One thing in particular struck me in class on Thursday: the willingness of the US Foreign Policy in conjunction with US-based corporations to quickly alter, and renege on what is meant to be all-encompassing policy. This concept is one that can be explored from many perspectives, but for the sake of this communication focused blog, we will look at this issue from the stance of communication.
Our readings largely dealt with the history of new communication strategies, how new technologies affected people who were directly and indirectly in contact with them, and laws governing how the technology will be used.
As far back as ancient times, roads were the main venues of communication. These roads transmitted orders from the heads of government, all the way down to travelling traders, spreading culture, ideas, and goods. Now, the information highway has led us to abundant use of cell phones and internet to communicate with one another.
The entire purpose of new and better technology is self-explanatory. It’s new and better. Not only that, but it also streamlines communication. The world is shrinking due to increased capabilities—people no longer have to wait days, weeks, or even months for information to get to its destination. That’s no longer the case. However, increasing the ability for people across the world to communicate with one another also increases the need for states to attempt to control this information movement.
In the United States, the basic freedoms as outlined in the First Amendment of the Constitution allow for freedom of speech, press, and association; in addition, the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. The communication between cell phones and between internet search engines and their servers, by a literal interpretation of these amendments, should not be searched without probable cause, nor should language be censored. However, many will argue that for national security reasons, this still occurs. Because the United States enjoys these freedoms, it is the belief of many that these rights are universal rights.
In late January 2010, Hilary Clinton’s gave a speech on internet freedom in conjunction to addressing the then-recent earthquake in Haiti. Referencing a saved woman and child’s life—due to their ability to send an emergency text message while trapped underneath cement rubble—Clinton expounds upon the idea of information as a basic necessity. In addition, Clinton looks to private corporations who conduct business internationally; Clinton warns countries that limiting access to information hinders growth, of their population and population productivity, hinting to China, whose information debacle with Google has proven that Google can be censored provided that (in my opinion) they are paid enough. In a similar situation that was also brought up in class, the UAE and Saudi Arabia have plans to block BlackBerry IM services for want of the access to transmitted data. This came as a result of BlackBerry’s owners, RIM (based out of Canada), refusing to create proxy servers nearby to be monitored by the state governments. In class, there was some concern over the future of the proxy servers: Will RIM go the way of Google and give in? What sign does this give to foreign governments about our stance on communication freedom? And finally, what does this mean for the future of information and communication freedom in the world?
“Communication has always been critical to the establishment and maintenance of power over distance.” (Thussu) This is one of the most important lessons to learn in communication. Because communication is so vital in its connection with power, it is very important for a state’s foreign policy decisions to be somewhat solid, and communication clear. A lack of this solidarity and clarity could potentially cause other states to attempt to undermine the former.
I believe the answer to the title question is yes. When the US attempts to create a stance on international communication that is very anti-censorship and anti-invasive, corporations such as Google undermine that stance by allowing themselves to be censored. While the US government has little direct influence over Google's actions abroad, perhaps changes can be made to reduce the censorship of Google in China.
And then, its important to consider that it may be better to have a censored Google in China than no Google in China.
Jessica Fayne
I suppose that's why people are really uneasy when they think corporations are 'in bed' with government? Ideally there would be two separate issues here: The actions of the government and the actions of corporations and they wouldn't affect the other. I think it's unsettling because we think of communication on a basic level--we all do it, it's an intricate part of how society functions and therefore it should be open and ideally free from obstruction.
ReplyDeleteBut I think it's become clear how intertwined everything has become over the last few decades. Because our stance on capitalism is so strong, we encourage corporations to go out and make money, even if it means that America becomes more identifiable by a brand (McDonald's, Starbucks, General Electric, Ford)than an ideal. And our ideals encourage this. It seems that the government's actions, and the State Department's in particular, are often undermined, like the examples you cited with Blackberry and Google. It would have been better, in my opinion, to have the State Department speak out against Blackberry's decision (especially since it's not American), so it didn't look like we caved to support a corporation's decision. It's one thing to be opposed to globalization because it destroys a culture or people that would have survived otherwise, and it's another when governments of those countries are technologically advanced but want absolute control.
Although in the end I think you have a point about considering Google's alternative: either be in China, censored, or not be there at all. At least by having a presence, it's possible that over time there might fewer restrictions. And maybe getting to that point would be where the State Department can step in and live up to the message it preaches.