In the article "Who's the true enemy of internet freedom - China,
Russia, or the US?", Morozov(2015) implies that the United States are
the true enemy of internet freedom instead of the less liberal Russia
and China. The author states that the difference between US and the rest, is
that US wants to access the database of the users that were using
products developed by US companies; while China and Russia only request for
access to the database of their own citizens. Morozov uses the
recent debate between Microsoft and the US government as a stepping stone
to his argument; where the US government demands Microsoft to grant them
access to their database in Ireland.
The
article is seemingly bias against the US. The author's claim that the
US is the true enemy of internet freedom is an ignorant judgment
because the argument is only base on just one case study pertaining to
the matter. The case study actually in fact, justifies why US is not
the true enemy of internet freedom.
It is widely agreed
upon that US is liberal in terms of freedom of speech and
censorship. While it is true that US had request the database of the
personnel using software developed by them, the US only did what they
did because they need the data to aid them with ongoing
investigations. Another difference between US, China and Russia is that
the
US did not actually hold the data of the people. This is further proven
to be true
from the case study where the US had to request the data from Microsoft
which ultimately led to the author's argument. On the other hand, China
and Russia could access to the database of their citizens at any given
point in time.
Webpages such as Facebook and Google are also part of the restrictions in China and Russia. I believe that these acts of
restrictions are the true terror of internet freedom. Although the definition of
internet freedom may vary, I personally feel that internet freedom means
having the option and liberty to choose what one can browse
and say on the internet. China and Russia fail to do just that.
The case study on the US is not relevant to the topic as suggested by the
author base on my definition
Other than banning popular
sites, China and Russia also practice heavy censorship on the content
that one could discuss or comment about, on forums or other web pages. China
also did a lot of coverups in the past on the internet regarding the more sensitive
issues, such as political corruptions. The US is more liberal in this
aspect. To end off the review on the article, what Morozov pointed out in
this article is not exactly invalid. Truth remains that all three
countries that are being discussed somewhat fits the criteria of being terrors of internet freedom.
China and Russia simply fare worst than the US. However, what the US did can
be classified as an act of tyranny instead of terrorizing internet freedom. It is after all, wrong of them to
demand the information of a client from Microsoft just because Microsoft
"belongs" to them. So who is to say now that in the future the US will not
overtake China and Russia in the race of internet terrorism?
Morozov, E. (2015, January 4). Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom -
China, Russia, or the US? theguardian. Retrieved February 10, 2015, from
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/04/internet-freedom-china-russia-us-google-microsoft-digital-sovereignty
Thanks for this decent reader response, Zhen Liang. You provide what seems to be an accurate summary (though there are problems in punctuation). You also transition from that well to the response with a clear assertion that you support with information directly from Morozov. Your organization of supporting evidence seems quite strong, even though you have limited your argument to ideas found in the original article.
ReplyDeleteThere is an accumulation of some problems in this essay:
--- ...the United States are the true enemy... >>> The United States is usually consider a singular entity.
--- between US and the rest > between the US and the rest
--- ...US wants to access the database of the users that were using products developed by US companies; while China and Russia only request for access to the database of their own citizens. >>> punctuation?
--- his argument; where the US government >>> ?
--- The article is seemingly bias... / the argument is only base >>> verb form (biased)
--- The case study actually in fact, justifies why US is not the true enemy of internet freedom. >> The case study, in fact, justifies why US is not the true enemy of internet freedom.
--- ...US had request the database of the personnel using software developed by (them)... >>> Why use past perfect tense?
--- Facebook and Google are also part of the restrictions in China and Russia. >>> part of?
--- China and Russia fail to do just that. >> China and Russia fail to allow users to do just that.
--- base on my definition > ?
--- ...China and Russia also practice heavy censorship on the content that one could discuss or comment about... >>> verb tense inconsistency
--- To end off the review on the article, what Morozov pointed out in this article is not exactly invalid. >>> Whose review? Who is "ending off"? (that is conversational language)
--- all three countries that are being discussed somewhat ***fits*** >>> s-v agreement?
--- worst than >>> worse than (comparative)
--- minor adjustment needed in the end-of-text citation (theguardian)
I look forward to your 3rd (please update this one) draft.