The Right to Technology

In the wake of recent elections, reports are emerging that mobile phone networks and access to various websites are being restricted in Iran. If you trust the reports, the government rigged the re-election of the president, including blocking many of the oppositions means of communication, and has shut down many venues that young people are using to foster their protests.

This raises an interesting question with respect to the rights one has to use various pieces of technology and methods of transfer of information. As a general rule, Americans have carte blanche when it comes to the Internet and it's something we probably take for granted. We do have laws that prevent certain uses (e.g. gambling, child pornography) but as far as my worker bee knowledge is concerned, we're not really blocked from anything. We expect to be able to do what we want, when we want and our nation's president even used it to help get elected.

The citizens of some other countries do not share the same freedoms. There are countless stories about China, Saudia Arabia and others blocking sites with various content; it's something I find difficult to imagine. Do we, as humans, have a right to technology or do governments know what they're doing by keeping us from harming ourselves? Karl Marx would probably argue that as long as we're busy tweeting we won't realize it as a method of distracting us from the real problems in our society. I am likely to argue that as long as it's not a public safety or national security risk, more is better... but I'm guessing those are the reasons given by the governments of these countries.

Information Delivery

An interesting thing happened yesterday; I got a friend request from my grandmother, who is fairly sick and in the hospital. After a bit of investigation, I found out that my aunt, who is an avid Facebook user, created the account as a way to update family members on her status. It certainly is an interesting interpretation of the "status update" and one I had never really considered.

On my personal blog, I'd previously written about the virtues of Facebook as I see them. As part of that post, I wrote about the benefits of pushing information en masse to a particular audience and how our lives could be enriched by it. I'm not naive enough to think people actually need it, but in a world where extended familes are separated by socioeconomic status and state lines, it certainly helps bridge the communication gap. Some may argue that a family member's health is worthy of a phone call, but as part of a family that numbers in the dozens I can't say I'd want to take part in that logistical nightmare. E-mail is probably the only truly practical way to share the same information with a large number of people, but I really don't understand how that's any different than a private Fb update.

Unfortunately, the account was deleted this morning because some objected to the methodology. I guess I can understand their perspective... actually, no I can't. I suppose I can concede that it's okay to not let Facebook take such a pivotal role in sharing this information, but I think those attitudes are outdated and are dying off as fast as the Baby Boomers are. I submit this as evidence that while I live a lot of my life and consume most of my information on the internet, we as a society are not really ready to fully embrace it. I think the day the newspaper dies is the day we can officially say we're there.

FBI & Social Networking

In what may be proof that social networking is a becoming an even more avoidable part of everyone's life, TechCrunch reports that the FBI has set up shop on Facebook, Twitter and several other sites you may have heard a lot about recently. One can assume that the FBI already works relatively closely with the likes of these sites so I can't really help but wonder what their goal is in having a public presence. Are they attempting to attract new recruits? Are they trying to be as "in touch" as Barack Obama? Are they trying to scare away predators by being more obvious? Chances are the answer is a combination of all these things and several others I can't even dream up.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the article comes as a quite from Jonathan Cox at the FBI: "We have a widget that works on MySpace, but nothing formal yet. Its a long vetting process and I have so many government rules to follow it would make your head spin. This is just the beginning though. I’ll keep you posted as things progress. Thanks.”

I'm lucky (and I guess that's debateable depending on who you ask) to work for a company that is not only in the private sector, but is also an internet/technology business. Not only am I fully ingrained in the latest and greatest sites out there, I feel like knowing it is necessary to do my job most effectively. I know a lot of people don't use the internet and its various technologies as much as I do, but I can't help but wonder who at the FBI is responsible for maintaining their sites/profiles. What sort of "government rules" do they have to follow and how much would they make me cringe and/or laugh? I'm guessing a lot of them weren't written for the likes of creating and maintaing profiles on Facebook.