one minute with… rebecca mackinnon

1
17 March 2012 | NewScientist | 27 Comment on these stories at newscientist.com/opinion You have referred to Mark Zuckerberg as the Sultan of Facebookistan. What did you mean? Sovereignty and power are shifting. Before the internet, these notions were controlled by nation states. But companies like Facebook are the sovereigns of cyberspace. Facebook exercises power by shaping the way you interact with the world. It makes decisions about what you can do and not do on its network. And there are only a few countries in the world where Facebook is not the most popular social network. Is this really a problem? Isn’t Facebook just a neat way to keep up to date with friends? That’s not how the activists who brought down the Egyptian regime saw it. Facebook was a useful tool for galvanising anger against the regime. But in November 2010, on the eve of a demonstration, one of their key pages was removed. Why? Because the page’s administrators were using a pseudonym, which is against Facebook’s terms of service. Fortunately they managed to get the page transferred to a US-based activist willing to use her real name. But that was lucky. The bigger problem is that Facebook and other global networks are setting rules that are ultimately based on commercial considerations, not on the rights and civil liberties of users. Yet people are free to leave if they don’t like the rules that Facebook sets. A lot of people are on Facebook even though they are uncomfortable with its practices and policies. I have spoken with activists from authoritarian countries who say that Facebook’s habit of making changes to privacy settings endangers people. Iranian activists, for example, felt particularly exposed by a rule change the network made in 2009, when it suddenly made public the list of friends that each user has. Even so, many feel they have to be on Facebook. If you’re an activist you have to be where the people are. Do you think Facebook appreciates its power? Mark Zuckerberg has an ideology that’s very clear. He believes the world should be open and One minute with… Rebecca MacKinnon transparent, and that what you do on the internet should be clearly linked to your physical identity – if you aren’t open about who you are and what you are doing, you lack integrity. Tell that to activists in Egypt and Iran, or to women fleeing an abusive spouse. The rules of Facebook are based on how Zuckerberg thinks society should be, not how it is. What would you like to say to Zuckerberg? I’d ask him to have Facebook join the Global Network Initiative. Companies who join commit to a core set of human rights principles and work with the human rights community to figure out how to conduct business in a way that is consistent with privacy and freedom of expression, and how not to become unwitting or witting parties of government oppression. Google, Yahoo and Microsoft have all joined. They are not getting everything right by any means, but at least they recognise the responsibilities that come along with their power and have made a public commitment to be held accountable. Interview by Jim Giles Facebook has the power of a nation state, but is it living up to its moral responsibilities, asks a former CNN bureau chief BROOKE BREADY PrOfiLe Rebecca MacKinnon led CNN’s bureaux in Tokyo and Beijing. She is co-founder of Global Voices, an international citizen-media network. Her new book is Consent of the Networked: The worldwide struggle for internet freedom more years. But the risk is very small indeed. About 25 per cent of the population dies from cancer whether accidentally exposed to radiation or not. This rate might be increased by an additional one or two per cent among the exposed workers. What is more, exposures to radiation were nowhere near high enough to cause acute radiation sickness. Importantly, there have been no radiation injuries to children or to other members of the public. The INES was intended to aid public understanding of nuclear safety. In fact, it has caused more confusion. It has also probably added to the mental anguish of the Japanese people. The accident at Fukushima Daiichi was moved to the top of the scale a month after the tsunami for technical reasons, when the estimate of radioactive material released exceeded the International Atomic Energy Agency’s criterion for level 7. However, the amount of iodine-131 escaping from all the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi was less than 10 per cent of the amount released at Chernobyl, and the release of caesium-137, the next most important fission product, was less than 15 per cent of the Chernobyl total. Unless it is to be scrapped entirely, the INES should be substantially modified. One possibility is to divide level 7 into several sub-levels. But perhaps a better option might be to start again. A scale based on health effects would mean a lot more to non-specialists than the technical and scientific terminology that is used at present. n Don Higson is a fellow of the Australasian Radiation Protection Society and the Institution of Engineers Australia, where he serves as secretary of the Nuclear Engineering Panel. He is also vice-president of the Australian Nuclear Association based in Engadine, New South Wales, and a member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy

Upload: jim-giles

Post on 16-Sep-2016

212 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: One minute with… Rebecca MacKinnon

17 March 2012 | NewScientist | 27

Comment on these stories at newscientist.com/opinion

You have referred to Mark Zuckerberg as the Sultan of Facebookistan. What did you mean?Sovereignty and power are shifting. Before the internet, these notions were controlled by nation states. But companies like Facebook are the sovereigns of cyberspace. Facebook exercises power by shaping the way you interact with the world. It makes decisions about what you can do and not do on its network. And there are only a few countries in the world where Facebook is not the most popular social network.

Is this really a problem? Isn’t Facebook just a neat way to keep up to date with friends?That’s not how the activists who brought down the Egyptian regime saw it. Facebook was a useful tool for galvanising anger against the regime. But in November 2010, on the eve of a demonstration, one of their key pages was removed. Why? Because the page’s administrators were using a pseudonym, which is against Facebook’s terms of service. Fortunately they managed to get the page transferred to a US-based activist willing to use her real name. But that was lucky. The bigger problem is that Facebook and other global networks are setting rules that are ultimately based on commercial considerations, not on the rights and civil liberties of users.

Yet people are free to leave if they don’t like the rules that Facebook sets.A lot of people are on Facebook even though they are uncomfortable with its practices and policies. I have spoken with activists from authoritarian countries who say that Facebook’s habit of making changes to privacy settings endangers people. Iranian activists, for example, felt particularly exposed by a rule change the network made in 2009, when it suddenly made public the list of friends that each user has. Even so, many feel they have to be on Facebook. If you’re an activist you have to be where the people are.

Do you think Facebook appreciates its power?Mark Zuckerberg has an ideology that’s very clear. He believes the world should be open and

One minute with…

Rebecca MacKinnon

transparent, and that what you do on the internet should be clearly linked to your physical identity – if you aren’t open about who you are and what you are doing, you lack integrity. Tell that to activists in Egypt and Iran, or to women fleeing an abusive spouse. The rules of Facebook are based on how Zuckerberg thinks society should be, not how it is.

What would you like to say to Zuckerberg? I’d ask him to have Facebook join the Global Network Initiative. Companies who join commit to a core set of human rights principles and work with the human rights community to figure out how to conduct business in a way that is consistent with privacy and freedom of expression, and how not to become unwitting or witting parties of government oppression. Google, Yahoo and Microsoft have all joined. They are not getting everything right by any means, but at least they recognise the responsibilities that come along with their power and have made a public commitment to be held accountable.Interview by Jim Giles

Facebook has the power of a nation state, but is it living up to its moral responsibilities, asks a former CNN bureau chief

BRo

oKE

BRE

AdY

ProfileRebecca MacKinnon led CNN’s bureaux in Tokyo and Beijing. She is co-founder of Global Voices, an international citizen-media network. Her new book is Consent of the Networked: The worldwide struggle for internet freedom

more years. But the risk is very small indeed. About 25 per cent of the population dies from cancer whether accidentally exposed to radiation or not. This rate might be increased by an additional one or two per cent among the exposed workers.

What is more, exposures to radiation were nowhere near high enough to cause acute radiation sickness. Importantly, there have been no radiation injuries to children or to other members of the public.

The INES was intended to aid public understanding of nuclear safety. In fact, it has caused more confusion. It has also probably added to the mental anguish of the Japanese people.

The accident at Fukushima Daiichi was moved to the top of the scale a month after the tsunami for technical reasons, when the estimate of radioactive material released exceeded the International Atomic Energy Agency’s criterion for level 7. However, the amount of iodine-131 escaping from all the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi was less than 10 per cent of the amount released at Chernobyl, and the release of caesium-137, the next most important fission product, was less than 15 per cent of the Chernobyl total.

Unless it is to be scrapped entirely, the INES should be substantially modified. One possibility is to divide level 7 into several sub-levels. But perhaps a better option might be to start again. A scale based on health effects would mean a lot more to non-specialists than the technical and scientific terminology that is used at present. n

Don Higson is a fellow of the Australasian Radiation Protection Society and the Institution of Engineers Australia, where he serves as secretary of the Nuclear Engineering Panel. He is also vice-president of the Australian Nuclear Association based in Engadine, New South Wales, and a member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy

120317_Op_Comment.indd 27 12/3/12 15:20:12