The UK and US must do more to protect internet users' privacy, the inventor of the world wide web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, has warned as a new survey of online freedoms is released.
Berners-Lee warned that "a growing tide of surveillance and censorship" posed a threat to the future of democracy, even as more and more people were using the internet to expose wrongdoing.
His remarks came before the second annual release of a global league table that classifies countries according to a set of freedoms. Since last year, the US has dropped from second place to fourth, while the UK has remained in third place. Sweden still tops the list, though Norway now takes second place. All of the Scandinavian countries – Sweden, Denmark and Norway – feature in the top 10.
The UK was poorly placed on privacy rights but was lifted by its high scores for availability of relevant content and the internet's political impact.
The table is compiled by comparing 81 countries, combining measures such as the extent of access to the internet, how much censorship is employed, and how "empowered" people are by its availability. The list has been expanded from the 61 countries surveyed last year.
Last year Berners-Lee introduced the inaugural index by pointing out that there was no off switch for the internet – a fact that was proving uncomfortable for a number of governments that had tried to shut down radical dissent in the previous 12 months through the Arab spring.
But this year his remarks focused more on the threat of surveillance, which has been highlighted by the Guardian's revelations about the extent of online spying and subversion of internet protocols by the US's National Security Agency and the UK's GCHQ.
The survey found that 76 of the 81 countries examined did not meet "best practice" standards for checks and balances on government interception of electronic communications.
Speaking before an event to launch the updated version of the index, the 58-year-old British computer scientist said: "One of the most encouraging findings of this year's Web Index is how the web and social media are increasingly spurring people to organise, take action and try to expose wrongdoing in every region of the world.
"But some governments are threatened by this, and a growing tide of surveillance and censorship now threatens the future of democracy.
"Bold steps are needed now to protect our fundamental rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and association online."
The survey also found that almost a third of countries surveyed block politically sensitive content.
Web innovators, experts and policymakers, including Berners-Lee and the Wikipedia chief Jimmy Wales, were gathering in London on Friday to assess the World Wide Web Foundation's independent annual measure of the web's impact.
4 comments:
The term "third world" came to be adopted around the time of the 1955 Asia-Africa conference in Bandung, Indonesia, of "non-aligned" countries – mainly former colonies of Asia and Africa, together with countries of Latin America – that were not part of the advanced west (the first world) or the communist bloc (the second world).
It was therefore an indicator more of a country's geo-political stance rather than its level of development. Notwithstanding the inherent limitations of such a broad brush typology, it nevertheless described the reality of a very large part of the globe. It was also progressive – here were newly independent countries articulating not only an independence of political thinking, but also refusing to be sucked into the dangerous spiral of the cold war driven by two superpowers. While usage of first world and second world was always minimal, third world did garner traction.
Gradually, however, there began to be an unease with the term in that it had connotations of "third class" . In the post-colonial era, it was not considered politically correct to use such terms, especially by those in the former colonial powers. Accordingly, alternatives – not least in academia – such as "developing countries", or "the global south" or even just "the south" began to take preference. Certainly, with the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet bloc – and with it the loss of the original rationale for using second world – it seemed that third world would also be made redundant.
You missed the opportunity to wheel out the Bobby Kennedy quote.
"Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product ... if we should judge America by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.
"Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."
Are you suggesting that the GCC should be termed third world because of their appalling human rights record? This is even more opaque and frankly insulting than the arbitrary GDP criterion. To meaningfully use the term third world we have to define it, and you have just arbitrarily defined it as a world which is discriminatory and cruel - an insult to all other countries which are popularly considered 'third world'.
Economy, education, culture, political structure and human rights etc cannot be lumped into a three compartment model, the parameters need to be considered independently before they can be categorised appropriately.
Are you suggesting that the GCC should be termed third world because of their appalling human rights record? This is even more opaque and frankly insulting than the arbitrary GDP criterion. To meaningfully use the term third world we have to define it, and you have just arbitrarily defined it as a world which is discriminatory and cruel - an insult to all other countries which are popularly considered 'third world'.
Economy, education, culture, political structure and human rights etc cannot be lumped into a three compartment model, the parameters need to be considered independently before they can be categorised appropriately.
The terms "first world, second world & third world" are to most people's ideas a definition of economic development, not their social or political structures. This idea of incorporating "human rights" defies logic, small country can be economically very strong, very advanced but with a limited social structure and poor human rights.
Post a Comment