Blog 2 - Hogden

A theme that has continually resonated to me during the past four weeks of discussion relates to the definition and interpretation of freedom. How one may intrinsically define freedom verses how a collective group may prefer to interpret it on a more macro level. The post Civil War United States has been fashioned from an ideal of freedom that is unique when compared to many more oppressive counties. Freedom has been engrained in the very fabric of our being, the United States Constitution.

The internet has provided an immense platform to deliver modes of communication once unimaginable. For the sake of perspective, could any legislator directly involved with the passage of the first amendment every comprehend that in just two centuries they could peer upon a colored box and see and speak to a person from across the globe in real time? Can the freedoms defined 220 years ago apply today to an era of technology that intertwines nearly every corner of the globe? How, if at all does this definition of freedom translate to a globally interconnected communication system?

These controversial questions continue complicate the largely unregulated cyberworld. The degree of connectivity that the internet provides affords a level of instantaneous and effortless access to information that has never before been seen. Additionally, this technology has introduced an ever dwindling level privacy and security of information as commerce has become ever more reliant upon technology. The later phenomenon has created significant concerns relating to cybersecurity, especially with the emergence of crackers, cyberterrorists and free speech inspired vigilantes that use the structure of freedom of speech to dispense malicious, defamatory or questionable content at times. These apparent insults on privacy, along with numerous other areas on contention, have resulted in an increased desire from many for internet regulation.

Reflecting back to Tavani’s introduction of the Lessig modalities relating to architecture (270), one may very well interpret US roots and values to support an architecture of freedom. However, the recent concerns identified above clearly indicate that a level of control is being advocated for. Do we want to be controlled or do we want total freedom? Is it possible to have both? This theme has again and again resurfaced in class discussion. I have been intrigued by the contrasting and seemingly incompatible ideologies that seem to exist. We are appalled when considering that “big brother” may be monitoring usage or restricting our content, but are equally irate when we learn that our private financial data has been breached or an unauthorized video has been leaked. I am perplexed by this true enigma. From a micro level analysis a concerned parent may long for aggressive filters that omit foul language and pornographic images, while a struggling artist or film maker may detest such means of control as they are a detriment to their art from. In contrast, from a macro level analysis, one may long for a greater level of security and privacy, while another, say Julian Assange or residents of a country dictated by an oppressive regime, may desire total freedom and ownership of liability. I am left contemplating where the true responsibility lies.

Works Cited

Tavani, H. T. (2011). Ethics and Technology - Controversies, Questions, and Strategies for Ethical Computing. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.