YouthNet blog

Tuesday Apr 22, 2008

The curtain falls

The internet is a wonderful invention and I'm not just saying that because it pays my wage - honestly. The idea of a global communication system allowing for the transfer of knowledge, experience, information and ideas is tremendously exciting. It's hard not to argue that it's been the biggest step forward for humanity for as long as anyone can remember. One thing I've always found most compelling is that sense that national and regional boundaries are no longer the barriers they were. Language is still the same problem it ever was but at least I don't have to actually travel to Japan if I'm looking for a limited edition release of the latest series of Gundam – it's all available at the touch of a button. I can speak to someone in the centre of Basra about their situation at the moment. I can get involved with distributing videos about the solidarity movement in Guatemala. Discussion is unbound, distribution is cheap and anything and everything is available (for good or ill).

Except that's all bollocks now, isn't it? The idea of a global internet linking together the world is being consistently eroded. As the media industries finally try to use the internet suddenly walls are being erected all across the web. As governments realise that the internet provides the opportunity to discuss and criticise anything (including their own policies) they are increasingly repressive in their actions to curtail usage.

TV over the internet is a growing industry. It's been common for about the last 5 years, mainly through pirated shows being streamed online for subscribers. What's changed has been the decision of television networks to try this out and the first thing they've done is to make sure it can only be seen by the people they want to see it.

On some level I can understand where they are coming from. If you're still selling the rights to LOST in Australia then you probably don't want them to watch it at ABC.com but the logic doesn't hold. If I had to wait to watch an episode on Sky One then maybe it would make sense yet I don't have to do that. I can go ahead and download whatever I want for free. It's a bit irritating and takes a while to download and it's not as good as being able to stream the show but in the end I'll get it.

So by restricting access from my country to free ad-supported videos online the television and film industry isn't helping to combat online piracy – it's encouraging it. To be honest I still don't quite understand what the main issue is – every ad I've ever seen advertised on a US show is for the same rubbish that gets sold here. It's not like mass produced corporate pap is only sold exclusively in the US (though they do it particularly well).

In the end it's a desperate need to hold on to outdated regional distribution contracts that is holding back the TV industry from ending pirating of TV shows. A proper centralised distribution model, with ABC or the BBC finding their own nation by nation advertisers would end this and it'd end most of the major trackers of television shows. If you can get a show quickly and easily legally, you don't go hunting eztv or mininova for the latest release.

But there's a more insidious and related change continuing to happen on the internet and it's driven by far more unsavoury individuals than short sighted media executives and greedy network heads. The restriction of information, debate and news throughout the internet continues to grow.  In some cases it's evident and obvious, an extension of already restrictive practices. Turkey's short term ban on Youtube, lifted only when Google removed all the content the regime objected to, is just the latest expression of a restrictive government. Blocking Youtube sits alongside their persecution of gay rights groups, peace campaigners or novelists who dare to mention Turkey's history of genocide against its Armenian population. This isn't a huge surprise but recent moves by the UK government go almost as far.

The conviction of five Muslim men in 2007 for reading 'extremist' material on websites was absolutely one of the most abusive acts by a UK government in living memory (though the decision has thankfully now been reversed on appeal). It was as if Big Brother had finally arrived, egged on by baying politicians and right wing newspapers looking for any scapegoat they could find to justify (or create) their own fears.

Let's be very clear on this – on our discussion board there has been regular discussion of issues around terrorism and extremism. If I choose to Google some of the names and some of the postings by an extremist group then I won't get into trouble. That's because I'm white – the security services don't care what I'm looking at.

This case stands as an example of a government that has decided to restrict what information can be read and then decide to prosecute and persecute individuals based upon their race and religion. Like the other examples of restrictions on internet freedom this is another action that divides and restricts freedom online. And every step against freedom online is a step that encourages the very worst and knee-jerk reactions to events.

And finally the great example for governments across the world – a beacon for all who want to control what their population hears and sees. Enclosing around a sixth of the world's population the Golden Shield project and the other elements that make up the 'Great Firewall of China' stands as an example to all regimes that it is possible to control what your people see. It's something that other governments seem to envy rather than fight against, especially with the complicity of western corporations willing to sacrifice users to the Chinese security services to ensure their business. It's hard to imagine that the small freedoms granted by the IOC pressure will remain more than an hour after the Olympic closing ceremony.

It should be the place of government to ensure liberty and freedom not to take an active hand in measures that restrict these freedoms. We may not be arresting people for reading about domestic violence figures online or imprisoning bloggers for daring to talk about the situations they see in their own lives but we are on the same continuum, heading in the same direction. Any action to restrict access to the internet encourages restrictions on individual freedom. The decision of government to support attempts by the music industry to force ISPs to become policemen of the internet and ban people from going online is just one step in this direction.

What is developed to stop piracy can soon be turned to stop political movements. It should be the job of government and individuals across the world to strenuously protect the benefits of the internet. Democracy is built on free access to information to make decisions not on hearing only the permitted side of the story.

This curtain continues to fall still further – not made of iron this time but of bits, bytes, mistaken good intentions and cynical political measures. This digital curtain dawn closed by the greed of those desperately holding onto outdated business models and repressive regimes risks everything the internet could have been – a true global freedom of information.