Read a very interesting blog by Barbara Walter on Friday afternoon (read it here.) Basically the government of Ukraine sent a cell phone text message out to every phone they pinged in the area where demonstrations were occurring and said "Dear subscriber, you are registered as a participant in a mass disturbance." What this text really says is, "we know who you are, where you are, where you live."
I found this action interesting for two reasons. First, what does this action say about the use of and importance of the use of digital media and communications? I read so many researcher's commentary on how digital communicative media were used in the Arab Spring and how important it was to organization of mass protests. Now you must ask yourself what I was already asking myself (I guess that I am a little more skeptical of the niceness of government and was even before the NSA stuff was "leaked"), which is how long before governments use the connectivity against the protesting parties?
Second, how will people respond to government "pinging" their supposedly private and possibly secure communications. I have argued for over a decade that your communication is not secure nor private from government intrusion--which is why I found no surprise in the disclosure of NSA programs gathering our communications. If I am already involved in a protest that is semi- to fully violent, what do I have to lose now that the government knows I am present? Or, will I run and hide and throw away the phone that cost me a good chunk of change and is the instrument I use for communication, information collection, and entertainment? (I am guessing from the progress of the Ukraine protests, that "what do I have to lose" has been more prevalent than "run and hide").
Anyway, for my two cents, social media and digital communications are over-rated as means of protest organization. The depth and breadth of digital communications availability is still not that high in many locations. Also, if the government can track it, perhaps our best communication will be personal, not digitalized.
I found this action interesting for two reasons. First, what does this action say about the use of and importance of the use of digital media and communications? I read so many researcher's commentary on how digital communicative media were used in the Arab Spring and how important it was to organization of mass protests. Now you must ask yourself what I was already asking myself (I guess that I am a little more skeptical of the niceness of government and was even before the NSA stuff was "leaked"), which is how long before governments use the connectivity against the protesting parties?
Second, how will people respond to government "pinging" their supposedly private and possibly secure communications. I have argued for over a decade that your communication is not secure nor private from government intrusion--which is why I found no surprise in the disclosure of NSA programs gathering our communications. If I am already involved in a protest that is semi- to fully violent, what do I have to lose now that the government knows I am present? Or, will I run and hide and throw away the phone that cost me a good chunk of change and is the instrument I use for communication, information collection, and entertainment? (I am guessing from the progress of the Ukraine protests, that "what do I have to lose" has been more prevalent than "run and hide").
Anyway, for my two cents, social media and digital communications are over-rated as means of protest organization. The depth and breadth of digital communications availability is still not that high in many locations. Also, if the government can track it, perhaps our best communication will be personal, not digitalized.
No comments:
Post a Comment