Liberty, Justice, Equality Under Law, Fair Trade And Access: Part I

Liberty, Justice, Equality Under Law, Fair Trade And Access:

Foundations Of Electronic Freedom & The Base Of The Great Digital Divide

James M. Downey, BA

Preface

Since September, 2005, the writings of the author have been posted on a blog (web log) located on the Digital Divide Network [DDN] (www.digitaldivide.net) under the heading Jim Downey’s Rants & Raves (www.digitaldivide.net/blog/JMDowney). Although the Digital Divide Network is sponsored as a community focused on issues of education and matters that cause a divide between those that use modern technology—or more appropriately have access and know how to use such technology—the author’s posts have ventured off into discussing civil liberties (especially those involving technology, surveillance, censorship, restricted access, etc.) and governmental policy. Being that there is a politically charged environment in the US at the moment—and that the current sitting President of the United States has embroiled himself in a series of conflicts involving digital policy, surveillance and legal maneuvering—posting such writings may be considered controversial.

The author was recently contacted by Andy Carvin, Director of DDN, regarding complaints that some of the posts on the Rants & Raves blog were off topic and not focused on the digital divide. After a brief exchange of e-mails, the author decided to write this paper for dissemination as a series of posts on the blog in question, as a full paper in the articles section of DDN, and for publication and dissemination elsewhere.

The paper is being offered under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License, which means it may be freely copied, distributed or used as a foundation for a derivative work providing that it is properly attributed and cited, that it is not used for any commercial purpose without the express consent of the author, and the conditions of the Creative Commons License is passed along with any use of the paper. The Creative Commons License is an essential commodity that supports freedom and liberty in our world. It is a tool for bridging the gap that is the great digital divide.

Introduction

Computer users lucky enough to be born in highly industrialized nations have opportunities to access computer technologies that empower business, research, science, transportation and communication. Of these areas of empowerment, communication and transportation are the most important and have the greatest impact. Indeed, communication and transportation have changed the world as the technology intimately involved in these concerns has compressed time and space.

The compression of time and space is a driving force of history. As the time it takes to communicate ideas, notify others of issues, transmit payments, issue orders, coordinate diverse groups and educate others compressed from the weeks it once took to send a letter from England to the Colonies, or from Rome to Munich, to the milliseconds it now takes to send an e-mail, complete with file attachments, images, and encryption as needed, society has increased its commercial activities, widen its net of communication and exchanged ideas and values that have a dramatic changing effect on the world as a whole.

Those of us old enough to remember the first years of the telephone remember “party lines,” “long distance” and the use of the telephone to call Western Union. We have seen the telephone emerge into not only a tool for conducting business and government, but also for all of our personal communication as well. Evidence of this is the proliferation of cell phone usage, the implementation of e-mail and web browsing on these phones, Blue Tooth technologies and the development of computer technology for use on our cell phones. While the comic strip character “Dick Tracy” may have forecasted such technologies when he called “Joe Jitsu” and other colleagues on his wristband radio, the technology has far exceeded such forecasts, even from the sci-fi genre.

In industrialized society, computer usage is fast becoming a norm for even the most menial of tasks. In some places the trash collectors are required to employ a small mounted computer to weigh and record how much trash has been collected from each residence and allow for accurate billing. Since the 1960s many corporations have relied upon computers for accounting functions. Companies like Amoco in Whiting, Indiana, adapted the computer to aid in tracking the chemistry functions of chemical and gasoline refinement.

The mid-1980s produced a boom of desktop computers with the advent of the Intel microprocessors and the combination of software and vision. We now have computer technology on the desks, laps and in our palms that have more computing, communication and research power than many of the computers that would have once been considered “super computers” just a few decades ago. The first personal computer owned by the author was an “IBM-compatible” AT with a 20-megabyte hard drive, a 12 MHz motherboard, and 640 megabytes of random access memory and a RGB (red-green-blue) color monitor with a 24-pin dot matrix impact printer. This cutting edge piece of computer technology cost over $3000 and came with a pronouncement that it would take forever to fill such a large hard drive.

Recently, the author bought a new computer with a 1 GHz motherboard, a 180 gigabyte hard drive, 1 gigabyte of random access memory, a flat monitor capable of producing millions of color combinations, a laser printer (multifunction), audio and video recording and editing capabilities and much more for less than $800.

The original computer was connected to a 1200 baud modem and connected to hobbyist bulletin board networks (FidoNet, Relaynet, RimeNet) that took over 20 minutes to transmit a large (over 1000 kilobytes) word processing document. The new computer connects via a broadband connection that can download a gigabyte of files in less time.

Given the power of computer-mediated communications and applications in today’s society, the issue of the “great digital divide” is of great concern to anyone involved with public policy, legislation, manufacturing, business, finance, social welfare, education, government and family. Computer technology is so profound in the modern world that not being able to operate a computer effectively, or at least understand how computer technology affects people, is a serious disadvantage.

The “great digital divide” is caused by some dynamics of access. Access to computer technology is affected—perhaps even controlled—by factors that are not egalitarian in nature. There is a definitive dynamic of “the haves” versus “the have nots” when it comes to access of computer technology. The factors affecting access include the following:

1. Physical Access: Access to computers, telephone lines, broadband channels, networks and peripheral devices, including backbone, fiber and wifi location.

2. Finance: Funding to obtain computers and bandwidth in the home, office, school, college, church and government.

3. Education: Readily available and affordable training and educational resources—formal and informal—to learn how to use computer and computer-mediated communications effectively.

4. Liberty: Political guarantees of freedom and civil liberties from the government that allow the unimpeded use of computer technologies for all purposes.

The first three of these factors are predominantly self-evident and self-explanatory. If a person cannot physically access a computer device of some sort, then all of the power of computing in the world is essentially meaningless and useless. The lack of funds, or severe limits on funding, to purchase computer equipment, network access, software and related necessities makes physical access next to impossible. Anyone lacking rudimentary computer literacy would be unable to tap into the power of any computer system, no matter how readily available or how well funded.

The fourth factor is an area that seems to garner attention only from activists. In fact, many people actively involved in developing interpersonal, business, governmental and computer-mediated networks and other resources for bridging the “great digital divide” ignore the effects liberty has on creating, widening, and maintaining the divide. The argument is that discussion of liberty is political and not focused on the issue of bridging the digital divide in a real way.

It is the contention of the author that without liberty, the “great digital divide” is unconquerable. The ability to advocate for all factors of access is inherently tied to liberty, including form of government, rights of free speech and assembly, freedom from unreasonable searches, due process guarantees, the right to abstain from self-incrimination, the right to equal governmental access and the right to equal treatment under the law.

While these issues are inherently political, they are also inherently tied to access, which is fundamental to bridging the “great digital divide.” We see evidence of this in China, where the government there has co-opted the cooperation of businesses as extensions of governmental authority to screen and limit access to certain types of web sites, encryption applications for e-mail, and even the use of search engines. In Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait and elsewhere in the Muslim countries, ISPs (Internet Service Providers) are required to block out access to certain sites and information “for the good of society.” While these countries place the block on pornography sites, it also place restrictions on sites that argue for democratic reforms, democracy in general, redress of grievances or criticism of the existing government.

Inherent in the arguments that leaders of these countries put forth in support of the surveillance and restriction of access to these sites and information is national security. The “good of the nation” is the battle cry that is the foundation of oppression. Oppression of free speech and association—which is exactly what the Internet and e-mail accomplish— is one leg of the triangle of factors that comprises an authoritarian society. The other two factors are suppression and intimidation. Intimately tied to this triangle are patterns of corruption, ideological bias, and restricted access to policy-makers.

While the general notion is that the democracies of the Western industrialized modern world do not experience such authoritarian measures, that has proven not to be the case. Germany and France have restrictions against neo-Nazi web sites and content in e-mails. While the vast majority of rational human beings can agree that neo-Nazi propaganda is offensive, prejudicial and rooted in hate, it must be noted that each of these nations are signatories to the UN Charter and that membership in the UN includes adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR declares that there is a fundamental right to free expression:

“Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference
and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.” (1)

While we may disagree with the views expressed by neo-Nazi groups, and the hatred of others that is inherently present in their literature, the fundamental principle of free expression is, as stated in the UDHR, an inherent and inalienable right. But one can understand the emotional argument against the neo-Nazis coming out of official policy in Germany, France and other European countries as they lived through the Holocaust and the massacre of lives and rights that was the Third Reich under Hitler.

But we see such restrictions in all Western democracies. In Italy, for many years after WWII, it was illegal for civilians to own a road map. In France, we see restrictions on public expressions of religion in schools. In the UK, any support of issues related to Northern Ireland contrary to the official view of the government is still grounds for surveillance, searches, seizures and imprisonment. Israel has multiple laws that place restrictions on free expression of ideas.

But it is in the United States that these issues become profoundly important. The US is the foundation of the Internet. The history of computer and computer-mediated communications is rooted in ARPANET, BITNET, USENET, FIDONET, RelayNET, RimeNET, and the most sophisticated telecommunications systems in the world. Communications and broadcast satellites were essentially born out of US developments.

It is the United States that holds itself out as the model of democracy for the world to see. Given these realities for the United States, it would be reasonable for the US to also be a model of access and have one of the smallest gaps across the “great digital divide.”

But it is the United States that has some of the most egregious infringements of liberties that are directly related to access, free expression, free association, privacy and civil liberties.

Recent events, led by the Bush administration, and the concentration of power in the conservative and ultra-conservative, often Christian Right, Republican Party, have profoundly impacted free speech, free expression, commerce, trade and access to electronic communications. The actions of the US government is creating a chilling effect on communications and a freeze upon equal access within the populations of the various geographic demarcations in the nation. What follows is an examination of how liberty is inherently tied to the “great digital divide,” access and the effectiveness of all efforts to bridge the gaps.