According to David Lee, writing in "Chinese Firm Huawei Controls Net Filter Praised by PM", concerned groups have raised national security concerns due to the system being run by Chinese company Huawei, providers of the Homesafe internet filtering system which the PM wants changed from being optional to required for all internet use in the United Kingdom (2013). The company and government committees have, however, denied that there has been or is any problem, that Huawei acts responsibly as a business, and that it is not tied to the Chinese government.
Although I think that it is normally both sensible national economics to allow foreign businesses to compete freely with domestic businesses, who should not be given any special protection, there might be grounds for monitoring the activities of companies in areas that are sensitive and do have genuine national security issues. Usually, I think the national security excuse is just a lie that politicians and selfish interest groups use to block fair and free competition from other businesses. However, control of information, especially the internet, is perhaps something where some government oversight might not be bad thing, but then, don't domestic service providers need to be subject to the same examination? So, I don't really think the fact of Huawei being Chinese is a good reason to interfere with the companies services to UK citizens.
I am much more worried about the Prime Minister's excuse that it is necessary to block pornography and control what is available on the internet in order to protect innocent children. This sounds like a lie, but one with a very long history and remains an excuse that is still popular with many people: ban drugs (but not the harmful ones we like) to protect children, ban books with immoral ideas to protect children (religious types often like this suppression of ideas), ban large soft drinks to protect children (New York's mayor wants to do this), and so on. But is there any evidence that pornography hurts children in any way? Ice-cream certainly harms children - it contributes to making them fat and unhealthy, so there might be good reasons to ban ice-cream, but pornography?
I am reminded, yet again, that this is exactly the same as the irrational, and lying excuse that his political enemies and the majority of citizens in democratic Athens used to legally have their greatest thinker and most morally aware teacher legally executed for corrupting the young people of Athens. His name was Socrates, the teacher of Plato, who was the teacher of Aristotle. I'm not sure that seeing a bit of pornography, or enjoying some ultra-violent video games for today's internet generation, is any more dangerous to young people than was Socrates to the young of ancient Athens. The Athenian democrats were successful in legally killing Socrates; thankfully they failed to suppress his radical ideas.
__________
Reference
No comments:
Post a Comment
Before you click the blue "Publish" button for your first comment on a post, check ✔ the "Notify me" box. You want to know when your classmates contribute to a discussion you have joined.
A thoughtful response should normally mean writing for five to ten minutes. After you state your main idea, some details, explanation, examples or other follow up will help your readers.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.