Computerized Censors
This morning's email version of the New York Times includes an article by one Andrew Jacobs called, "China Faces Criticism Over New Software Censor," with the by-line,
"China is facing a storm of protest over new regulations requiring all personal computers sold in the country to include filtering software." (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/world/asia/11censor.html?th&emc=th)
This new law requires that each new computer sold in China be required to include a dynamically updated censorship service, not unlike what software companies like Microsoft and Apple offer their customers to protect the Windows Vista and Panther operating systems from viruses. The companies close up vulnerabilities of all sorts without most users knowing or caring how their operating system has been changed. The worry is that this capability will give government the power to raise or lower the level, quality and direction of censorship without knowledge or consent from computer users. On the other hand, most computer users are happy to have the latest and safest version of any software, not only operating systems, to be installed automatically as soon as it becomes available.
The problem with a censorship update service run by government is that it may be tempted to hide sites that need not be hidden. A tyrannical government tends to censor sites that are only annoying to it, and that are not necessarily treasonous or dangerous. You never know what an update service like this is blocking.
But notwithstanding, I am not entirely convinced by that suspicion. The Linux operating system uses an open systems approach to its updates that is relatively equable, if not totally democratic. Its security updates are not secret, and in fact Linux software is the most dependable and secure in the world for the very reason that its underlying code is free and open to examination by all. It is confidentiality and trade secrecy that made Vista so expensive and cumbersome to update.
The saying goes that if something has been done it must be possible.
Since a secure, non-proprietary, un-tyrannical and open update service has been accomplished in the complex world of computer software, it must be possible to do so for our other security needs as well.
For that reason I say: There may be a "storm of protest" over this computer update initiative in some quarters but, using the language of the press, I and the Badi Blog want to "hail" this initiative. What a great idea! All hail China! Indeed, why not offer a censorship service to everybody, everywhere, with every computer in the world, old or new? This is exactly what the world needs to limit the endemic abuses of the Internet. Not only software has vulnerabilities; not only governments have vulnerabilities. Individuals have vulnerabilities too. The human mind has weaknesses built into it, vulnerabilities that in early days were termed idols. Frances Bacon, for example, wrote that,
"Idols and false conceptions which have hitherto occupied the intellect of man, and are deeply implanted therein, not only so beset the minds of men that it is difficult for truth to obtain an entrance..." (Bacon, Novum Organum I, Ch. 6, para. 38)
We should not idly condemn those who would protect us from our own built-in weaknesses. As Shakespeare's Brutus put it in his famous speech, "oft the wrong men do lives on, while the good is buried with their bones." Idols, fads and rumours capture attention and spread faster than important but boring issues, and the universal connectivity of the Internet only makes this worse. We therefore must be ever vigilant to defend ourselves.
The computer is a wonderful tool, but it would be even more wonderful if it could update itself with built-in protections devised by the best guardians, psychologists and security professionals that the world has to offer.
Nobody is perfect. We all are weak in some way.
I personally have a vulnerability to edibles, especially what is sweet or savoury. If a host places a bowl of food on the table during a meeting, I cannot think about what is being said or considered until that bowl is empty. I am like some dogs, which, if you leave out a bowl of water that automatically refills every time it drinks from it, they drink and drink until they die. This happened to one of my brother's friend's dog. He learned too late that the solution was to take away the refilling dog dish.
I am so weak that I notice that if a web page I am reading includes a prominent advertisement with a picture of food, I cannot concentrate on anything else but that dish. I have to cover that part of the screen. Same way, if somebody in our household buys the wrong sort of junk food and I know where it is, I cannot rest until it is gone. This is a known vulnerability, and it takes effort on my part and from those living with me to cover my vulnerability up. I would welcome an Internet update service that would give me the option to filter out pictures and references to food. That would be a tremendous advantage to me in my quest for purity and my need not to be corrupted willy-nilly by anybody or any corporation that pleases.
And what about the family? The family has any number of known vulnerabilities, but the most obvious is the male predilection for the unclad female form. For millions of years humans lived in an environment where such images were rare. Clothes were invented in part to limit exposure to such data, and it is not a coincidence that most scriptures use clothing as a symbol for the religion of God.
It is in the interest of the institution of marriage, not to mention that of God and the dignity of men, that hard core pornography not be a few clicks away from any and every computer user. Nor is it in the interest of this foundational institution that the sexual weaknesses of men to certain images be exploited for advertising purposes. An update service run by and on behalf of families should be available that would expunge all such corruptive influences from the cyber-world of their male members. If the family had any power at all, it would have the power to update and adjust the content of any computer in its purview, just like what the government is trying to do in China.
As mentioned, these protesters in China do have a valid point that an update service, being covert, can itself become a tool of oppression. Such an invisible system admittedly has the ability to compromise the freedom we all value.
At the same time, we should bear in mind that there is good reason to keep issues involving security confidential. This is already what Microsoft, to cite the best known example, is doing with its updates to Vista. Microsoft obviously does not want to publicize the fact that some penny ante hacker can bring Vista computers around the world to their knees with a few keystrokes. They want to shut each vulnerability down as soon as it is known. They need to do this very quietly, since as soon as a flaw becomes known among hackers they will rapidly figure out how to get around it. Any new way to get around a weakness will rapidly spread, and it is in the general interest that such information be suppressed.
As for government censorship, I think that not even the most rabid protester can deny that there are situations, such as terrorism, riots and violent insurrection, where censorship would save lives. At the same time, knee-jerk protest can polarize a situation and provoke the very behaviour that it sets out to counteract.
We should not assume that the motives of government are always sinister, or that there are hidden, nefarious motives behind everything they do. We should remember the warnings of Baha'u'llah in His Will and Testament. "Lofty is the station of man, were he to hold fast to righteousness and truth..." (Tablets, 220) and,
"Kings are the manifestations of the power, and the daysprings of the might and riches, of God. Pray ye on their behalf. He hath invested them with the rulership of the earth, and hath singled out the hearts of men as His own domain." (220-221)
This admonition to pray for our leaders we should take very seriously, for it forges a tie of love and a bond of trust between us and those who serve the general interest. It is hard not to feel differently about somebody when we have stood before our God and mentioned their name and begged divine bounties and assistance on their behalf. Insofar as we have made our heart the domain of God, love and goodwill towards leaders and public servants must be strengthened by this moving command of Baha'u'llah that was among the last words He ever wrote.
Whereas materialism and kneejerk protest tend to have the effect of a nocebo ("I will harm"), religion at its best is, at worst, a placebo ("I will please"). Good doctors recognize that a placebo, a neutral sugar pill, can have a powerful effect on the body if it is given in the right psychological circumstances. In the same way, we need to see to it that guardians be set up to protect us from the cybernetic nocebos proliferating on the Internet, and that as much as possible placebos take their place. There is a fine line between the two, and we need to be confident that somebody somewhere is at least trying to sort them out in the self-updating world of computers. Again, this is an effect that Francis Bacon mentioned at the dawn of science,
"There is no slight difference between the idols of the human mind and the ideae of the divine mind; that is, between certain vain conceits and the true marks and impressions made on created things as they are found by us." (Bacon, Novum Organum I, Ch. 6, para. 23)
John Taylor
email: badijet@gmail.com
blog: http://badiblog.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment