Saturday 7 February 2015

Reader Response Draft 1

The article, “Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom – China, Russia or the US?” by Morozov (2015) argues that America is the true enemy of Internet freedom. The author illustrates this by comparing America’s actions with China and Russia. Actions done by China and Russia, seen as nations who curtail freedom of expression and assembly, are more benign and are of self-protection and self-preservation. America however, uses Internet to retrieve data from users of American technology around the world (Morozov, 2015).

Historically, geopolitical factors made America the world’s policemen. Actions done by the American government in controlling Internet data are aligned to that role. However, there needs to be a limit between security and surveillance. American technological companies need to stand firm and resist any actions by the American government that is too invasive and controlling.

America sees themselves as the policemen of the world (Lynch, 2014). Policemen, as we understand, uphold law and order and act as the bastion of peace and enforcement of security. America, in this sense, takes on the task of upholding law and order around the world and aims to secure peace and stability. Uncle Sam started becoming the world’s police shortly after the fall of Soviet Russia as it became the sole superpower in the global stage. As the sole superpower, the US took on this “moral obligation” to police the world and intervene when necessary. The US has intervened in political issues around the world since from Iraq to Syria.

America has justified their actions either by arguing that it protects their sovereignty or that it is a moral obligation to save people who are suffering. Likewise, America argues that retrieving data of users accessibly and easily is a way to maintain to protect their sovereignty and ensure security and peace. By collecting these data, the American government is able to filter and pre-empt any possible threat from happening, preventing any damage to people and property. These data can range from narcotics to organised crime such as terrorist strikes. Such an action will serve to preserve the social order of the nation and the world.

On the other hand, when does American intervention become too invasive such that it curtails the freedom of people which they claim to be fighting for? Argued by Morozov (2015), technological companies like Microsoft and Google need to maintain their independence and solidarity and not be easily swayed by the arguments by the US government. He further argues that if companies are unable to maintain their independence they might see their usage and support wane and users will seek other avenues to fulfil their technological needs. This is because people expect certain basic levels of freedom, to be able to use technology without the fear of being spied on. This can be seen as China and Russia aims to make their citizens use local technology rather than depend on foreign countries which may have vested interests.

America needs to understand that they are neither obliged nor capable enough to intervene with every and any political or social disruptions around the world. As a bastion of freedom and sovereignty, America needs to be careful to balance on this thin line as fighting for freedom can also be seen as fighting for restriction.


<543 words>

Lynch, C. (2014, September 24). Obama to U.N.: OK, America Will Be The World’s Police. Foreign Policy. Retrieved from http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/24/obama-to-u-n-ok-america-will-be-worlds-police/.

Morozov, E. (2015, January 4). Who's the true enemy of Internet freedom - China, Russia or the US. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/04/internet-freedom-china-russia-us-google-microsoft-digital-sovereignty.

1 comment:

  1. Content:
    The summary is generally well written, the main ideas of the article are clear and accurately paraphrased. the second paragraph acts as a smooth transition b/w the summary and his own ideas.

    However, he didn’t express his stand clearly in the first few paragraphs. It was only towards the end that the reader could clearly understand his stand.

    Although the writer did focus on a specific aspect of the article, the response lacks original idea and the supporting evidence. For example, in his second last paragraph, the writer paraphrased idea from the original article without further personal evaluation. Therefore the argument seems slightly weaker as compared to his earlier paragraphs. in addition, the evidence/ example in this paragraph does not support the argument.

    Extra sources were correctly documented. It is a fairly objective and interesting reader response.



    Organisation:
    Since the thesis/stand is at the end of the reader response, he seems to be sitting on the fence throughout the essay.
    The supporting idea was well connected with his main argument.

    Language use:
    Generally, the language use is fluent.
    However, in the second last paragraph, the use of rhetorical question can be avoided in academic writing.

    ReplyDelete