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
The overview of the reader response is clear however there are some parts which are confusing like
ReplyDelete- "demanded to obtain internet information regardless of where it is stored as long as it is handled by US companies." Example of information handled by US companies could be given to further illustrates.
- "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."
- There are three countries mentioned in the original article but your argument only focus on the US so the arguments is imbalance. A better argument could include other examples form the other countries stated.
In conclusion the whole reader response is nicely done as there is an easy transition from the thesis statement down to the conclusion.
By Zhenda and Xinni
Adding to the previous comment,the reference should follows 32.article in an online newspaper from http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/resdoc5e/RES5e_ch09_s1-0002.html. Where the Family name is stated first follow by the initial of his given name and the publisher should be in italic.
ReplyDeleteSome mistakes are also noted in the first paragraph
-"Inferring to ‘Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom-China, Russia" Inferring should not be use in this context.
-"had demanded" is a past perfect and demanded should be use instead.
-"it is stored" is a grammer inconsistence
-"was marked " should be plural
-"United State had tried" should be The United State tried...
-"This is demonstrated"should be plural
This is an interesting reader response, Jie Rui. You do a good job of presenting a brief article overview, and then connecting that to your response, which has a fairly clear focus. I think you develop your ideas quite well. However, if you were able to provide more evidence in the way of another couple citations, your argument would gain strength.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, as your peers have mentioned (in a rather confusing fashion), there are quite a few language issues to consider here:
--- United State > ?
--- Inferring to ‘Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom-China, Russia, or the US?’- Evgeny Morozov (2015)... >>>
According to Morozov (2015) in "Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom-China, Russia, or the US?", ....main idea.....
OR
In the article "Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom-China, Russia, or the US?", Morozov (2015) expresses the belief that.... (HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THE ARTICLE!)
--- As your peers mention, there is quite a bit of verb tense inconsistency here, for example "... had demanded to obtain internet information regardless of where it is stored as long as it is handled by US companies."
--- invading civil and political rights... > (wrong word: one can't be " invading" rights....)
--- her egotistic aims >>> can you be more specific?
--- were among countries that was marked ... >>> subject verb disagreement?
--- In additional, >>> huh? (spelling)
--- rather ironical for US >>> rather ironic for the US
--- economical purposes >>> economic purposes
--- Inferring from the article,... >>> Who is inferring? What is the main subject of this sentence? It needs to be the person who is inferring something.
--- Avoid using rhetorical questions: 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?
--- 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. >>> fragment/too conversational
--- initialling >>> ?
--- her own nation > the nation
--- every nations >> plural or singular?
--- are supposed to highly confidential. >>> to what?
--- Even if it is handled by US companies, the required legal ***procedures***... >> What does "it" refer to?
--- You end-of-text citation is wrong.
I look forward to your next draft.