freedom of speech | Doha College Media Studies

The Guardian newspaper has achieved a real scoop this week having uncovered top secret documents that highlights the information it collects from computer and telephone networks.

According to the Guardian, “The Boundless Informant documents show the agency collecting almost 3 billion pieces of intelligence from US computer networks over a 30-day period ending in March 2013”.

The National Security Agency reportedly has over 100,000 employees and the agency works closely with Canada, Australia, the UK and New Zealand.

It is extremely controversial because the USA is supposed to be the land of the free and the land of civil liberties, so if their very own government are essentially spying on their people it goes against every thing the country stands for. Many people are incredibly skeptical of any government having the powers to collect data on our private lives because it is reminiscent of the Stasi in East Germany and other authoritarian regimes.

In the video above, Obama gives a very confident rebuttal of the attacks on the policy and in many ways he summarizes the tension between new and digital media and privacy, he comes across as very reasonable but he does skate around the facts somewhat.

Interestingly, Google, AOL, Facebook and Yahoo continue to deny any knowledge of Prism, even though Barack Obama has confirmed the scheme’s existence.

Google co-founder Larry Page and chief legal officer David Drummond said the “level of secrecy” around US surveillance procedures was undermining “freedoms we all cherish.”

“First, we have not joined any program that would give the US government – or any other government – direct access to our servers. Indeed, the US government does not have direct access or a ‘back door’ to the information stored in our data centers. We had not heard of a program called Prism until yesterday,” they wrote.

“Second, we provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or don’t follow the correct process.”

The Guardian claim that the companies were involved:

“Microsoft was the first to be included, in September 2007. Yahoo followed in March 2008, Google in January 2009, Facebook in June 2009, Paltalk, a Windows- and mobile-based chat program, in December 2009, YouTube in September 2010, Skype in February 2011 (before its acquisition by Microsoft), AOL in March 2011 and finally Apple in October 2012.”

The Prime Minister, David Cameron has jumped on the bandwagon of castigating social media, he appears to feel that without SNS, the riots would not have been as bad as they were:

“Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organised via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill,” said Cameron.

Cameron is looking at ways to curb the free flow of information on the internet – for example, he is considering banning people from sites such as Twitter and Facebook who use them to plot criminal activity. He is also calling for broadcasters to hand over unused footage, for SNS´to delete controversial content and for Blackberry to help them track content.

Of course, many human rights groups are unhappy with these proposals;

Jim Killock, the executive director of online advocacy organisation Open Rights Group, said Cameron risked attacking the “fundamental” right of free speech.

“Events like the recent riots are frequently used to attack civil liberties. Policing should be targeted at actual offenders, with the proper protection of the courts,” Killock added.

“How do people ‘know’ when someone is planning to riot? Who makes that judgment? The only realistic answer is the courts must judge. If court procedures are not used, then we will quickly see abuses by private companies and police. Companies like RIM must insist on court processes.

“Citizens also have the right to secure communications. Business, politics and free speech relies on security and privacy. David Cameron must be careful not to attack these fundamental needs because of concerns about the actions of a small minority.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/11/david-cameron-rioters-social-media