Friday, April 27, 2007

Why would there be such reluctance on the part of not only Americans and engineers but perhaps others interested in the configuration of cyberspace?

there are many people, I think, both from the public and from the leadership of the countries who may due to some issues oppose a surveilance of cyberspce. I think people are more prone to love the idea of freedom of expression and also privacy. But we should also think that people will suffer from terrorist groups. Thus, why should there be a reluctance in a world and time that problems that people face from many directions mount.

Two other articles, "Pentagon Preps Mind Fields for Smarter War Stations" and "The militarization of neuroscience," examine US DARPA research and the "militarization" of neuroscience . This type of research is inevitable, not only in the United States, but in other major powers (e.g. Russia, PRC, UK, etc.). What are the implications for global politics and the development of cyberspace raised by these types of technologies?

If we want to talk about development then why not allowing people to do. I think, the world faces problems such as terrorism and the problems whether terrorism or other forms will continue. So before the time comes and the world suffers severly we should have these kind of machines to check the people. This is a good idea, but to what extent should these machines check every individual and what cost should the governments pay. Of course the military might get a benefit, but other sectors in a country like education and welfare might not. But less developed countries might not be able to pay such a hight cost not even the military will be able to pay and as a result, I think, the digital gap widens in the world rather than closes.

Tuesday, April 3, 2007

To find more about discusion question for ICP 351

Discussion question for ICP 351

Should "hactivists" actually cooperate with their respective national governments (as suggested by Milone), or should they develop technologies designed to secure the infrastructure from surveillance by any government, including their own?
Is "hacktivism" a form of cyberpolitical participation that could support, or constrain, "democratization" in both the developed and developing worlds?

The immediate answer that I would give is that the national governments should, in collaboration with hacktivists, work to solve two problems. First, there is, in any nations in the developing countries, a problem of language barrier. Secondly, there is economic problem.

It is important to mention that hactivists are very skilled in computer science. One way to broaden cyberpolitical participation in any nation is that government and hacktivists and others who have skill in the new technology should work together. There are some people in any nation that know nothing or very little about computer and internet use for participation in the political processes. For example, in the developing countries people know less about internet and also there is the problem of language barrier. Every citizen should learn english language to be able to use internet and internet sources because 84% to 66% of the data are in english. Thus, the governments should cooperate with hacktivists to teach people on one hand. On the other hand, governments should provide people with internet that is affordable by the people. In this way the nations can participate via internet in the political processes and in democratization.

There are some commonly held notions that hacktivists are criminals like "bad hackers" who distract any process be it democratization or virtual chat or e-businesses. To have this notion corrected, the respective governments should give the people a correct notion about hacktivists then they can work hand in hand with hackers to promote any democratic processes.
Once there is this notion corrected and people can afford internet access, then, I think, there will be a strong democratic process and environment in which everyone, irrespective of their gender, race and family background can and will involve in "civic engagement".

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Political culture of cyberspace: discussion for ICP351

Political culture of cyberspace can be very democratic if two barriers are not existent. Firslty, the governments should not ban, control and put restrictions on internet access. Secondly, if the cost of internet access is affordable by the people it can play a positive role and can be democratic.
I think Beir is correct because there some countries and poeples who cannot afford using the internet. For example, in Afghanistan in Kabul only a small number of people have access to internet. Thus, in this regard, political culture of cyberspace in Afghanistan can play a minimum role.

Responding to Cybercrime in the Post-9/11 World

What is Cyberspace?

BBC Persian News Website