Declaration Of Freedom Of The Internet Analysis

One thing that supporters of spreading internet freedom are also pushing is that governments completely rid themselves of trying to control the internet. Jeff Jarvis is arguably the strongest voice on this matter. Jarvis says that “governments are the single point of failure for the internet and thus for the public’s tool of empowerment.” (Jarvis) He further details that the internet does “not belong to government” and that it “belong(s) to the public, who are using them to claim their rights as the public.” (Jarvis) John Perry Barlow said in 1996 in his piece “Declaration of Independence for Cyberspace” that governments do not have any right to control what goes on on the internet and that “(government) has no moral right to rule us nor do

Carrying out punishment would be nearly impossible without a governing body enforcing it. While there is some sort of structure currently for the internet, it is not at this scale to handle an internet thief like this. For example, message boards possess a hierarchical organization that helps to regulate things with their being an owner(s) of the website, moderators to watch over the message board on a daily basis and are generally assigned to specific areas of the message board to focus on, and then the members of the message board. In ways it compares to having the federal government (owner(s) of the website), state government (moderators), and citizens (board members). When a member of the message board posts insensitive material to the message board, for example, he can be banned by the moderators. The message board is self-regulating in this instant. There are crimes committed via the internet though that is too big in scale for the everyday citizen to

Jarvis authored Public Parts: How Sharing in the Digital Age Improves the Way We Work and Live and believes that individuals should be open books on the internet and that privacy is overvalued. He points out that “if we become too obsessed with privacy, we could lose opportunities to make connections in this age of links.” (Morozov 2011b) Jarvis mainly highlights that being open can foster relationships and produce further collective action. However, it is important to maintain a certain level of privacy. While being open is helpful for democracy, being too open can be harmful. Evegny Morozov summarizes this when he says “the personal information recorded by these new technologies was allowing social institutions to enforce standards of behavior, triggering ‘long-term strategies of manipulation intended to mold and adjust individual conduct.’” (Morozov 2013) Long before Morozov addressed this issue, Spiros Simitis did so. In 1985 the data protection commissioner of the German state of Hesse and eventual Hessian Merit winner said “where privacy is dismantled, both the chance for personal assessment of the political … process and the opportunity to develop and maintain a particular style of life fade.” (Morozov 2013) The more information citizens are willing to share then the more companies and the governments are able to learn about the citizens. They can use to