No edit summary
 
(9 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TheFWD header}}{{DISPLAYTITLE:31. The Future of Information Freedom - Smári McCarthy}}
{{The Future We Deserve menu}}
Freedom of expression as known today is the philosophical descendant  
Freedom of expression as known today is the philosophical descendant
of hundreds of years of thought about the rights of man. The  
of hundreds of years of thought about the rights of man. The
vindication of free expression came in its present form from the  
vindication of free expression came in its present form from the
French and American revolutions, and were ingrained in the  
French and American revolutions, and were ingrained in the
constitutions which followed.
constitutions which followed.


But that was two hundred years ago. Since then we've had an industrial  
But that was two hundred years ago. Since then we've had an industrial
revolution, two world wars, and we've seen the dawn of an entirely new
revolution, two world wars, and we've seen the dawn of an entirely new
mode of communications which completely alters our perception of  
mode of communications which completely alters our perception of
expression. Through these massive changes to our world, almost all countries  
expression. Through these massive changes to our world, almost all countries
have put in place an elaborate set of exceptions that limit or punish  
have put in place an elaborate set of exceptions that limit or punish
truly free expression, and in many countries around the world the  
truly free expression, and in many countries around the world the
right to free expression has never been granted.
right to free expression has never been granted.


Persecution or prosecution for exposing the truth, going against the  
Persecution or prosecution for exposing the truth, going against the
grain of the reigning ideology or embarrassing the regime that  
grain of the reigning ideology or embarrassing the regime that
implements it is not uncommon - it's common enough that naming  
implements it is not uncommon - it's common enough that naming
examples from countries such as China, Iran or Sri Lanka would be  
examples from countries such as China, Iran or Sri Lanka would be
superfluous. Less commonly known examples are the western countries  
superfluous. Less commonly known examples are the western countries
which have implemented state or corporate censorship in a plethora  
which have implemented state or corporate censorship in a plethora
of forms, many based on such obscure legislation that the chilling  
of forms, many based on such obscure legislation that the chilling
effect goes unnoticed, many based on such complex networks of  
effect goes unnoticed, many based on such complex networks of
ownership and influence that the depth of the problem is unseen  
ownership and influence that the depth of the problem is unseen
through the opaque surface. Government transparency is to an  
through the opaque surface. Government transparency is to an
alarming extent mythical, and where it exists it is obscured by  
alarming extent mythical, and where it exists it is obscured by
poor information management and rampant jargon.
poor information management and rampant jargon.


Line 30: Line 30:


We're two hundred years down the line, and we have developed our
We're two hundred years down the line, and we have developed our
capacity for the aggregation and dissemination of information to a  
capacity for the aggregation and dissemination of information to a
point where it is high time we reconsider freedom of expression. It  
point where it is high time we reconsider freedom of expression. It
needs to be redefined in terms of our knowledge of information theory,  
needs to be redefined in terms of our knowledge of information theory,
with clear rights for individuals to transmit, receive and store  
with clear rights for individuals to transmit, receive and store
information in any form, and to apply transformations as they see fit.
information in any form, and to apply transformations as they see fit.


We deserve a return to the guiding principle that no restraint on the  
We deserve a return to the guiding principle that no restraint on the
publication of information is acceptable, and that punishment for  
publication of information is acceptable, and that punishment for
infringement on social values must happen after the fact, not before.
infringement on social values must happen after the fact, not before.


We must grow out of our tendency to pay lip service to the notion of  
We must grow out of our tendency to pay lip service to the notion of
privacy without defining privacy in terms of its utility. If an  
privacy without defining privacy in terms of its utility. If an
argument is made for privacy that does not specifically protect the  
argument is made for privacy that does not specifically protect the
physical security or personal wellbeing of an individual, it it moot,  
physical security or personal wellbeing of an individual, it it moot,
and should be disregarded.
and should be disregarded.


Corporate opacity is therefore unacceptable. There is no reason to  
Corporate opacity is therefore unacceptable. There is no reason to
hide the behavior of corporations behind veils of privacy, banking  
hide the behavior of corporations behind veils of privacy, banking
secrecy or trade secrets. No good has ever come of such secrecy, and  
secrecy or trade secrets. No good has ever come of such secrecy, and
no evils have ever come from exposing it. Those industries that
no evils have ever come from exposing it. Those industries that
are built around manipulating information and exploiting unequal
are built around manipulating information and exploiting unequal
Line 54: Line 54:
needn't come at the cost of other peoples' freedom.
needn't come at the cost of other peoples' freedom.


Further, we need to realize that the argument of "national security"  
Further, we need to realize that the argument of "national security"
is only valid insofar as we accept the concept of "nation" - this  
is only valid insofar as we accept the concept of "nation" - this
artificial construct and the governance models it is designed to  
artificial construct and the governance models it is designed to
support and protect may not be allowed to interfere with the right to  
support and protect may not be allowed to interfere with the right to
know and the right to share what you know - exposure of government  
know and the right to share what you know - exposure of government
secrets has never harmed societies, only governments, and there is very
secrets has never harmed societies, only governments, and there is very
little reason to believe that this will not be the case for all  
little reason to believe that this will not be the case for all
information.
information.


The future we deserve is one where information freedom is absolute  
The future we deserve is one where information freedom is absolute
insofar as it does not harm ''people''. Individuals, as the fundamental  
insofar as it does not harm ''people''. Individuals, as the fundamental
unit of society, and the rights of individuals, as is necessary to  
unit of society, and the rights of individuals, as is necessary to
protect their existence, must be the one and only assumption upon  
protect their existence, must be the one and only assumption upon
which we base the freedom of information.
which we base the freedom of information.


{{TheFWD references}}
<references />
 
{{Page data}}

Latest revision as of 13:16, 10 December 2023

Freedom of expression as known today is the philosophical descendant of hundreds of years of thought about the rights of man. The vindication of free expression came in its present form from the French and American revolutions, and were ingrained in the constitutions which followed.

But that was two hundred years ago. Since then we've had an industrial revolution, two world wars, and we've seen the dawn of an entirely new mode of communications which completely alters our perception of expression. Through these massive changes to our world, almost all countries have put in place an elaborate set of exceptions that limit or punish truly free expression, and in many countries around the world the right to free expression has never been granted.

Persecution or prosecution for exposing the truth, going against the grain of the reigning ideology or embarrassing the regime that implements it is not uncommon - it's common enough that naming examples from countries such as China, Iran or Sri Lanka would be superfluous. Less commonly known examples are the western countries which have implemented state or corporate censorship in a plethora of forms, many based on such obscure legislation that the chilling effect goes unnoticed, many based on such complex networks of ownership and influence that the depth of the problem is unseen through the opaque surface. Government transparency is to an alarming extent mythical, and where it exists it is obscured by poor information management and rampant jargon.

We deserve better.

We're two hundred years down the line, and we have developed our capacity for the aggregation and dissemination of information to a point where it is high time we reconsider freedom of expression. It needs to be redefined in terms of our knowledge of information theory, with clear rights for individuals to transmit, receive and store information in any form, and to apply transformations as they see fit.

We deserve a return to the guiding principle that no restraint on the publication of information is acceptable, and that punishment for infringement on social values must happen after the fact, not before.

We must grow out of our tendency to pay lip service to the notion of privacy without defining privacy in terms of its utility. If an argument is made for privacy that does not specifically protect the physical security or personal wellbeing of an individual, it it moot, and should be disregarded.

Corporate opacity is therefore unacceptable. There is no reason to hide the behavior of corporations behind veils of privacy, banking secrecy or trade secrets. No good has ever come of such secrecy, and no evils have ever come from exposing it. Those industries that are built around manipulating information and exploiting unequal access to information can be replaced with new industries. Prosperity needn't come at the cost of other peoples' freedom.

Further, we need to realize that the argument of "national security" is only valid insofar as we accept the concept of "nation" - this artificial construct and the governance models it is designed to support and protect may not be allowed to interfere with the right to know and the right to share what you know - exposure of government secrets has never harmed societies, only governments, and there is very little reason to believe that this will not be the case for all information.

The future we deserve is one where information freedom is absolute insofar as it does not harm people. Individuals, as the fundamental unit of society, and the rights of individuals, as is necessary to protect their existence, must be the one and only assumption upon which we base the freedom of information.


FA info icon.svg Angle down icon.svg Page data
Authors Smári McCarthy
License CC-BY-SA-3.0
Language English (en)
Related 0 subpages, 118 pages link here
Aliases TheFWD smarimc, The Future of Information Freedom - Smári McCarthy
Impact 522 page views
Created July 3, 2010 by Smári McCarthy
Modified December 10, 2023 by Felipe Schenone
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.