"An Influential Event"

"An Influential Event"

I had never thought of or realized what the true purpose in life was until my Grandmother had passed away.

It was five years ago, at the wake of my Grandmother’s funeral. The usual laughter and chattering within our family members were missing. Instead, sadness was written over every family members’ faces as each of us took turns to pay our respect to Grandmother before she was cremated.

On the way home after the funeral, I pondered about the fragility of life. It was hard to predict when we would die; but how could we had no regrets in life even if we only had a few weeks or months to live?

For some people, their sole purpose in life was to be the richest man in the world. They striven hard from young to old just to accumulate wealth that they could not even spent in a life time. By as they got richer, they got more depressed. True friends and life partners were hard to identify as people that roamed around them are people that were only interested in coveting on their wealth. Therefore, instead of the pursuit over superficial subjects such as wealth and fame, it was better to pursuit over happiness which could lead to a more enriching life.

To end off, life passed in a blink of eye, so it was important to cherish every moments in our life. Maybe life gave us lemon once in a while, but there would always be a rainbow after the rain. Pursuit of happiness instead of superficial objects such as material needs and fame can be a step further to a life of no regrets.

Reader's Response Draft 3 (Edited Version)

Reader’s Response:

Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom- China, Russia, or the US?-

Morozov, E.

According to Morozov (2015) in ‘Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom-China, Russia, or the US?’, United States (US) despite being an advocate of internet freedom demanded to obtain internet information regardless of where it was stored as long as it was handled by US companies. This greatly offsets China’s policy in the blockage of foreign websites and Russia’s regulation which restricts the storage of surveillance data on servers inside the country.

US backing of internet freedom is indeed a mask to achieve her egotistic aims of increasing her internet sovereignty at the expense of violating civil and political rights of technology films and other nations.

In 2014, US, China and Russia were among countries that were marked as ‘enemies of the internet’ by Reporter Without Boarders, a distinction to highlight countries with the highest level of internet censorship and surveillance.

Despite the low level of internet censorship as compared to China and Russia, US had tried to propagate an extensive internet surveillance over technology films and other nations in the name of ‘internet freedom’. This is demonstrated in the article, where US demanded to bypass the legal procedures involved to obtain internet information from other countries as long as it was handled by US companies. Furthermore, US companies had also installed advanced network systems in other countries that were complex and costly to undo. Therefore, it is rather ironic for US to be supportive of internet freedom at one end and exploiting the political rights of other nations at the other.

In terms of economic purposes, US support of ‘internet freedom’ can be a cover for the rapid expansion of US Info-communication Technology (IT) companies in other countries to dominate the global IT sector. Referring back to the article, Google had even funded a $60million undersea cable connecting Brazil to Florida in order to promote connectivity between the two countries. Instead of the political reason of promoting a swift transfer of internet resources between the two countries, a possible reason for US to initial this project is to ensure her server stays relevant in other countries.

Referring to an online news report by Australian Broadcasting Corporation News (ABC News), US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Justice Department had even demanded Twitter to hand over user data without the acknowledgement of the users due to surveillance law. This had deeply violated the privacy of users of Twitter, whom every word was constantly monitored by the US authorities. In addition, US internet surveillance on Twitter users had violated the US constitution’s First Amendment which entitled citizens to the freedom of speech.

From the US perspective, the propagation of internet surveillance mainly brings about benefits for the nation. For instance, the omission of legal procedures in order to obtain internet data from other nations; globalization of US IT companies; deterrence against social unrest, child pornography and promotion of national security. However, propagation of internet surveillance by US may bring about mass surveillance worldwide, which violates the political and civil rights of other nations. It is also seemly impudent to demand every nation to disclose digital surveillance in order to promote internet freedom. These digital documentations are supposed to be highly confidential. Even if these digital documents are handled by US companies, the required legal procedures have to be done to prevent the leak of confidential information.

In conclusion, it may be difficult to put a definition on the degree of digital surveillance that nations shall impose, as that truly depends on the interest of the people involved. Nevertheless, US overbearing demands to propagate her internet surveillance over technology films and other countries is not acceptable. To build an ‘internet free’ society requires the cooperation between every nations and US self-centred ideology of building her digital empire in the name of promoting internet freedom is rather one-sided.

References

Morozov , E. (2015, Jan4). Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom - China, Russia, or the US?. The Guardian. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/04/internet-freedom-china-russia-us-google-microsoft-digital-sovereignty

ABC News (2014, Oct8). Twitter sues US government claiming freedom of speech is being violated by surveillance laws. Retrieved from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-08/twitter-suing-us-government-for-breaching-freedom-of-speech/5799666

Reader's Response: Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom- China, Russia, or the US?- Evgeny Morozov

Reader’s Response:

Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom- China, Russia, or the US?- Evgeny Morozov

Inferring to ‘Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom-China, Russia, or the US?’- Evgeny Morozov (2015), the author believes that United State despite being an advocate of internet freedom, had demanded to obtain internet information regardless of where it is stored as long as it is handled by US companies. This greatly offsets China’s policy in the blockage of foreign websites and Russia’s regulation which restricts the storage of surveillance data on servers inside the country.

In my opinion, United States backing of internet freedom is indeed a mask to achieve her egotistic aims at the expense of invading civil and political rights of other nations.

In 2014, United States, China and Russia were among countries that was marked as ‘enemies of the internet’ by Reporter Without Boarders, a distinction to highlight countries with the highest level of internet censorship and surveillance.

Despite the low level of internet censorship as compared to China and Russia, United State had tried to propagate an extensive internet surveillance over other nations in the name of ‘internet freedom’. This is demonstrated in the article, where US had demanded to bypass the legal procedures involved to obtain internet information from other countries as long as it is handled by US companies. In additional, US companies had also installed advanced network systems in other countries that are complex and costly to undo. Therefore, it is rather ironical for US to be supportive of internet freedom at one end and exploiting the political rights of other nations at the other.

In terms of economical purposes, I believe US support of ‘internet freedom’ is just a cover for the rapid expansion of US Info-communication Technology (IT) companies in other countries to dominate the global IT sector. Inferring from the article, Google had even funded a $60million undersea cable connecting Brazil to Florida in order to promote connectivity between the two countries. Is it really to ensure swift transfer of internet resources between the two countries or is to ensure her server stays relevant in other countries? The answer to this question is rather simple. Just like the saying,' There is no free lunch on this Earth.'  I believe there must be something up US sleeve for initialling this project. 

From the US perspective, the propagation of internet surveillance mainly brings about benefits for her own nation. For instance, the omission of legal procedures in order to obtain internet data from other nations; globalization of US IT companies; deterrence against social unrest, child pornography and promotion of national security. However, propagation of internet surveillance by US may brings about mass surveillance worldwide, which violates the political and civil rights of other nations. It is also seemly impudent to demand every nations to disclose digital surveillance in order to promote internet freedom. These digital documentations are supposed to highly confidential. Even if it is handled by US companies, the required legal procedures have to be done to prevent the leak of confidential information.

In conclusion, it may be difficult to put a definition on the degree of digital surveillance that nations shall impose, as that truly depends on the interest of the people involved. Nevertheless, US overbearing demands to propagate her internet surveillance over other countries is not acceptable. To build an ‘internet free’ society requires the cooperation between every nations and US self-centred ideology of building her digital empire in the name of promoting internet freedom is rather one-sided.

Reference

Evgeny Morozov (2015,Jan4). Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom - China, Russia, or the US?.The Guardian. Retrieved from

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/04/internet-freedom-china-russia-us-google-microsoft-digital-sovereignty

Outline of reader response

Thesis Statement:

United States backing of internet freedom is just a mask to achieve her egotistic aims.

Supporting Claims:

• As a means of America's globalization agenda, US companies had installed advanced network system in other countries that is complex and costly to undo.
• Instead of complex legal process involving bilateral treaties between the governments in order to obtain information sovereignty in other countries, the american government now wants to sidestep that completely and treat the handling of such data as a purely local issue with no international implications.

‘Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom-China, Russia, or the US?’ Summary

‘Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom-China, Russia, or the US?’ Summary

Inferring to ‘Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom-China, Russia, or the US?’- Evgeny Morozov (2015), the author believes that United State despite being an advocate of internet freedom, had demanded to obtain internet data regardless of where it is stored as long as it is handled by US companies. This greatly offsets China’s policy in the blockage of foreign networks and Russia’s regulation which restricts the storage of surveillance data on servers inside the country.

Reference

Evgeny Morozov (4Jan2015). Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom - China, Russia, or the US?.The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/04/internet-freedom-china-russia-us-google-microsoft-digital-sovereignty

DONE BY: NGOH JIE RUI, ZHENG DA