Perhaps the most enticing thing about the internet is that it is a place where information roams free. The way in which the internet works has provided the closest thing that we have ever had to a global communications network and it is this freedom of information that has left governments worldwide petrified.
You may have seen the recent story of Pakistan banning YouTube, you probably know about the growing desperation of the Chinese government to censor this network of information and you might have sympathised with the Afghan student who was sentenced to death for downloading information about women’s rights.
But it isn’t just so-called non-liberal regimes that are struggling to contain the internet – while the British government slowly adapts to the concept that the internet has become a new hub for crime and the US struggles to monitor the sheer weight of information being exchanged the world wide web has not only become the newest battlefield for global politicians, but one with distinct parallels to the Vietnam war.
Unplugging the internetThe example of China’s internet battle is perhaps the most straightforward to put in this kind of comparison. The global superpower remains petrified that what they would consider western propaganda is accessible to its citizens. From civil rights to the Dalai Lama and Tibet, China is desperate to censor information it deems unsuitable for its populace.
The problem for China is that keeping the information accessible to its people ‘friendly and in the public interest’ is a little like trying to build up a wall of pebbles to stop the incoming tide. That wall of pebbles is currently known as the golden shield project, or more commonly as the Great Firewall of China, and its role is one of censorship.
However, the battle to make this wall impenetrable will, in all probability, never succeed. Why? Because people on either side of the ‘wall’ are desperate that information should be free, and any tactics that the government can bring about, even the ‘napalm’ blanket bans that are currently in place, are fought with guerrilla tactics that are effective, easy to set up and well suited to the landscape.
Many access points
For example, Google China and the major Chinese search engine censor certain websites and information, but anyone willing to apply themselves to finding out the necessary data could easily find one of the thousands of mirror sites that spring up far faster than any censor can ban or restrict.
The superpower may be trying to squash a rag tag collective of individuals, but they know the environment far better than any government, are prepared to break the rules and are adept at spotting the cracks in any system. And just like Vietnam, China might one day have to accept that this is a battle that they can never hope to win.
Pakistan’s decision to ban YouTube has been attributed to two controversial incidents – the first and more obvious one being the Danish cartoon depictions of the prophet Mohammed which have sparked a massive debate over freedom of speech against incitement of a religious group. The second reason, it has been suggested, is that YouTube had the trailer for right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders latest rant against the rise of Islam in Europe.
However, Pakistan’s decision to ban YouTube immediately attracted the ire of thousands of bloggers and websites across the net and, inevitably, a video which would probably not have attracted nearly as much attention is now sweeping across the world wide web.
By attempting to censor something on the internet, Pakistan’s government has merely served to propagate the video to thousands of other sites by wrapping it in infamy.
In Afghanistan, Sayed Pervez Kambaksh was sentenced to death for downloading information about women’s rights. Despite the likes of US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and the UK’s foreign secretary David Miliband pushing for a reprieve, Pervez remains in prison with the threat of execution hanging over him – but it seems the Afghan government has merely served to publicise its draconian information policies.
Of course, the internet’s freedom comes at a price; with the ease in which mass censorship can be circumvented meaning that things like child abuse pictures are difficult to prevent changing hands, but the very essence of the web means that, for all the shadows that accompany any kind of human social interaction, the potential for good is of paramount importance.
The governments will keep on fighting for control of information because with it comes power; the power to control the populace through propaganda, through spin, by limiting alternatives and by covering up information about the reality both within and without of its borders.
There is something satisfying about the fact that the internet – a tool created by the American military to survive disaster – has become a means of communication that no mere government can prevent.
