These last couple weeks have been so engaging and interesting, I can’t wait to get home from work every day to read the discussion boards. Now that the class has moved into the arena of applying the ethical theories to everyday situations, I feel we are all a little more involved. It appears as though we are starting to determine if we want to apply an ethical theory to a situation, or develop a hybrid of our own morals to “solve” these new dilemmas.
In week 5, during the discussions regarding Freedom vs. Privacy, I was struck by “architecture of freedom” vs. “architecture of control.” (Tavani, 270) I really enjoy the freedom of the Internet and all of the Wild West allusions that it entails. However, I am not completely naïve and understand there are always malcontents that will abuse any free system. Also, I have obviously taken my privacy and right to it, for granted. To view it as a “negative right” or as a “positive right” took some time for me to comprehend (Curtis).
This led nicely into the next week’s discussions regarding Hacktivism and Anonymous. I realize I may be more of an anarchist than I suspected, because I admire Anonymous to a certain extent. The idea that an unrelated and unknown group of people band together and create chaos, hopefully in the name of good, is slightly romantic to me. I understand property gets damaged; and that what they are doing can be illegal, and that people’s feelings get hurt. But I also understand an animal abuser was caught, a cult was made fun of and exposed, and they have attacked oppressive regimes. As a newbie part-time political activist myself, I believe that the freedom to congregate, even on the Internet, is a basic freedom that needs defending.
The freedom to expose, as Julian Assange has dedicated his adult life to, was a hot topic for our class during week 7. Freedom of Information, Whistleblowing, Freedom of Speech and Wikileaks are always contentious debates. Our discussion board was enlightening and surprising. I was confused by Assange’s assertion that he was exposing the US military’s involvement in the horrible massacre of unarmed persons in Afghanistan due to their use of the cover claim of collateral damage; but then later he admitted that persons hurt by his exposes are collateral damage in the war for total freedom of information (Khatchadourian). This irony is showing the underlying flaw in completely transparent information. There are some things I do not want to know. And there are some things I believe I do not need to know. However, I do know there is a lot more I would like to know.
During week 8, we have been discussing the Internet and Social Revolution, as well as the Digital Divide. Social media is providing a new avenue of discourse as well as allowing the world to get a real-time view of political upheavals as they happen. This is dynamic and unheard of. We are having trouble assessing the importance of it all because it is happening as we speak. Some people claim that twitter isn’t as important as the media is claiming it to be. Some people say its use is responsible for the overthrow of governments. The truth lies in the middle. People can connect faster and in ways unknown even five years ago. Governments can also track revolutionaries and common citizens in new and horrible ways. There is no doubt that what happened in Tunisia and Egypt would have happened eventually. The speed with which the movements grew, and progressed and were advertised around the world was unprecedented though.
Khatchadourian, Raffi. "NO SECRETSJulian Assange’s mission for total transparency." New Yorker. 07 Jun 2010: n. page. Web. 28 Oct. 2011.
Tavani, Herman T. Ethics and Technology: Controversies, Questions, and Strategies for Ethical Computing. 3rd. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2011. Print.
"The Trap-3-We Will Force You 2 B Free." Video. Google Videos. Adam Curtis. BBC, 2008. Web. 28 Oct 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment