arts, Theology and a few others do represent a ‘back door’ into universities for those who didn’t get the grades to get onto more demanding courses. Those students still need to sleep, study and socialize somewhere – in place of those who could have taken their places on Engineering, Medicine, Economics or similar courses had the space been available. By keeping these courses, universities are turning away students for other disciplines and those studying the arts courses are learning in a way that may not be the most productive – as mentioned in the previous argument. It’s difficult to see who wins. |
training-culture-aeuhbdcaal-con03b | Opp’s case sounds excellent, and reasonable and sensible. And complete nonsense. Those countries that have changed their fee arrangements for students in recent years, such as the UK, have seen that students are very concerned with whether their degree is likely to cover the cost of taking it – now that they are expected to pay for it. When it is society at large footing the bill, unsurprisingly, they are less concerned. Of course the financial outcome of doing a degree is of paramount interest to both the student and wider society, suggesting otherwise is sophistry. |
training-culture-aeuhbdcaal-con01b | Opp makes an excellent case for further refining the role of Higher Education but not a very satisfactory one for keeping it structured as it currently is. The whole point here is that nobody benefits – not the graduate, not the Arts and not the society that is footing the bill. The benefit to society of art would remain if the arts were no longer taught as university degrees. |
training-culture-aeuhbdcaal-con02a | The Arts pay their way in film, heritage and design industries The major film, theatrical, dance and other artistic ventures of any nation provide an enormous benefit in terms of reasons to visit as country, or travel within one. Going to the theatre, for example, has knock on benefits for the catering, transport, and retail sectors as well as crating employment in its own right for many who never went anywhere near a degree in the Arts [i] . For many nations one or two key sectors of the arts are massive revenue generators – especially film, television and music. Theatres and galleries have considerably more pulling power than heavy industry or high finance for tourists [ii] – and Prop has been very quiet on the subject of architecture, without which the bankers and financiers they so admire would be homeless. The arts may not square up to banking in terms of the amount of money earned for the economy but they also have much less of a record of damaging the rest of the economy through sparking crises. Even just focussing on the finances of the sector, the Arts justify their presence not only through their own revenue but also through those other sectors that benefit as a result but pay nothing towards their development [iii] . [i] Lord, Clayton, ‘The Value of Arts is Not Going to be Found in Economics’, New Beans, 19 May 2011. [ii] The National Campaign for the Arts. Theatre: Contribution to the Economy. 2010. [iii] National Endowment for the Arts. ‘Art and GDP.’, |
training-culture-aeuhbdcaal-con03a | The notion that money is the best way of judging value is far more damaging to society than the Arts If the value of a degree is judged purely on the likely salary at the end of it, then society has a very real problem. Even without rehearsing the fact that other disciplines would vanish by the wayside, it also ties into the myth that a degree is simply a vocational tool to increase the salary of the person taking it [i] . The mindset that insists that everything can be reduced to the level of individual income has also brought us the obscenity of the bonus culture in high finance and, so far, five years of recession. The value of the arts is primarily non-monetary; it comes from the psychological benefit of well-designed buildings [ii] or the happiness and creativity stimulated by engaging with a work of art. [iii] University fulfills a far wider societal role in terms of training the mind and socializing the individual. For the vast majority of students, it also provides a respite between the constrictions of the family home and those of the workplace. It is also just possible that people select their degrees primarily because they are interested in them. That in itself is something that cannot be said of significant parts of the world of work. The logic of this motion is that all members of society are employers – or at least wealth generators – first and last. Their role as voters, community members, parents, and plain human beings seems to be irrelevant to both the spirit and wording of the motion and the Proposition’s case. [i] Edgar, David, ‘Why should we fund the arts?’ The Guardian, 5 January 2012. [ii] Steadman, Ian, ‘Study: school design can significantly affect a child’s grades’, Wired.co.uk, 3 January 2013, [iii] Alleyne, Richard, ‘Viewing art gives same pleasure as being love’, The Telegraph, 8 May 2011, |
training-culture-aeuhbdcaal-con01a | The Arts provide huge benefits to society; easily comparable to humanities or theoretical science It has already been mentioned that there are plenty of degrees where it is unlikely that graduates will ever use the knowledge they acquire, per se, in their later careers. Proposition has failed to give a reason – other than earning power – as to why the creative arts should be singled out on this ground [i] . However, in terms of the general utility provided to wider society, it would be hard to point to a discipline that out performs the arts. Every TV drama, theatre production, concert and so on is likely to include at least a smattering of participants who studied the subject. It is in the nature of the arts that its audience massively outnumbers those participating in its production. Beyond that the trickle down affect of knowledge into every area of public life from ideas and concepts initiated by artists is enormous. However, if Prop’s entire case is that artists should be paid more for the enormous amount of good they do, we are quite happy to concede the point. [i] McCarthy, Kevin F. et al., ‘Reframing the Debate About the Value of the Arts.’, The Rand Corporation, 2005, |
training-culture-aeuhbdcaal-con02b | This is a little like saying that the petroleum industry benefits from medicine because of the need for ambulances. People would still go out for dinner and still take holidays. More to the point, as has been suggested, they will still go the theatre or cinema, where people will still act. The issue here is that Universities are unnecessary in the process of training creative artists. |
training-culture-cgmmcthbrt-pro02b | Reality TV does not discourage hard work or education, rather it creates a society whereby we have shared experiences and a strong sense of community. As such, reality TV provides an important social glue. Once upon a time there were only a few television channels, and everybody watched the same few programmes. The sense of a shared experience helped to bind people together, giving them common things to talk about at work and school the next day – “water cooler moments”. Reality programs like ‘Survivor’ play that role in contemporary society with viewership being ‘almost a cultural imperative’, the experience shared simultaneously with friends and family.1 Furthermore, even if it were the case that the moral lessons of reality programmes are not always advisable, just as viewers can empathize with characters in the Godfather without wanting to be them, the same applies to questionable characters and actions in reality shows.2 1 Sanneh, K. (2011, May 9). The Reality Principle. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The New Yorker 2 Poniewozik, J. (2003) All the News That Fits Your Reality Retrieved July 4, 2011, from TIME MAGAZINE |
training-culture-cgmmcthbrt-pro02a | Reality TV encourages people to pursue celebrity status, and discourages the value of hard work and an education Reality shows send a bad message and help to create a cult of instant celebrity. They are typically built about shameless self-promotion, based on humiliating others and harming relationships for the entertainment of each other and the viewers at home. These programmes suggest that anyone can become famous just by getting on TV and "being themselves", without working hard or having any particular talent. Kids who watch these shows will get the idea that they don't need to study hard in school, or train hard for a regular job. As John Humphrys points out, 'we tell kids what matters is being a celebrity and we wonder why some behave the way they do' 1 As American lawyer Lisa Bloom fears, 'addiction to celebrity culture is creating a generation of dumbed-down women.'2 Reality shows encourage such addictions and promote the generally misguided belief that they should aspire to be the reality stars they watch on their televisions. 1 Humphrys, J. (2004, August 28). Take this oath: First, do no harm. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Guardian: 2 Becker, A. (2003, March 1). Hot or Not: Reality TV can be harmful to women. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from Pyschology Today |
training-culture-cgmmcthbrt-con02a | Reality TV can be educational and have real effects in society in a way other television programmes do not Reality TV can be very educational. They educate people by displaying disastrous consequences of someone's behaviour, thus deterring others from doing unplanned and silly actions. Programmes such as "The Apprentice" have made people think about business. Jamie Oliver has raised issues of youth unemployment and poor diet, and "Fit Club" has got people thinking about health and fitness. Jamie Oliver's inaugural reality show, 'Jamie's Kitchen', offered jobless youngsters the 'chance to train and lead a nationwide campaign to improve the quality of school meals'1. Without the TV show's popularity funding the initiative, the youngsters involved would not have had such an opportunity and school meals would still reflect what kids want to eat, not what they should be eating. Such effects on society are beneficial and should be encouraged, not restricted. 1 Jury, L. (2007, January 4). The Big Question: Has reality television had its day, or are audiences still attracted to it? Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Independent |
training-culture-cgmmcthbrt-con03a | The public can always just turn reality programmes off, or watch something else Television provides a wide mixture of programmes, including reality television. For those who want it, there is high quality drama such as "The Sopranos" or "Pride and Prejudice" whilst the BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera and other international broadcasters also cover news and current affairs in great depth. Wildlife programmes on the National Geographic or Discovery bring the wonders of the natural world into our living rooms. More sports are covered in more detail than ever before. So, ultimately, reality shows have not ruined television as a whole, they have merely added another option for viewers. Indeed, because they make a lot of money for broadcasters to spend on other types of programmes, they are actually good for all viewers, regardless of personal taste for genres. |
training-culture-cgmmcthbrt-con04b | Reality TV is less about exposing society and allowing us to evaluate our own behaviour than it is about 're-inforcing particular social norms'1. As such, it is deliberately misleading. If it is portrayed as being real, it implies authenticity and honesty, two things that most reality TV programmes are not. They serve not to challenge our views of society, but reinforce the often false notions we already collectively hold. For example, the US reality show "Are You Hot?" asks competitors to submit to appearance-rating by judges, only re-inforcing the false premise that one is defined solely by the way they look2. Furthermore, even if accepted that reality shows do present a 'real' image of society, programmes like Big Brother and Survivor erode the distinction between public and private, turning 'people with real lives and real problems and real children (into) entertainment'3. Society's entertainment cannot be allowed to come at the expense of the privacy that protects families and children. 1 Sanneh, K. (2011, May 9). The Reality Principle. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The New Yorker 2 Becker, A. (2003, March 1). Hot or Not: Reality TV can be harmful to women. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from Pyschology Today 3 Humphrys, J. (2004, August 28). Take this oath: First, do no harm. Retrieved July 4, 2011, from The Guardian: |
training-culture-mthspsb-pro01a | PSBs provide quality and original content that can cater for niche or commercially unattractive market segments PSBs create unique content which private broadcasters would be unable to produce as they strive for mass market appeal to satisfy the demands placed upon them by commercial interests looking to purchase advertising. PSBs create more educational and minority output which enriches society rather than just entertaining it. PSBs can concentrate on creating high quality programming across all genres rather than simply producing mediocre populist programming such as low-cost game shows and reality TV. For example it is unlikely that commercial broadcasters would have aired nightly university lectures as the BBC did with its partnership with the Open University. PSBs are usually among the highest investors in the domestic content industries and nurture local creative talent. |
training-culture-mthspsb-con03b | Public ownership of broadcasting is good for the citizen/consumer, as it is free once your license fee or taxes have been paid. With the erosion of advertising revenues streams, private broadcasting companies are seeking to make popular programming (such as sports events, concerts or films) subscription based, a trend which risks excluding poorer audiences and threatens social cohesion. Nor is it in the interest of current private broadcasters to see their public rivals privatized and forced to accept advertising, as the overall increase in advertising space would drive down the amount broadcasters could charge advertisers for a spot, reducing their revenues and profits. |
training-culture-mthspsb-con01b | It is true that government should not be allowed a monopoly over broadcasting, but that is very rare outside totalitarian states. Usually countries have at least one privately owned broadcasting network competing with the public media and so limiting political manipulation by the State. In addition, corporatization, as with the BBC in the UK, or CBC in Canada, sets the broadcaster up as accurate and impartial, allowing for the benefits of public ownership without the risk of political interference. Instead, the greatest risk of bias lies within a purely private broadcasting sector, where the high costs of entry and technological development encourage consolidation to the point where powerful individuals, such as Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, can manipulate the broadcast agenda in their own interests. Without the balance guaranteed by public service media, meaningful participation by all citizens in the social and political lives of their societies and fair elections might become impossible. |
training-culture-mthspsb-con03a | PSBs funding sources give them an unfair advantage in the broadcasting market, harming competition. Public ownership of the media distorts competition, harming private companies in their domestic marketplace and their ability to compete internationally. It does this because the government is funding a service that could be supplied profitably by the private sector - for example, a pop music radio station or the broadcast of sporting events. The market share of private companies inevitably suffers, along with their ability to raise advertising revenue based upon the size of their audience. This means that private broadcasters end up with less money to spend on their programmes and are less well placed to compete internationally. James Murdoch, son of the medal mogul Rupert Murdoch, in his MacTaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh Television Festival in 2009 echoed this opinion stating that the free news output by the BBC “"threatens the provision of news in Britain". [1] [1] The Independent (2009) The BBC’s Unhealthy Dominance. [Accessed 1st June 2011] Available at: |
training-culture-tphwpac-pro02b | Indigenous populations have no more right to special government treatment than other minority groups. Even indigenous populations did not inhabit their current territory from the dawn of time, and many ethnic groups around the world live where they do because they were pushed out of some other territory hundreds or thousands of years ago. Virtually every ethnic group in the world has been conquered and abused by some other group. Tracing the entirety of human history to determine which group owes reparations to which other group is unproductive; rather, governments should move forward to promote a better standard of living for all citizens. |
training-culture-tphwpac-pro02a | Existing states are responsible for the destruction of indigenous populations and their societies, and thereby have an obligation to help reverse the effects of their actions The Indian Removal Act of 18301, the 1871 Indian Appropriations Act, and the 1887 General Allotment Act are just a few examples of legislation used to destroy Native American communities in the US2. Settlers in Australia are similarly responsible for a multitude of massacres3, as well as several decades of forced separation of aboriginal children from their parents in an effort to "Christianize" them4. While the current citizens of Canada, the US, and Australia are not guilty of the crimes of their predecessors, they nevertheless reap the benefits of those atrocities while today's indigenous populations still suffer from the lasting impact of oppression. When chemical companies make huge profits at the expense of damaging the surrounding community's environment, those companies are expected to pay reparations. A government that destroys an indigenous culture must similarly work to reverse their destruction. 1 Indian Treaty and Removal Act of 1830, U.S. Department of State. 2 Preamble to the Trail of Broken Treaties 20-Point Position Paper: An Indian Manifesto. American Indian Movement, 1972. 3 History of Australian Aboriginal Massacres, Treaty Republic, 2011. 4"Living With the Past," FOCUS September 1997, Vol. 9, Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center. |
training-culture-tphwpac-pro03b | The government should rely on just legal systems to protect the rights of indigenous people, not cultural preservation. A constitution that enumerates rights and a court system that scrutinizes government activity is a much more direct and reliable venue of protecting indigenous rights than sporadic funding for cultural programs. |
training-culture-tphwpac-pro01a | All of society benefits from protection of indigenous culture Across the United States, Australia, and Canada, native customs are often tied closely to the land. For example, while descendants of the Sioux Indians of the American Midwest may no longer hunt buffalo, learning about traditional means of hunting, animal use, rituals involving the surrounding wildlife, means of ensuring a sustainable food supply, and other cultural norms related to the land gives people a greater appreciation for the land they now inhabit. Exposure to traditions that have been practiced in one's land for thousands of years helps us to appreciate the legacy we have inherited. This does not just benefit the direct descendants of those practicing these traditions but the whole of society. |
training-culture-tphwpac-pro01b | Protecting indigenous culture is unlikely to have a significant impact on the general population. Native groups often live in relative isolation, thereby having little contact with people outside the community. Furthermore, antiquated forms of hunting and cultivating food that were used over a hundred years ago have little relevance to the modern environment in which people live. Learning about these traditions is unlikely to impact the public's perception of its environment because the public is unlikely to make an emotional connection between these traditions and their modern homes. |
training-culture-tphwpac-pro04b | Governments also ignore or destroy culture all the time. Historic and significant buildings are built to build infrastructure, traditions are lost through an unwillingness to provide funding to prevent it from dying. When governments protect culture they inevitably protect one over the others. This is nearly always the culture of the majority. Instead it is not for the government to promote or protect any culture over others rather it should be left to private individuals and each cultural group to promote their own culture. |
training-culture-tphwpac-pro03a | The preservation of displaced cultures is important in preventing future oppression. Notions of cultural superiority virtually always influence displacement and abuse of indigenous cultures. For example, when the government of Botswana expelled the Kalahari Bushmen from their land in 2002, President Mogai defended his actions by describing the bushmen as "stone age creatures."1 This cultural insensitivity, in addition to the incentive of material gains, led the Botswani government to violate the tribe's rights. By preserving indigenous culture, governments recognize the value of these groups and prevent future hostility. 1 John Simpson, "Bushmen Fight for Homeland," BBC, 2005 |
training-culture-tphwpac-pro04a | Governments protect culture every day Governments already protect culture so it is not a big step to apply the same protections to aboriginal culture as well. In school, students learn about traditional art and their national history. For example, the state of California compiles reading lists that largely include Shakespeare, Virgil, and John Steinback, though also including ethnic authors like Maya Angelou1. Governments recognize days like Christmas and New Years and fund programs that promote the arts. States recognize marriage and structure divorce and custody laws based on cultural norms of gender roles and family responsibility. If a government can protect the norms on one culture in society, there is no reason that the government should not also protect the culture of those who first inhabited the land. This current protection makes it easy to build on, to make highlight more aboriginal culture, recognize their festivals etc. 1 California Reading List, California Department of Education, 2011. |
training-culture-tphwpac-con03b | Mainstream cultural norms are so pervasive in every aspect of society that without an active effort, indigenous values and traditions will be lost. Preserving culture often involves funding- whether it is for a theatre group, art show, language program, or other means of cultural expression. In countries like the US and Australia, indigenous groups make up less than 3% of the current population; 1;2 without assistance from the government, it is unlikely these groups would be able to sustain such cultural efforts and as a result their culture would not have any chance to evolve. 1 Race - Universe: Total Population, U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder, 2009. 2 Experimental Estimates and Projections, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 1991, to 2021, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2009. |
training-culture-tphwpac-con03a | Culture evolves over time and is largely impacted by improved standards of living and exposure to other cultures Virtually all cultures around the world have changed radically over the past two hundred years; if a government takes action towards "preserving" an indigenous culture, it is interfering with the group's ability to mold their identity to fit the modern world on their own terms. For example, the Australian and American governments have tried to appease native groups by offering land for reserves where they may lead a traditional lifestyle. Native individuals, however, often do not want to live in isolation, and would rather adapt their culture to an urban environment where they can have a higher standard of living. |
training-culture-tphwpac-con04b | Anarchy is not necessary for culture to exist. Legal restrictions do impact cultural norms; for example, Native American use of peyote for religious ceremonies is permitted only at the discretion of state governments1. However, restrictions on drug use have not turned native cultural expression into a meaningless practice. Rather, the fact that native groups must conform to external standards is more reason for the government to make an active effort to protect indigenous culture. In the previous example, the US government acknowledged that Native American use of peyote in religious ceremonies is different from typical drug use, and consequently permits such peyote use (with limitations). It is this active effort to respect native culture that allowed Native Americans to preserve their religious practice. 1Elijah Sweete, "Peyote in Short Supply," The Moderate Voice, 2010. |
training-culture-tphwpac-con02b | Immigrant populations generally do not retain their cultural distinctiveness in the long run; while the first generation may be heavily influenced by their parents' culture, this influence fades by the second generation. Immigrant assimilation is actually proof that government assistance would be useful to native groups. |
training-culture-cgpdhwecns-con01b | It could be done in much the same way as with sportsman where ‘exceptional achievement’ is recognised concept and, while difficult to define, is easy to apply. As long as the whole process takes place transparently it should ensure that it is not abused. The issue is not so much introducing exemptions to the universality of the current system but, rather, ensuring the transparency of the process. There are already abuses of the system with the children of the powerful, the so called ‘sons of gods’ often finding ways around the law. That is not a difficulty of definition, it’s simple corruption. |
training-culture-cgpdhwecns-con03a | There are many professions that could more sensibly be given exemption such as teachers Only in a world truly and unhealthily obsessed with the cult of celebrity would pop singers and soap stars be at the top of the list for exemptions to military service. Surely scientists and surgeons would have a better claim. Indeed with shortages of professionals reported in both science and technology [1] it would seem to make far more sense to offer opt outs there in an effort to encourage more people to study the subjects at university and to make their careers in those areas. On the basis that people are not even given an exemption on the basis of religious or moral conviction, it seems perverse to give exemptions on the basis of fame [2] . [1] [2] |
training-culture-mmchbnatp-pro01a | People no longer consume media in a linear way, people prefer to pick and choose what news they consume With the development of Digital Video Recorders (DVRs) and more generally the internet people have come to no longer simply consume media in a linear fashion, they take a more fragmented approach. In news consumption people no longer want to simply have one newspaper with a vast array of topics inside. They want to pick and choose which stories and columns they consume, people now prefer to pull the content they want rather than have it pushed on them. In a digital world the news consumer can become their own editor and no longer need to rely entirely on old hierarchical structures. |
training-digital-freedoms-fesngbunc-con02a | CIRP would place power in the hands of authoritarian governments The intention for the creation of CIRP is to give more power to governments, and particularly to authoritarian governments that wish much greater control over the internet. If CIRP is meant to enable “enhanced cooperation to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet” [1] this may result in CIRP becoming an international organisation that would impose censorship on the internet. This is practically an inevitable result as the main tool of government is regulation. In the case of the internet such regulation will mean more controls on what users can and cannot do online. The result is likely to be similar to the U.N. Human Rights Council where many of the world’s biggest human rights abusers are regularly elected and Israel and the U.S. are constantly investigated while a blind eye is turned to many abuses. [2] At the very least such control will provide an enabler that will allow countries that want to censor the internet to shelter behind the international organisation. India’s Minister of Communications and Information Technology Kapil Sibal has said the solution to this problem of objectionable content online should be permanent "That will only happen when we talk to all the stakeholders and form such a mechanism under which any objectionable content is removed," [3] [1] ‘Full text: India’s United Nations proposal to control the Internet’, IBNLive, 21 May 2012. [2] Ayalon, Danny, ‘Theater of the Absurd’, Foreign Policy, 30 March 2012. [3] Julka, Harsomran, ‘Internet censorship: India to push for internet regulation at United Nations’, The Economic Times, 24 August 2012. |
training-digital-freedoms-fesngbunc-con03a | The status quo has been very successful; don’t fix something that is not broken. The current system for control of the internet has been successful in managing phenomenal growth in the internet with very few problems. ICANN has been a success precisely because it does not focus on politics but on making the internet as efficient as possible, in contrast the telecommunications sector remained static and costly for a long time as a result of government interference. [1] Experts such as Rajnesh Singh argue ICANN’s “multi-stakeholder approach has proven to be nimble and effective in ensuring the stability, security, and availability of the global infrastructure, while still giving sovereign nations the flexibility to enact and enforce relevant Internet legislation within their borders… This model has been a key contributor to the breathtaking evolution and expansion of the Internet worldwide.” [2] It is this openness that has contributed to the internet generating 10% of GDP growth in the rich world over the last fifteen years. [3] The change to CIRP would cause a lot of disruption; it would mean changing the current bottom up model of regulation to a top down model such as that used by the ITU. [4] The White House has highlighted the likely effect this would have on the internet; “Centralized control over the Internet through a top-down government approach would put political dealmakers, rather than innovators and experts, in charge of the future of the Internet. This would slow the pace of innovation, hamper global economic development, and lead to an era of unprecedented control over what people can say and do online.” [5] [1] ‘America rules OK’, The Economist, 6th October 2005. [2] Kwang, Kevin, ‘’Multi-stakeholder’ management of Internet should stay’, ZDNet, 15 June 2012. [3] ‘In praise of chaos’, The Economist, 1 October 2011. [4] ‘OECD input to the United Nations Working Group on Internet Governance’, OECD. [5] Strickling, Lawrence, Verveer, Philip, and Weitzner, Daniel, ‘Ensuring an Open Internet’, Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2 May 2012. |
training-digital-freedoms-fesngbunc-con02b | CIRP would give some influence to authoritarian governments; among 50 governments represented some are bound to be from non-democracies. This influence would however be counterbalanced by the democracies that are represented. The United Nations have a good track record of including as many as possible through the tradition of making decisions by consensus [1] which will prevent states that might wish to use CIRP in ways that other states would not agree with from succeeding. [1] Kurup, Deepa, ‘Who controls the World Wide Web’, The Hindu, 27 May 2012. |
training-digital-freedoms-gtdfais-pro03b | Other means can be employed to ensure the safety of the population without disrupting access to the internet, like deploying security forces to make sure protests don’t get out of hand or turn violent. In fact, being able to monitor online activity through social media like Facebook and Twitter might actually aid, rather than hinder law enforcement in ensuring the safety of the public. London’s police force, the Metropolitan Police, in the wake of the riots has are using software to monitor social media to predict where social disorder may take place. [1] [1] Adams, Lucy, 2012. “Police develop technology to monitor social neworks”. Heraldscotland, 6 August 2012. |
training-digital-freedoms-gtdfais-con03b | Being able to witness atrocities from the field in real time does not change the international community’s capacity or political willingness to intervene in such situations. If anything, it has had the unfortunate side effect of desensitizing international public opinion to the horrors of war and conflicts, like the one in Syria where there have been thousands of videos showing the actions of the Syrian government but this has not resulted in action from the international community. [1] The onslaught of gruesome, graphic imagery has made people more used to witnessing such scenes from afar and less likely to be outraged and to ask their governments to intervene. [1] Harding, Luke, 2012. “Syria’s video activists give revolution the upper hand in media war”. Guardian.co.uk, 1 August 2012. |
training-digital-freedoms-gtdfais-con03a | The prevention of atrocities during war and unrest. In the past, horrific crimes could be committed in war zones without anyone ever knowing about it, or with news of it reaching the international community with a significant time lag, when it was too late to intervene. But with the presence of internet connected mobile devices everywhere, capable of uploading live footage within seconds of an event occurring, the entire world can monitor and find out what is happening on the scene, in real time. It lets repressive regimes know the entire world is watching them, that they cannot simply massacre their people with impunity, and it creates evidence for potential prosecutions if they do. It, therefore, puts pressure on them to respect the rights of their citizens during such precarious times. To prevent governments from violently stamping out public political dissent without evidence, internet access must be preserved, especially in times of war or political unrest. [1] [1] Bildt, Carl, 2012. “A Victory for The Internet”. New York Times. 5 July 2012. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehbwdsot-pro01a | Repressive governments rely on internet censorship to stifle dissent and entrench their power The internet has become the ultimate platform for dissent within repressive regimes. It breaks the government monopoly on information and communication. As the technology governments have to keep control of their people increases, with access to high-tech surveillance technology, CCTV, wiretaps, etc., the internet has become the only means of people to express their anger and to organize that is not entirely under state control. The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia wherein people mobilized to overthrow their dictator, Ben Ali, involved numerous internet tools to share information and coordinate their efforts. [1] Yet in many countries the internet too is highly censored, with security services investigating online posters and bringing them in for their version of justice, denying access to parts of the internet through state censors, and even ordering internet service providers to abide by strict censorship rules. Yahoo, for example, has bent the knee to China’s severe censorship laws in order to maintain its lucrative market in the country. [2] All of these factors have compounded to make internet dissent risky, and much harder for inquisitive minds to get access to information that is critical of their governments. By dominating the flow of information states have the power to keep their people in check and prevent them from ever posing a threat to their repressive status quo. Only external help in alleviating this censorship could allow activists to organize effectively and perhaps to one day bring about genuine reform and justice to their societies. [1] Zuckerman, Ethan, ‘The First Twitter Revolution?’, Foreign Policy, 14 January 2011, [2] Gunther, Marc, ‘Tech execs get grilled over China business’, Fortune, 16 February 2006, |
training-digital-freedoms-fehbwdsot-con03b | Western companies must be governed by codes of ethics. These should not merely stop at the border of their home state. If they are to be ethical actors they must uphold the freedoms they claim to value. If this means not being able to profit massively in markets so be it. Western governments should have little sympathy for firms profiting from and aiding in the oppression of peoples. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehbwdsot-con02a | Circumvention of internet censorship will galvanize more severe, physical repression to compensate its need for security Oppressive regimes will not be any less oppressive just because Western states seek to undermine their ability to censor the internet. They still rely on fear and force to control and cow the population into submission, and have honed many means of doing so. Technology has aided in doing this, including things like advanced surveillance equipment. But they have always relied heavily on, and have their greatest expertise in, physical repression and the strength of the security services. Even if dissidents are able to access the internet more effectively, the security services will feel it all the more necessary to crack down by more conventional, far less sightly means. At the same time as cutting off the internet in Burma the authorities were engaged in brutal arrests in a crackdown that killed several hundred dissidents, it was this that was more important. [1] Western governments do very little in this policy to actually effect meaningful change, because they do nothing to address the underlying institutions of oppression. Sure the internet is an important tool for organizing protest and opposition to the government, but they will now have to contend with a government with a heightened sense of threat that can only serve to harm them. [1] AP, ‘UK: Myanmar deaths ‘far greater’ than reported’, CNN, 28 September 2007, |
training-digital-freedoms-fehbwdsot-con02b | There is only so much that governments can do to oppress their people. Even if this policy did embolden repressive states to ramp up their other means of control, the genie of the internet would be out of the bottle. Without it, dissident groups would find it impossible to ever successfully organize and rebel. It is not a trade-off of one form of oppression for another, but is rather a recognition that Western countries must accept that oppressive regimes will take nasty decisions in reprisal in the short term, while being unable to maintain their firm grip on the public once it is armed with the information and organizational power the internet provides. |
training-digital-freedoms-gthwpffha-pro02a | Financial dealings can indicate candidates’ willingness to circumvent the system/play by the rules A lot of politicians come from positions of prestige and power before seeking public office. Many politicians have wealth in their own right, or a base of wealthy supporters. Understanding where that wealth came from and how they used their privileged position is very important to citizens when choosing their leaders. Access to candidates’ financial information allows good candidates to show their honesty and financial uprightness, and sometimes even to display their talent and acumen that allowed them to succeed. More importantly, it allows people to scrutinize the dealings of politicians who used their often privileged position to avoid paying high taxes and to shield their wealth from the public taking its legal due. What these insights provide is a valuable snapshot of what candidates are willing to do to promote their own interests versus those of the state and society. It shows if there is a propensity to engage in morally dubious practices, and such behavior could well be extrapolated to be a potential incentive to corrupt practice. While tax avoidance is not illegal, it can well be considered unjust when rigorously applied, especially considered that the special knowledge necessary to profit from it belongs only to those of wealth and privilege. The value of this knowledge was made particularly clear in the case of Mitt Romney’s presidential bid. When Romney released his tax returns it became painfully clear that he was using the system to his advantage, at the expense of the taxpayer. [1] Citizens deserve to know to what lengths, if any, those who wish to represent them are willing to game the system they would be elected to lead. [1] Drucker, J. “Romney Avoids Taxes Via Loophole Cutting Mormon Donations”. Bloomberg. 29 October 2012, |
training-digital-freedoms-gthwpffha-pro01b | So long as politicians do their duty by representing the interests of those that elected them, they are fulfilling their end of the covenant with the people. To demand the financial records of candidates will not offer more than crude snapshot of one aspect of their lives, not giving the desired insight into their character, while massively intruding on the politician’s personal life. As is often the case here the right to know conflicts with the candidates right to privacy. Of course it is right to know if a candidate pays his taxes, but do they need to know every expense he has incurred over the last few years or how much a candidate earned years ago? |
training-digital-freedoms-gthwpffha-pro03a | This information offers valuable texture to the financial proposals candidates offer as potential policy When candidates make proposals for public spending they often seek to use their own financial stories as evidence of their credibility. Without public knowledge of their actual financial record, besides what can be gleaned from secondary sources and their words, these claims cannot be evaluated fully by the voting public. Publishing their financial records allows the citizens to get a genuine grasp of their –would-be representatives abilities. More importantly, the proposals of candidates can be scrutinized in relation to how the candidate, and those of the same financial stratum as the candidate, would benefit from them. When Mitt Romney proposed new tax and spending reforms in the last US presidential election, it was clear that his policies inordinately favored the rich and increased the tax burden of the middle class. [1] Understanding Romney’s personal position of great wealth served confirm to the public their suspicions that his policies were designed to favor the financial elite of which he was a part. It is in the public’s interest to elect representatives who serve their interests, not those of moneyed elites. [1] Dwyer, P. “Surprise! Romney Tax Plan Favors the Rich”. Bloomberg. 1 August 2012. |
training-digital-freedoms-gthwpffha-con02a | Fixating on candidates’ financial records fuels the fire of class war More and more the financial dealings of candidates are used against them in politics. In past decades, politicians in many countries were proud to run on the basis of their successes in the private sector. Today, however, that success has often become a liability. One only need look at the paradigmatic example of this occurrence, Mitt Romney. When running for governor in Massachusetts, his strong record in business was touted as a quality favoring him. Yet in the presidential election, Romney’s wealth was touted as an example of capitalist excess, of often ill-gotten gains. [1] The change in rhetoric has indicated marked shift in politics in a number of countries, most visibly the United States, but also places like France, where the development of wealth and success are deemed to be the marks of greed and unfairness. These trends would only be compounded with the release of candidates’ financial records. People with records of wealth and financial ability will be further demonized as being anti-poor. These sorts of political tactics obscure from the realities of politics and seeks to separate people along class, rather than political ideological, lines. Such divisions are exceptionally dangerous to the functioning of a democratic society, which demands buy-in and willing participation from all classes and groups in order to function. [1] Erb, K. “Why Romney’s ‘Tax Avoidance’ Strategies Don’t Deserve Criticism”. Forbes. 30 October 2012. |
training-digital-freedoms-gthwpffha-con02b | Firstly, personal wealth may not be indicative of political belief. Wealthy people can be advocates for higher taxes and workers’ rights. Secondly, maybe creating class awareness is not such a bad thing. The revelation of candidates’ personal finances will help show average voters what their leaders are actually like, that they have acquired great wealth and seek to protect it. Consciousness about these things can only help to galvanize political participation and to stoke real discourse about things like the proper distribution of wealth, issues that often fall foul of the political mainstream of party politics. |
training-digital-freedoms-sfydfphwap-pro04a | Monitoring raises digital awareness among parents. Parents who are willing to monitor their children’s digital communications also benefit themselves. By setting up the necessary software and apps to secure their children’s online growth, parents familiarize themselves with basic digital skills and keep up with the latest in social media. As it stands there is a need to raise digital awareness among most parents. Sonia Livingston and Magdalena Bober in their extensive survey of the cyber experience of UK children and their parents report that “among parents only 1 in 3 know how to set up an email account, and only a fifth or fewer are able to set up a filter, remove a virus, download music or fix a problem.” [1] Parents becoming more digitally involved as a result of their children provides the added benefit of increasing the number of mature netizens so encouraging norms of good behavior online. [1] Livingstone, Sonia, and Magdalena Bober. “UK Children Go Online: Surveying the experiences of young people and their parents.” UK Children Go Online. Second Report (2004): 1-61. |
training-digital-freedoms-sfydfphwap-con04a | Monitoring is a hindrance to forming relationships both outside and inside the family. If children are being monitored, or if it seems to children that they are being monitored, they would immediately lose trust in their parents. As trust is reciprocal, children will also learn not to trust others. This will result in their difficulty in forging human connections, thereby straining their psychosocial growth. For them to learn how to trust therefore, children must know that they can break their parents’ trust (as said by the proposition before). This will allow them to understand, obey, and respect their parents on their own initiative, allowing them to respect others in the same manner as well. [1] This growth would only be possible if parents refuse this proposition and instead choose to educate their children how to be responsible beforehand. [1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013. |
training-digital-freedoms-sfydfphwap-con01a | This proposal is simply an invasion of privacy. Children have as much right to privacy as any adult. Unfortunately there is yet to be a provision on the protection of privacy in either the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights, though the Supreme Court states that the concept of privacy rooted within the framework of the Constitution. [1] This ambiguity causes confusion among parents regarding the concept of child privacy. Many maintain that privacy should be administered to a child as a privilege, not a right. [2] Fortunately, the UNCRC clearly states that “No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation,” [3] making child privacy an automatic right. Just as children should receive privacy in the real world, so too should they in the digital world. Individual rights, including right to privacy, shape intrafamilial relationships because they initiate individuality and independence. [1] [1] Shmueli, Benjamin, and Ayelet Blecher-Prigat. “Privacy for Children.” Columbia Human Rights Review. Rev. 759 (2010-2011): 760-795. Columbia Law School. Web. May 2013. P.764 [2] Brenner, Susan. “The Privacy Privilege.” CYB3RCRIM3. Blogspot. 3 April 2009. May 2013. [3] United Nations Children’s Fund. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Fully revised 3rd edition. Geneva. United Nations Publications. Google Search. Web. May 2013. |
training-digital-freedoms-pidfakhwcs-pro02a | Research produced with public funding is too important to be left in the hands of universities alone The creators and producers of novel work, literary, scientific, other research, etc. enjoy large and sweeping protections due to the intellectual property rights enshrined in law in all developed countries. These laws restrict public use of these researches, which can only occur with the express permission of the owners of these works. But the research that is deemed worthy of state funding must pass a test of importance, and must be of enough social significance to make it worth doling out limited research and development money. Universities, as the important and vibrant centres of learning and research in the world, are a critical part of states’ efforts to remain relevant and competitive in a world of rapid technological change. States fund many universities, in much of Europe accounting for the vast majority of university funding as a whole, across the EU almost 85% of funding is from public sources, [1] and they currently do not get their money’s worth. Even when states gain partial ownership of the products of research and the patents that arise from state funding to university scientists and researchers they do not serve their full duty to the people they represent. Rather, the state should be ensuring that the information produced is made fully available to the people for their use and for the real benefit of all, not just the profit of a few institutions. Universities are as aggressively protective of their patents and discoveries as much as any profit-seeking private firm, but the state should instead seek to minimize these urges by altering the sorts of arrangements it makes with universities. Research into new theories, medicines, technologies, etc. are all important to society and should be fostered with public funding where necessary. The state best ensures the benefit of society by making sure that when it agrees to fund a research program it guarantees that the information produced will be fully available to all citizens to enjoy and benefit from. More than just attaining a result, the state needs to give its funding maximum exposure so it can be maximally utilized. [1] Vught, F., et al. (2010) “Funding Higher Education: A View Across Europe”, Ben Jongbloed Center for Higher Education Policy Studies University of Twente. |
training-digital-freedoms-pidfakhwcs-con03b | The expansion of knowledge that throwing all information generated in universities with state-funded research into the public domain would precipitate a vastly more influential effect on the process of research and development. Far from stifling innovation, more people would be able to examine and build upon research, magnifying the value of the initial work. What is lost from the disincentives of some institutions from taking public funding will be more than made up for by the vast knowledge base of the whole of society that now has the ability to generate derivative works for everyone’s further benefit. |
training-digital-freedoms-pidfakhwcs-con01b | Publicly funded research is not the sole property of researchers, indeed Universities demand to keep the rights not the individual researchers so the individual inventor or researcher is not benefiting at all from any profits. [1] When the state chooses to fund an area of academic work it is doing so for the benefit for all of society, not just for the profit of a single researcher, group, or university organisation. The only way for the state to fully do its duty in providing for its citizens is for it to demand that the products of its funding be made available to the public who pay for its development. [1] Anon. (28 July 2005) “Guidelines on the Ownership of Data University of Louisville”, University of Lousiville. |
training-digital-freedoms-pidfakhwcs-con03a | The disincentive to take public funding will stifle advancement in valuable fields that rely on the university infrastructure Research and development relies on the profit motive to spur it on, even in the hallowed halls of academia. Without the guarantee of ownership over the products of state-funded research the desire to engage in such activities is significantly blunted. This is a major blow to the intellectual development of society because it serves as a breaker between two institutions that work best when their interests are aligned, the state and the university. Universities are the great bastions of learning, institutions that bring together the best and brightest to dedicate themselves to the furtherance of human understanding. The state has the resources of a nation to deploy in the public interest. By funding academic research in universities, the state can get more valuable information more cheaply it can through setting up its own research institutions. The universities have the expertise and the basic infrastructure that the state is best served not duplicating unnecessarily. But partnerships between universities and the state are only possible when the universities and their researchers are guaranteed the protections necessary to merit their own investment and attention to the state-funded project. Thus the best system is one that harnesses the brain power and financial incentives of the universities and channels their efforts to the public interest. While Universities and the State cooperate on most research the State is often unwilling to fully fund research with for example many federal agencies in the United States demanding cost sharing when sponsoring projects. [1] This means that the university still needs to find funding either from foundations or other private sources. These third parties, particularly if they are institutions that desire profits, will strongly object to not being able to realise any profit from the research and are therefore much less likely to engage in joining such research. When universities retain full ownership rights while the information they create may not be freely available, at least it comes into existence in the first place and can then be put to profitable and socially valuable work by the universities. [1] Anon. (November 2010), “Research & Sponsored Projects”, University of Michigan. |
training-digital-freedoms-pidfakhwcs-con01a | A publicly-funded inventor or researcher still deserves to profit from their efforts The developer of a new idea, theory, technology, invention, etc. has a fundamental intellectual property right. Academics in universities, through deliberate effort create new things and ideas, and those efforts demand huge amounts of personal sacrifice and invention in order to bear fruit. State funding is often given to pioneering researchers who eschew traditional roads in pursuit of new frontiers. Often there are no obvious profits to be immediately had, and it is only because of the desire of these individuals to expand the canon of human knowledge that these boundaries are ever pushed. It is a matter of principle that these academics be able to benefit from the fruits of their hard-won laurels. [1] The state stripping people of these rights is certainly a kind of theft. Certainly no amount of public funding to an institution can alter the fundamental relationship that exists between creator and the product of their endeavour. The state-funded University of Illinois, for example, has led the way in many technologies, such as fast charging batteries, and has spawned dozens of high-tech start-ups that have profited the university and society generally. [2] The state can easily gain a return on its investments in universities by adopting things like licensing agreements that can provide the state with revenue without taking away the benefits from the developers of research. Furthermore, this policy strips control of researchers’ control over their works’ use. State funding should obviously come with some requirements in terms of some sharing of revenues, etc., but it is also important to consider the extent of the impact work may offer the world. For example, the team that produced the atomic bomb at the University of Chicago became extremely worried after seeing what their invention could wreak, yet the power over their invention was taken over entirely by the state. [3] Certainly that is an extreme example, but it highlights the risks of stripping originators of control over what they produce. [1] Sellenthin, M. (2004). “Who Should Own University Research?”. Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies. [2] Blumenstyk, G. (2012) “Universities Report $1.8 Billion in Earnings on Inventions in 2011”. The Chronicle. [3] Rosen, R. (2011). “’I’ve Created a Monster!’ On the Regrets of Inventors”. The Atlantic. |
training-digital-freedoms-pidfakhwcs-con02b | If universities want to invest in pursuits that will not have any tangible benefit for society then they are welcome to do so. But they should not expect to be able to do that on the government dime. If people want to study the humanities they can pay the tuition fees needed, and universities should be able to prioritize its funding as they prefer. The state acts best when it serves the public interest. By making the research and work of academics who receive state funding available to the public it does its job by freeing people to use vast amounts of information to the betterment of all. If that means a few less books about Marxist-Feminist literary theory, then that is a cost the state should be willing to pay. |
training-digital-freedoms-aihbied-pro02a | Websites can strengthen democratic institutions. The promotion of democracy is not only about forming new democracies; strengthening existing democratic institutions around the globe. To do so, transparency and government-citizen communication is necessary. Britain has set up two websites that achieve exactly that. Writetothem.com is a website where people can figure out who their parliamentary representatives are, and write to them about their problems in an effort to create a stronger relationship, and channels of communication between MPs and their constituents1. 130,000 people were using the website in 2009. Theyworkforyou.com is another website where people can find out who their representatives are, and then read about their recent actions in parliament. This site receives between 200,000 and 300,000 hits per month2. Elections are also strengthened by the internet. Voting can be conducted online which makes the process easier and can reduce intimidation at the polls. Now that politicians have websites, their policy platforms can be more easily accessed and understood by voters. Increasing information and communication between leaders and their constituents contributes to a more transparent system and therefore a healthier democracy. The internet is not only useful for promoting movements for democratic reforms in authoritarian countries, but also for making democracy more effective in democratic countries. What about civil society and alternative media action sites within ‘official’ democracies that aim to bring about greater democratization through their protests and information for example- . 1. Escher, Tobias, Analysis of users and usage for UK Citizens Online Democracy, mysociety.org, May 2011 2. Escher, Tobias, WriteToThem.com, mysociety.org, May 2011 |
training-digital-freedoms-aihbied-pro01a | The internet promotes the free flow of information both in and out of a country, which is essential for a truly free democracy. Media can be one of the most important factors in democratic development. If governments successfully control the media, they can direct information towards their constituents that casts the regime in an undeniably good light. They can prevent news of faked elections, protests, violence, repression, and arrest from ever reaching the people subject to those violations 1. Without external sources of information people do not question government propaganda, which decreases the likelihood that they advocate for their civil liberties and democracy. The internet promotes the free flow of information that leads to social consciousness and enhances democracy. News of political corruption and scandal in China can go viral in a matter of minutes among its 540 million internet users 2. Even when the government blocks certain websites, and makes avid use of firewalls for censorship, uploading videos to Facebook and YouTube, and posts to Twitter can allow information to be disseminated within the country. Once information is accessible it is almost impossible for the government to continue to censor the internet. For example, in the most recent Egyptian protests, as information leaked out of the country via social networking sites, cell phone pictures and videos were shown on international news broadcasts, making it difficult for the government to spin the situation in a positive light 3. The internet provides a place to find information, and also a place to discuss and debate it with others. The latter is the essential step to truly shifting views. The internet promotes free media which is essential to both creating and maintaining a functioning democracy as it promotes government transparency. 1. Reporters Without Borders, "Press Freedom Index 2010" 2010, 2. Economy, Elizabeth and Mondschein, Jared, "China: The New Virtual Political System", Council on Foreign Relations 2011 3. ">Richard Waters. "Web firms aim to benefit from role in uprising" Financial Times, February 13, 2011, |
training-digital-freedoms-aihbied-con01b | The quantity of information on the internet, and the number of talented computer users makes it very difficult for the government to fully censor information. The more information there is, the harder it becomes for the government to control it. The US is investing $19 million into researching how to break the firewalls of China and Iran1. There is plenty of easy to use software to evade firewalls2. Internet censorship can be evaded. Therefore, regimes cannot entirely maintain control over information, and any external information can be considered good information. Furthermore, regimes like China and Iran are not the only countries to “watching” their populations. Many democracies including the US and most of Western European use digital surveillance to safeguard their population- watch out for possible activity that may be harmful to the state. 1. Gaouette, Nicole, 'U.S. Launches New Effort to Evade China's Internet Firewalls', Bloomberg.com, 11 May 2011 2. Irish Times, 'Bunnies Hop the Great Firewall', 2 February 2011 |
training-digital-freedoms-piidfphwbaa-pro02b | Hate speech will happen regardless. A significant amount of online hate speech is made through accounts under the real life name of the speaker. It is notable that Facebook has required its users to use their real names since 2011, [1] but has still had significant issues with hate speech long after that. [2] The fact is that an enormous amount of hate speakers see what they are saying as entirely legitimate, and are therefore not afraid of having it connected to their real life identities. The fact is that 'hate speech' is localised and culture-dependent. Since the Internet brings many cultures together, hate speech will happen almost inadvertently. Additionally, online hate speech is very difficult to prosecute even when connected to real life identities, [3] so this policy is unlikely to be effective at making those who now would be identified see any more consequences than before. In the Korean example the law was simply avoided by resorting to foreign sites. [4] The similar lack of consequences is likely to lead to a similar lack of disincentive to posting that kind of material. [1] ‘Twitter rife with hate speech, terror activity’. Jewish Journal. URL: [2] ‘Facebook Admits It Failed On Hate Speech Following #FBrape Twitter Campaign And Advertiser Boycott’. International Business Times. URL: [3] ‘Racists, Bigots and the Internet’. Anti-Defamation League. URL: [4] ‘Law on real name use on Internet ruled illegal’, JoonAng Daily, |
training-digital-freedoms-piidfphwbaa-pro03b | Moves illegal activity in harder to monitor areas. Those partaking in planning illegal activity will not continue to do so if hiding their identities is not possible. Instead, they will return to using more private means of communication, such as meeting in person, or using any online services that do guarantee anonymity such as TOR. While this may make planning illegal activity more difficult, it also makes it more difficult for law enforcement officials to monitor this behaviour, and come anywhere near stopping it: at least under the status quo they have some idea of where and how it is happening, and can use that as a starting point. Forcing criminals further underground may not be desirable. The authorities in cooperation with websites are usually able to find out who users are despite the veil of anonymity for example in the UK the police have arrested people for rape threats made against a campaigner for there to be a woman on UK banknotes.1 1 Masters, Sam, 'Twitter threats: Man arrested over rape-threat tweets against campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez', The Independent, 28, July, 2013, |
training-digital-freedoms-piidfphwbaa-pro04a | Reducing fraud using fake identities. Anonymous posting can be used to make people believe you are someone who you are not. This can be done in order to acquire money from victims either by establishing a dishonest relationship or offering fraudulent business opportunities. [1] It is also a frequently used tool in child abduction cases, where the perpetrator will pretend to be a child or even classmate to gain enough access to a child in order to make abduction viable. It is estimated that nearly 90% of all sexual solicitations of youth are made in online anonymous chat rooms. Additionally, in the UK alone over 200 cases of meeting a child following online grooming, usually via anonymous sites are recorded. [2] These are enormous harms that can be easily avoided with the removal of anonymous posting online. [1] ‘Online Fraud’. Action Fraud. URL: [2] ‘Online child grooming: a literature review on the misuse of social networking sites for grooming children for sexual offences’. Australian Institute of Criminology. URL: |
training-digital-freedoms-piidfphwbaa-con03b | Protest of this kind is less meaningful. When an organisation such as this is criticised only by anonymous individuals, who are likely to be difficult to contact or learn more about, it is less likely to lead to any kind of long-term meaningful resistance. In the case of Anonymous and the Church of Scientology, there have been no notable acts of resistance to the Church of Scientology other than Anonymous. Anonymous resistance makes other kinds of resistance less likely to happen, and rarely leads to significant change or action. |
training-digital-freedoms-piidfphwbaa-con02a | Limiting ability of oppressed individuals to seek out help and community. Anonymous posting means people who are made to feel ashamed of themselves, or their identities within their local communities can seek out help and/or like-minded people. For example, a gay teenager in a fiercely homophobic community could find cyber communities that are considerably more tolerant, and even face the same issues as them. This can make an enormous difference to self-acceptance, as people are no longer subjected to a singular, negative view of themselves. [1] Banning anonymous posting removes this ability. [1] ‘In the Middle East, Marginalized LGBT Youth Find Supportive Communities Online’ Tech President. URL: ‘Online Identity: Is authenticity or anonymity more important?’ The Guardian. URL: |
training-digital-freedoms-piidfphwbaa-con04a | Limiting ability to experiment with identity. The ability to post anonymously on the internet means that people can create a new identity for themselves where they will not be judged in terms of what they have done before. This can be particularly useful for people who are attempting to make significant positive reformations to their lives, such as recovering addicts, thereby facilitating self-improvement. Banning anonymous posting reduces individual’s abilities to better themselves in this way. [1] [1] ‘Online Identity: Is authenticity or anonymity more important?’ The Guardian. URL: |
training-digital-freedoms-piidfphwbaa-con02b | Small reduction in ability to seek out help and community outweighed by a large reduction in hate speech. Anonymity is not essential to seeking out help and community. The internet is a large and expansive place, meaning that if an individual posts on an obscure site, people that they know in real life are very likely to see it. Even having your real name attached is unlikely to single you out unless you have a particularly distinctive name. Anonymity adds very little to their ability to seek out this help and community. Additionally, anonymity is frequently used as a tool to spread hate speech, [1] which the people this point is concerned with are the primary victims of. Even if a lack of anonymity means a marginal reduction in their ability to seek out a supportive community, this is a worthwhile sacrifice for a significant reduction in the amount of hatred directed at them. [1] ‘Starting Points for Combating Hate Speech Online’. British Institute of Human Rights. URL: |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwufafra-pro02b | Providing such mechanisms does not help activists and can even harm them. These activists will have few guarantees that the technology will work. Previous technologies meant to give anonymity have often not worked or else the governments will come up with ways to break them. Haystack is a good example of a technology meant to help dissidents that could have ended up causing more harm than the good it did. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwufafra-pro01a | We all have an obligation to help maintain freedom of speech. Article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights defines freedom of speech as “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” [1] It is something innate in humans to have opinions and to want to express them to others and within a few limits governments have a duty to allow this freedom of expression. Where governments are not allowing this freedom of information this affects not only those whose opinions are being suppressed but those who cannot hear their opinions. The right to the freedom to receive and seek this information is just as important as the right to voice these opinions. Moreover as stated in Article 19 this is “regardless of frontiers”; those outside a country have just as much right to hear these opinions as those inside. Government aid programs from democracies in Western Europe and America are already concerned with promoting human rights including freedom of speech. Australia’s aid program for example has a Human Rights Fund of $6.5 million per year that provides grants to among other things “educate and/or train human rights victims, workers or defenders”. [2] Enabling victims of human rights abuse to get around their government’s censorship is the obvious next step. The concept of the ‘responsibility to protect’ introduced by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in 2001 provided that when governments were unable or unwilling to protect their own citizens then that responsibility devolves to the international community and may ultimately lead to military action for particularly gross violations. This responsibility to react should be “with appropriate measures” [3] and for the breach of the human right of freedom of expression providing a method to enable those whose freedom of expression/speech is being violated to exercise this right is the most appropriate and proportional response. [1] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ‘Article 19’, 1946. [2] AusAID, ‘Human rights and Australia’s aid program’, Australian Government, 22 February 2012. [3] Evans, Garath and Mohamed Sahnoun Chair’s, ‘The Responsibility to Protect’, International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, International Development Research Center, December 2001, p.XI. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwufafra-pro01b | That there is a right to freedom of speech does not mean that we have an obligation to make sure that everyone around the world has freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and expression is indeed a human right in the universal declaration of human rights however this is something that it is obligated for governments to uphold for their own people rather than for other countries to enforce. If governments are infringing on the freedoms of their people the correct way to counter this is through international diplomacy rather than seeking to undermine that state. The responsibility to protect, itself controversial, was only ever meant to apply to the very worst human rights violations - such as the genocide in Rwanda. If there are massacres of civilians and all other options have failed then there may be a need to intervene to prevent more killing. However violations of freedom of speech are not something that is time dependent. Diplomacy may often take a long time but can eventually work, as is being shown in Burma's opening up |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwufafra-pro03a | Funding technologies to evade censorship could have immense benefits for very little cost Most government aid budgets are small and have numerous other important calls on their resources such as development aid. Between 2008 and 2011 the United States Congress funded the effort against internet censorship with $76 million. [1] While this may sound like a lot compared to the $168 million of aid to Liberia and $152 million to UNICEF in 2011 it is not a large commitment. [2] Yet due to the nature of the internet small investments can have immense benefits. Money spent on food aid will buy enough food to feed a limited amount of people yet if a technology is developed that allows internet users to get around censors and not be tracked then hundreds of millions would benefit. It would at the same time have the incalculable benefit of making it more difficult for authorities to track and crack down on those who are breaking the authorities’ censorship. [1] Burkeman, Oliver, ‘Inside Washington’s high risk mission to beat web censors’, guardian.co.uk, 15 April 2012. [2] USAID, ‘Where does USAID’s Money Go?’ 30 September 2011. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwufafra-con03b | While most of the population may not be enraged enough by censorship to attempt to get around it this does not mean they would not benefit from having the capability to do so. Governments often intrude into social discussion, music and even games by banning them and taking down discussions. These people would be much freer if they had complete freedom of choice rather than a government controlled set of boundaries on the internet. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwufafra-con04a | This will needlessly antagonise non-democratic countries The relationships which democratic countries have with non-democratic countries are much too important to jeopradise with such interference. Democracies and non-democracies need to be able to live peacefully with each other and engage in economic contact. Having democracies supporting segments in a non-democracy’s population that is seen to be undermining the state not only sours relations but provides a direct point of contention that could potentially lead to conflict. Democracies already show that they are aware of the conflict they create through their promotion of human rights by toning down their rhetoric in relation to the most powerful non-democratic countries. The British Council has for example invited Liu Binjie, China’s censor in chief, to lead a delegation to the London Book Fair which is celebrating Chinese Literature. [1] It is double standards to be lauding autocrats in public and yet seeking to undermine their countries through helping dissidents. [1] Jian, Ma, ‘Britain’s Cultural Kowtow’, Project Syndicate, 12 April 2012. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwufafra-con03a | Evading censorship is already possible and censorship does not prevent the use of the internet. Proposition itself concedes that authoritarian states in the vast majority of cases are unlikely to cut off access to the internet for their population entirely. For many people the internet is not about free speech but about economic benefits. Most don’t want to protest but rather carry on inane social discussions, play computer games and listen to music. Things that even authoritarian governments are happy to occur. This money is therefore not aimed at addressing the concerns of the vast majority of netizens. Those few who are concerned are already able to find ways around censorship for example proxies can be used to access external sites. China’s censorship system may be vast but it is only 40,000 attempting to watch hundreds of millions. Even China’s censors sometimes work at cross purposes as for example where weibo censored the official Xinhua news bulletin that Bo Xilai, former party chief in Chongqing, had been stripped of his party posts. [1] During this same event for the first time the weight of discussion has shown that the censors can fail to keep up and where the mass of the public really is interested in discussing something they can. [2] [1] MacKinnon, Rebecca, ‘The Not-So-Great Firewall of China’, ForeignPolicy, 17 April 2012. [2] Pei, Minxin, ‘The Paranoid Style in Chinese Politics’, Project Syndicate, 17 April 2012. |
training-digital-freedoms-fehwufafra-con02b | Money will be spent on development anyway. However trade is often the best way to encourage growth and reductions in poverty. These technologies by making communication easier will make doing business in that country easier. Breaking through communication barriers on the internet could have much more impact than 'development' aid. |
training-digital-freedoms-gthbtsbp-pro03b | The idea that, presented with a vast mass of frequently complex data, everyone would be able to access, process and act on it in the same way is fantasy. Equally the issue of ‘who guards the guards’ that Proposition raises is a misnomer; exactly the groups mentioned are already those with the primary role of scrutinizing government actions because they have the time, interest and skills to do so. Giving a right to access would give them greater opportunities to continue with that in a way that deluging them with information would not. |
training-digital-freedoms-gthbtsbp-pro01a | If public bodies do not have an obligation to publish information, there will always be a temptation to find any available excuses to avoid transparency. The primary advantage of putting the duty on government to publish, rather than on citizens to enquire is that it does not require the citizen to know what they need to know before they know it. Publication en masse allows researchers to investigate areas they think are likely to produce results, specialists to follow decisions relevant to their field and, also, raises the possibility of discovering things by chance. The experience of Wikipedia suggests that even very large quantities of data are relatively easy to mine as long as all the related documentation is available to the researcher – the frustration, by contrast, comes when one has only a single datum with no way of contextualising it. Any other situation, at the very least, panders to the interests of government to find any available excuse for not publishing anything that it is likely to find embarrassing and, virtually by definition, would be of most interest to the active citizen. Knowing that accounts of discussions, records of payments, agreements with commercial bodies or other areas that might be of interest to citizens will be published with no recourse to ‘national security’ or ‘commercial sensitivity’ is likely to prevent abuses before they happen but will certainly ensure that they are discovered after the event [i] . The publication of documents, in both Washington and London, relating to the build-up to war in Iraq is a prime example of where both governments used every available excuse to cover up the fact that that the advice they had been given showed that either they were misguided or had been deliberately lying [ii] . A presumption of publication would have prevented either of those from determining a matter of vital interest to the peoples of the UK, the US and, of course, Iraq. All three of those groups would have had access to the information were there a presumption of publication. [i] The Public’s Right To Know. Article 19 Global Campaign for Freedom of Expression. [ii] Whatreallyhappened.com has an overview of this an example of how politicians were misguided – wilfully or otherwise can be found in: Defector admits to lies that triggered the Iraq War. Martin Chulov and Helen Pidd. The Guardian. 15 February 2011. |
training-digital-freedoms-gthbtsbp-pro01b | Relying on a right of access would also have addressed the concerns set out by Proposition but would do so in a way that would not endanger actual concerns of national security by allowing citizens the right to challenge such decisions. An independent review could determine where the motivation is genuinely one of national security and those where it is really political expediency. The right to information for citizens is important but should not jeopardize the right to life of combat troops. |
training-digital-freedoms-gthbtsbp-pro03a | Even the most liberal FoI regime tends to pander to certain groups in society full disclosure levels that playing field People have many different interests in the accountability of governments; different areas of concern, differing levels of skill in pursuing those interests and so on. They deserve, however, an equal degree of transparency from governments in relation to those decisions that affect them. Relying on a right to access is almost certainly most likely to favour those who already have the greatest access either through their profession, their skills or their social capital. The use of freedom of information requests in those countries where they are available shows this to be the case, as they have overwhelmingly been used by journalists, with a smattering of representation from researchers, other politicians and lawyers and so on. In the UK between 2005 and 2010 the total number registered by all ‘ordinary’ members of the public is just ahead of journalists, the next largest group. The public are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the listed professional groups [i] . Required publication, by contrast, presents an even playing field to all parties. Rather than allowing legislators to determine how and to whom – and for what – they should be accountable, a presumption in favour of publication makes them accountable to all. As a result, it is the only truly effective way of ensuring one of the key aims set out in favour of any freedom of information process. [i] Who Makes FOI Requests? BBC Open Secrets Website. 14 January 2011. |
training-digital-freedoms-gthbtsbp-con03b | There are, of course some costs to having a truly open and accountable government, but an effective right of access would allow much of that information to be made available. After all what the public sector bodies are paying in commercial transactions is of great interest to the public. If public bodies are getting a particularly good rate from suppliers, it might well raise the question of “Why?” For example, are they failing to enforce regulations on a particular supplier in return for a good price. In that instance, their other customers and their competitors would seem to have every right to know. |
training-digital-freedoms-gthbtsbp-con02a | Public bodies require the ability to discuss proposals freely away from public scrutiny Knowing that everything is likely to be recorded and then published is likely to be counter-productive. It seems probable that anything sensitive – such as advice given to ministers by senior officials – would either not be recorded or it would be done in a way so opaque as to make it effectively meaningless [i] . By contrast knowing that such conversations, to focus on one particularly example, are recorded and can be subjected to public scrutiny when there is a proven need to do so ensures that genuine accountability – rather than prurience or curiosity, is likely to be both the goal and the outcome. None of us would like the process of how we reached decisions made public as it often involves getting things wrong a few times first. However, there are some instances where it is important to know how a particular decision was reached and whether those responsible for that decision were aware of certain facts at the time – notably when public figures are claiming that they were not aware of something and others are insisting that they were. In such an instance the right to access is useful and relevant; having records of every brainstorming session in every public body is not. As the Leveson inquiry is discovering, an extraordinary amount of decisions in government seem to be made informally, by text message or chats at parties. Presumably that would become evermore the case if every formal discussion were to be published [ii] . [i] The Pitfalls of Britain’s Confidential Civil Service. Samuel Brittan. Financial Time 5 March 2010. [ii] This is nothing very new, see: Downing Street: Informal Style. BBC website. 14 July 2004. |
training-digital-freedoms-gthbtsbp-con01a | Considering the amount of data governments produce, compelling them to publish all of it would be counterproductive as citizens would be swamped. It is a misnomer in many things that more is necessarily better but that is, perhaps, more true of information than of most things. Public bodies produce vast quantities of data and are often have a greater tendency to maintain copious records than their private sector equivalents. US government agencies will create data that would require “20 million four-drawer filing cabinets filled with text,” over the next two years. [i] Simply dumping this en masse would be a fairly effective way of masking any information that a public body wanted kept hidden. Deliberately poor referencing would achieve the same result. This ‘burying’ of bad news at a time when everyone is looking somewhere else is one of the oldest tricks in press management. For example Jo Moore, an aide to then Transport Secretary Stephen Byers suggested that September 11 2001 was “a very good day to get out anything we want to bury.” Suggesting burying a u turn on councillors’ expenses. [ii] For it to genuinely help with the transparency and accountability of public agencies it would require inordinately detailed and precise cataloguing and indexing – a process that would be likely to be both time consuming and expensive. The choice would, therefore, be between a mostly useless set of data that would require complex mining by those citizens who were keen to use it or the great expense of effectively cataloguing it in advance. Even this latter option would defeat the objective of greater accountability because whoever had responsibility for the cataloguing would have far greater control of what would be likely to come to light. Instead ensuring a right of access for citizens ensures that they can have a reasonable access to exactly the piece of information they are seeking [iii] . [i] Eddy, Nathan, ‘Big Data Still a Big Challenge for Government IT’, eweek, 8th May 2012, [ii] Sparrow, Andrew, ‘September 11: ‘a good day to bury bad news’’, The Telegraph, 10 October 2001, [iii] Freedom of Information as an Internationally Protected Human Right. Toby Mendel, Head of Law at Article 19. |
training-digital-freedoms-dfaihbssp-pro02b | The state is rarely an efficient service provider. Conventionally, it provides a shoddy service when it faces no competition, and when it charges low prices it is usually at the expense of the infrastructure and quality of service. When free of market forces, the state is even more likely to rest on its position of monopoly and provide insufficient service. But even with a state service, prices cannot be guaranteed to be kept low, but rather states can well overcharge and exploit their privileged position. |
training-digital-freedoms-dfaihbssp-pro02a | It would provide an efficient service for everyone A single, universal provider of broadband would allow the government to rationalize the management and development of the service. Multiple private service-providers ultimately end up causing three serious problems. The first two are straightforward, that private firms competing in the same area waste money creating multiple distribution channels that are unnecessary for the number of consumers, and that when they opt not to compete they end up dividing up territory into effective utility monopolies. The third problem is especially salient to the state when it is attempting to provide for everyone: many areas are too sparsely populated or economically underdeveloped that private firms are unwilling to invest in them; these areas are entirely dependent on state intervention to allow them to get broadband access. Thus for example, in the United States 19 million people in the United States still have no broadband access. [1] Much like electrical and water utilities, a single provider can create the most efficient outcome for consumers, and when that provider is the state it can guarantee affordable prices and commit to not price-gouging as private firms are wont to do. [2] Broadband should be treated as a utility, and the state has always proven to be the best purveyor of public utilities. [1] Elgan, M. “Should Wireless Carriers be Nationalized?”. Huffington Post. 10 October 2012, [2] Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Public Utility." Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. 2013 |
training-digital-freedoms-dfaihbssp-pro01a | The information age demands a right to broadband access As information technology has come more and more to pervade people’s lives, it has become abundantly clear that a new set of positive rights must be considered. In the forefront of this consideration stands broadband. Broadband allows for far more rapid access to the internet, and thus access to the world of information the internet represents. Today, a citizen of a free society must be able to access the internet if he or she is to be able to fully realise their potential. This is because the ability to access the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and civic and social participation are now contingent upon ready access to the internet. Thus access to the internet has itself become a right of citizens, and their access should be guaranteed by the state. This right has been enshrined by several countries, such as France, Finland, Greece, and Spain, thus leading the way toward a more general recognition of this service as a right in the same way other public services are guaranteed. [1] It is a right derived from the evolution of society in the same fashion that the right to healthcare has grown out of countries’ social and economic development. [1] Lucchi, N. “Access to Network Services and Protection of Constitutional Rights: Recognizing the Essential Role of Internet Access for the Freedom of Expression”. Cardozo J. of Int’L & Comp. Law, Vol.19, 2011, |
training-digital-freedoms-dfaihbssp-pro03a | Broad-based access to broadband is essential for countries to be competitive and to excel Information technology is critical to the success of contemporary economies, with even the simplest business ventures. Uneven or non-existent penetration of broadband is a major drag on economic progress. [1] The private sector has been unable to effectively adapt with a holistic approach to the provision of data space and internet speed. The state providing these services would guarantee a high quality of service, and penetration across the country, linking all citizens to the network. For a country to compete internationally it needs broadband, and the surest way to provide it, since the private sector has resolutely failed to do so, and where it does provide services, it tends to overcharge. [2] As the Western world is left behind by the internet speeds of erstwhile developing states like Singapore, which has almost total penetration of high quality, state-sponsored broadband, it needs to refocus on what can reverse the trend. [3] Broadband is one of the steps toward the solution. [1] Elgan, M. “Should Wireless Carriers be Nationalized?”. Huffington Post. 10 October 2012, [2] ibid [3] Kass, D. “FCC Chairman Wants Ultra High Speed Broadband in 100 Million US Households by 2020”. IT Channel Planet. 18 February 2010. |
training-digital-freedoms-dfaihbssp-pro04a | Universal broadband is a necessary prerequisite to developing more efficient and effective power-grids Advanced infrastructure technology often relies on the existence of broadband technology universally installed across the grid. Countries like South Korea and Japan have succeeded in expanding their power grids by means of “smart grids”, power-grids that are far more efficient than existing structures in previously leading states like the United States, that make use of the broadband network in the provision of power. The US government has since committed to creating its own new grid, one that would increase efficiency, supply and management, and lower costs of energy provision to its citizens. [1] Such grids depend on the reliable and advanced broadband networks. The incentive for states to employ broadband across their territory is tremendous, beyond mere access to fast internet. This is why private firms will never be sufficient in efficient provision of broadband, because they do not reap all the benefits directly of the smart grid that can arise from its development. The state providing broadband is an essential part of upgrading energy provision for advanced countries in the 21st century. [1] Kass, D. “FCC Chairman Wants Ultra High Speed Broadband in 100 Million US Households by 2020”. IT Channel Planet. 18 February 2010. |
training-digital-freedoms-dfaihbssp-con01b | State firms do not necessarily crowd out private firms. Rather, they can furnish services in areas that private firms consider unprofitable, and can coordinate infrastructural process on a wider area, allowing for gains in economies of scale. Eircom provides an example of this too as its reduction in investment in broadband post privatisation meant that the government had to begin reinvesting in broadband itself. [1] Private firms will still have incentives to develop new technologies because there will still be profits to be made. But absent private firms, innovation will still exist. State investment in innovation and new technology can be very effective, as was the case with the Space Race. [1] Palcic, D., and Reeves, E., “Privatisation and productivity performance in Ireland”, P.200 |
training-digital-freedoms-dfaihbssp-con02a | The state can work more effectively through the private sector If the state is worried about provision of broadband in areas too sparsely populated or disadvantaged, they can provide subsidies to private firms to develop the areas that are not profitable without needing to develop full government-operated companies. Just because the state is not providing the service does not mean that there cannot be compulsory to provide access to everywhere, many countries post offices for example are obliged to deliver to every address. [1] Government employees tend to be overpaid and underworked, leading to chronic inefficiencies that would be absent in a private firm, even one backed with government money. Furthermore, the cost to the state is prohibitively expensive to go it alone, because state contracts have a marked tendency to go over budget, ultimately harming the taxpayers. These overruns are a standard part of government projects, but they can be ruinous to large scale information technology projects. Indeed, one-third of all IT projects end with premature cancellation as the direct result of overruns. [2] The future of countries’ economic prosperity cannot be entrusted to an organization that will stack the odds toward failure. This policy does not make sense when it is an area in which the private sector is willing to make substantial contributions to the cost. The only way to guarantee a decent level of service and an appropriate level of cost is to allow the private sector to take the lead, and to supplement it with incentives to build more and better systems. In the United States encouraging private investment in broadbrand infrastructure has led to a total of $1.2trillion ploughed into broadband access while Europe’s more state investment approach is falling behind. [3] [1] United States Postal Service, “Postal Facts”, 2012, Royal Mail Group, “Universal Service Obligation”, |
training-digital-freedoms-ifakhbwfg-pro02a | Collaboration in editing encourages democratic principles The process of collaboration required to create and maintain an up-to-date, factual source of information encourages democratic practices and principles. Wikipedia seeks to achieve its democratic goal of the spread of free, open material by democratic means. As an open-source project it relies upon the collaboration of tens of thousands of people who constantly add, check and edit articles. Disagreements and disputes are sent up the line to moderators, who oversee the editing process. This “socialisation of expertise” as David Weinberger puts it [1] ensures that errors and omissions are rapidly identified and corrected and that the site is constantly and accurately updated. No traditional encyclopaedia can match this scrutiny. Indeed, “Wikipedia has the potential to be the greatest effort in collaborative knowledge gathering the world has ever known, and it may well be the greatest effort in voluntary collaboration of any kind.” [2] Not only do such democratic processes encourage democracy more generally, but they are an effective means to create a user-friendly product, as illustrated by open source software such as Firefox and Linux. [1] The Economist. (2006, April 20). The wiki principle. Retrieved 16 May 2012, from The Economist. [2] Poe, M. (2006, September). The hive. Retrieved May 11, 2012, from The Atlantic. |