Those Who have Knowledge of the Internet Can Not Be Controlled by The Government
How much power and control does a government have over the citizens of various states, countries, or territories who have access and necessary knowledge to manipulate the internet? According to various sources, many political theorists believe that the government has almost no significant control over individuals or groups that use information technology to their advantage. In fact, some individuals feel that the situation is reversed. Political theorists have gone so far as to say that individuals or groups who understand the internet can manipulate governmental actions and could even cause a revolution by the using the internet's resources. This action of manipulating the government is done in various ways by using the internet. Analyzing a few examples of various territories and how certain political activist groups or individuals approach the issue of human rights shows the variety of ways in which the internet is used to change a situation originally controlled by the government. The views I am presenting have the general opinion that governmental control of those who efficiently use the internet can be avoided one way or another.
The main spokesman for the Zaptistas rebels, Marcos (or Rafael Guillen according to the Mexican goverment) feels that words are his main tool for fighting for the human rights of the Zaptistas (Deedee Halleck, NACLA report on the Americas, v.8, n.2, p.30). Very recently Mexican goverment troops invaded the rainforests located in the Chiapas state with the goal of getting ahold of Zaptistas rebels. Anticipating their actions, the rebels evacuated the premises, and sent a fax message to the Mexican government listing false information. This information consisted of the accusation that the troops were useing unjust actions to deal with the Zaptistas such as beating and killing women and children and bombing the area where they were located. Reporters were allowed in the rainforests and found no signs that the actions that were stated in the fax had been committed. Although the internet was not used in this specific situation, this example displays the effectiveness of using information technology to alter the actions of the government. The fax had the desired result of forcing the governmental troops to stop the execution of their plan and allowed the Zapatistas to continue their actions without being harmed by the troops.
The involvment of information technology in this situation prevented violence on both sides. According to Deedee Halleck "Many of today's revolutionaries are better talkers than fighters, accomplishing little or nothing on the battlefeild." Marcos feels that information technology is a substantial revolutionary weapon in the fight for human rights. He told a Newsweek reporter last year that "What governments should really fear is a communications expert." This organized method of the Zaptistas avoiding the government by using communication through recent technology supports Marco's and Halleck's opinions. Barbara Pillsburg, who works for a development organization, uses the internet to provide current information about the Zapatistas and Marco's actions and statements worldwide. She feels that the actions of the Zapatistas using the internet have reached large amounts of Mexican citizens and made them realize that they should also be a part of the technology revolution. The Zapatistas effectively introduced significant amounts of Mexican citizens to the benifits of cyberspace, thus achieving multiple advantages of influencing the local community and avoiding the government. There is power in numbers and strong coummunity support definitely furthers the Zapatistas' fight for human rights. This would have taken longer to accomplish without the presence of the internet.
Halleck believes that recent technological advances such as satellite television receivers or computers linked to the the internet are "decentralized, diffused and so far - almost impossible to police or control." The internet in her opinion is one of the most rapidly progressing commmunication tools that is in some territories successfully being used to spread information on movements actively dealing with the violation of human rights where the issue of huamn rights is of central concern. To name one organization out of many that uses the superhighway to address human rights, Halleck mentions the sucess of the development of The Tibet Information Network based out of London. This organization regularly gathers current information about the fight against Chinese repression in Tibet.
Certain states that are located in the continent of Asia support Halleck's opinion. Both politcal dissidents and human rights groups that are located either inside the continent, or are in exile use the internet to transmit messages across Asia to empower citizens of various states and to also "rattle governments." This action manages to be effective despite the efforts of governments such as China, Singapore, and Veitnam to censor what citizens may learn from the ineternet. In these areas where local internet usage is strictly controlled by the government, citizens of Asia can read uncensored news informing them about their own state through Web sites of foreign newspapers and News orginizations (like CNN, Time, and Newsweek). Governments cannot control information coming from Web sites overseas unless they get rid of access to the entire Web. This would hinder the goverments' positions. Once again the internet becomes an international tool for human rights that goes beyond the intentions of a state's government.
Deedee Halleck does not ignore the fact that societies that have "violently repressive governments" (she gives the examples of Iraq and Libya) are having problems becoming involved in the information technology revolution, and citizens of these areas have difficulty acquiring usage of the internet. However, the need of states to remain current in issues such as scientific advancements and commercial developments forces governments of states to acknowledge and accept the internet. Halleck states that "We have a kind of knowledge market going on which is in a way, impervious to the efforts of the states to control it." According to this form of thought, in order for a state to progress the goverment must take the risk of placing themselves in a position where they are vulnerable to the occurance of a revolution. With this fact, the fight for human rights using the internet proceeds to develop succesfully in various territories despite governmental beliefs.
Back to main menu