In George Orwell’s celebrated 1949 novel titled “1984”, the world comprises just one mega nation, a completely totalitarian state, run by a ruthless group called the “Party”. Its leader is a dictator called Big Brother. The Party is so powerful that it controls every bit of people’s lives – including their thoughts.
That imaginary nation in Orwell’s novel is called Oceania. Could the state of affairs encountered in the imaginary Oceania – especially the aspect where your every move, message and communication is potentially decipherable to the authorities – become reality in today’s countries? Even in the real Oceania we live in?
One of the concomitants of instant unwired technologies that have taken off so spectacularly in such a short span of time across the world is the ease with which the privacy of individuals can be compromised.
In traditional mass communication modes like print and broadcasting, the communication flow was one to many and the feedback loop had to be completed outside the mode of communication. For instance, one cannot respond to a radio programme through the radio – one needs to use the phone or write a letter. The same goes for publications and television.
It is only in network driven technologies like the internet that one to one, one to many and many to many communications are possible on the same platform. While this has provided a level playing field to media producers and consumers, putting the publisher or broadcaster on an equal technological footing with the receiver or consumer, this has made all parties in the communications chain fairly easily identifiable.
This is a major departure from traditional mass communication modes where the receivers of communication messages were one huge, largely amorphous mass, nearly impossible to be identified if the receiver did not wish to be.
With today’s networked media models, it is pretty much impossible not to be identified, much less cover ones tracks no matter where one may be on earth or even beyond.
This aspect of modern networked communications, whose very technological structure compromises privacy, has the potential to give governments the power to pry on people’s lives under pretexts ranging from perceived threats to sovereignty or national security to tracking transnational crime.
Instances of both were demonstrated in separate incidents across the globe last month. The hoax collar bomb case, which put the whole of Australia on the edge for more than a day was solved purely because of the digital trail that the perpetrator left, despite his careful and clever planning.
The masked perpetrator walked into a home in Australia, forced a tight collar around a young woman’s neck and warned her if she tried to prise it open it would explode. He asked her to await instructions via electronic communications. The perpetrator then fled the country to the United States. His email trail was easily traced and in no time was he arrested half way across the world from the scene of the crime as a result of cooperation between the police forces of the two countries.
Over in England, the foolhardy bravado of the young looters during the mayhem in London that led them to brag about their shameless deeds on their pages on social networking websites led to their arrest and conviction.
Digital tell tale trails and location services that many times unbeknown to users of mobile technologies transmit their whereabouts that can be picked up by anybody motivated enough to do so. This has led to many arrests not only in the aftermath of the London rioting but also in cases of civil unrest around the world.
The British government’s discovery that keeping tabs on social networking websites and mobile phone networks helped track down wrongdoers raised the shackles of libertarians. They expressed fears that the government could quite easily raise the bogey of the potential damage networked technologies could inflict on sovereignty and national security.
Governments around the world could quite easily exaggerate such fears with a view to bring pressure on lawmakers to consider passing laws in the interests of safeguarding sovereignty and national security, which could give easier access for a range of authorities to private communication records and the date stamped location of users. This would be a scenario not at all different from that imagined by George Orwell in his novel 1984. The spectre of Big Brother is surely upon us.
Following the British riots, there was widespread debate and discussion across the world on the British government toying with the idea of legislation that would give it powers to shut down social networking sites or parts of the mobile phone network or even mass eavesdrop on conversations, messages, emails and all other communications in times of trouble – some sort of super emergency power over communication networks.
This is quite like the scenario that exists in China where there is severely restricted access to internet search engines and global social networking sites as well as services like Twitter.
Nearer to home in Papua New Guinea, there have already been reports that networked communications had a role to play in the outcome of the election of the new Prime Minister following heated debates and exchanges on social networking sites.
Political leaders know there is no going back once such technologies are unleashed. The only way to prevent them from being used by people to challenge entrenched power structures is to try to find ways and means to regulate their use.
In coming months and years, networked technologies will play an increasingly pivotal role in holding people in powerful positions to account. But the very nature of these technologies leave common people potentially exposed, especially if governments succeed in enacting laws that make identifying users easier.
People therefore need to be watchful about governments needlessly raising the bogey of the potential dangers of networked technologies as posing threats to national security and sovereignty of countries.
People must be on their guard to call the bluff of Big Brother.