Please note this is a re-post from an article I wrote on 10/07/2011 on http://www.brandseye.com but the website has since changed format and my posts are no longer accessible there.
The copy below is an all too familiar headline. Several examples have been seen in Northern Africa this year, where the authorities fearing revolution from discontented masses, cut off their means to communicate and organise.
In today’s world, even in the most developing of places, this means a shutdown of connectivity limiting text-based messaging and instant messaging services like Blackberry Messenger and WhatsApp as well as social media networks.
In the last few decades, when a citizenry’s freedom has been questioned, the global community usually issued a particular response. This generally implied a collective UN or other assembly enacting relatively tame measures, often involving non-confrontational policies that rarely achieved much at all.
As a result, this was often followed by the intervention of a single country or an allied group of nations who enter and occupy that territory to restore peace and democratic government. This move would spark vast criticism questioning everything from rights to enter to motives behind entering.
–
However, no longer a lofty outsider with foreign values forcibly entering a country in political turmoil – now, there exists a means to empower local populations to organise socio-political change themselves. Hand up, not hand out.
–
What is possible?
–
A recent application of relatively commonplace technologies is capable of undermining so-called ‘information-based tyranny’ comes in the form of two rather simple solutions which anyone with a mobile device with basic Internet connectivity can access.
–
1) A relatively small wireless device that could fit in suitcase – that enable remote Internet access for a ≥2 mile radius on the ground. However, the drawback with these is getting them within national borders and keeping them active.
–
2) Overhauled EC-130J cargo aircraft, – so-called “Commando Solo” and/or drones that transmit AM/FM and 3G signals respectively give radio and Internet access to designated areas.
–
–
Spinoff: Removes Control of Internet Access by Governments and Corporates
–
By removing power from incumbent Internet Service Providers (ISPs) there are two benefits. Firstly, less control of information by governments which see fit to limit their citizenry’s access to the Internet, or where Internet access has been crippled by infrastructural damage, such as after the Haitian earthquake.
–
Secondly, less monopolisation of information by corporates who continue to stretch the price ceilings of the most grassroots of people. The price of data varies inconsistently between countries in the Middle East and Africa, which would assist those without the financial means in the first place.
–
Catch 1: Empowers those who provide it
–
Currently the US is the main developer of this technology. Conversely, these devices can also deny access and jam signals. This functionality is defended by the idea that “[Signal jamming] may have its place in social [revolution] as well,” according to Prof. J. Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School in the US.
–
It is useful in situations where pro-regime communications may not be helpful to that citizenry’s cause. For example at the beginning of this year, the Egyptian government hacked Vodafone’s network to disseminate pro-regime text messages.
–
Moreover, the positive associations for Brand America in the minds of grassroots civilians in the developing areas of the world are thousand fold. America would be seen very positively by those who have been reached and have benefitted by this technology.
–
Catch 2: Non-Intervention vs. Active Involvement?
–
The age-old interventionist debate comes into play. Ideally this should apply to the offending authorities. However, there remains the potential for this to be used where an entity incorrectly perceives undemocratic behaviour to be unwanted by the population.
–
Conversely, the mere threat of this technology’s functionality may act as its own deterrent against authorities who would prospectively shut off to their Internet access. However, a weapon doesn’t have to inflict direct and/or physical harm to be a weapon. To which, Arquilla says this may then be considered an act of war.
–
Ultimately, considering that information is perhaps the most empowering commodity in today’s world, the Obama Administration correctly points out that Internet access should be “an inviolable human right.”
–
On one hand this technology offers great promise for nations stranded without a means of communication, affording individuals the means to communicate will help them settle socio-political differences amongst themselves.
–
On the other hand, is the great irony. The ISP that empowers those civilians not only gains a monopoly on their access to information but also indefinite control over what information is transmitted and who may and may not receive it.
–
Even more so than oil, information, may yet be the most valuable and fought-over currency of our era.
On track and online 