Okay. Have been spending the whole day reading about censorship and surveilance and about regulation of the internet. Still trying to cull something from more than 8000 words to 3000 words. Sigh..
Let me attempt to summarise what I’ve learnt here, and figure out my key argument for the M’sian case (which is the weak point of the paper right now).
ONI’s thesis on censorship, 3 levels:
1) “Brute” and overt. Static, easily noticed and increasingly easy to be circumvented. I.e. filtering (and data retention) at choke points (ISPs) on keywords and blacklists. E.g. “Great firewall of China”
2) Random and covert – happens at critical moments in the country’s political context (e.g. elections). Just in time. a) Technical – DDos attacks, hiring of patriotic hackers, harder to trace, harder to circumvent. Looks like normal network error. Dynamic b) Laws & norms – Use of norms and punitive measures to create a culture of self-censorship. Laws are used to enforce norms. Not necessarily ICT related laws (e.g. defamation, libel etc – sounds familiar?)
3) Subtle and discursive – using tactics of confusion, misinformation and information overload (not “credible” but adds to the discourse) to disable mobilising power of ICTs. I.e. using its nature to shape the discourse, the information. To see “cyberspace” as a military resource, and to invest in its development the same way as e.g. weapons. Back full circle it seems hey? With a bit of KGB thrown in. Also international coorperation and surveillance techniques (always aided by technologies – Lessig, Code 2.0) critical in its successful deployment (also applies in 2)
Heike’s thesis:
1) The nation-state is an imaginary concept of cohesive and mutually referencing identity. The role of the nation-state is to police this boundary, to maintain its rigidity (note to self: imperviousity: virus, migration, dirt and civilisation, imageries and symbols). Gendered order (heterosexual, hegemonic masculinity, race, body) is critical in the construction of these binaries
2) Web 2.0 – interactive, everyone is producer of discourse, self-authorship, everyone is potential receiver. Potential to disrupt gender order through transgressive sexualities – pornography, consumption, erotica (nts: Foucault – madness and civilisation, punishment – spectacle. Butler – performativity). Policing is critical. (WHY)
3) Censorship when understood through a woman’s reality, is much more about social censorship (violence, norms, economic inequalities – first set of barriers) than state censorship (second set of barrier). I.e. by principle, focussing on just the state is at minimum, epistemelogically unsound. Second, it explains a lot about ONI level 2 & 3 censorship phases even works. (STILL WHY)
Lessig Code 2.0:
1) Programming (code) is an important determinant of C & S (or the kind of “free and open” or “closely regulated” internet we have) – TCP/IP’s simplicity and openness (invisible man – anonymity) was designed, and commercial interests have layered all kinds of technology on this both app-based and infrastructure-based to show that it is really right now, a very regulate-able space.
2) Anonymity shattered:
a) Who – IP > ISP. Identity layer on TCP/IP designed by M$ (like the black box, “wallet” format idea being developed by EU to “protect privacy” – is M$ a partner in this?)
b) What – packet inspection. Now also packet inspection. Cookies.
c) Where – IP geo-tracing
Malaysia research (WHO and WHERE and WHAT and HOW)
Here’s where it gets tricky. Only now I’ve figured out what the M’sian research needs to answer.
1) CONTEXTUALISING (or proving?) WHY: The primary role of race relations in shaping all layers of the idea of nation. And race relations is often defined through marriage (where forcible change of identity is not just enacted by norms, but also by law). Sexuality at the core of this. Who, how many, when do you get put in jail for it etc. Policing of sexuality gets hysterical responses when transgressions threaten (lelaki lembut, Fatine, polygamy). Transgressive sexuality also used as a political weapon to discredit and dismantle – Anwar, Soil Leck, Eli etc. (is there an increase since Anwar?). Point: making the link/proof between sexuality, gendered hierarchies, ideas of citizenship (hierarchised) and the nation.
2) ROLE OF C & S IN THIS (HOW?): – Censorship is the platform for this to happen? Regulation of speech, information, bodies? Has it changed since mass adoption of the internet? What does it take? What has been used? Examples. Also reverberates with ONI’s level 2 – explains it?
3) WHERE: Challenges ideas of privacy. What kinds of spaces or debates when this kicks off – March 8 GE, Perak takeover, Katagender Fatwa project – all involved with sexuality, race relations, religion, citizenship – all tied together. Technology’s role in this. What is censored, how is it done, what is the role of technology in this, and the role of law, include surveillance. What about women’s rights sites being taken down? Subtle – not sure how it happens. Not helped by social censorship – technical know-how divested externally.
4) NATION VS INTERNATIONAL: Additional construction of self through orientalisation|mirrorisation of the “global other”. Malaysia truly Asia. Mahathir’s West vs Asian. Mahathirs’ “Vision 2020″ MSC rooted firmly in the developing world as a leader, whilst bending over backwards in subsidiaries and concession to court international expertise (temporary only understand?) and investment. This is a play of hegemonic masculinities. My prick may be small now, but it will be bigger than yours in a few winks. Why? Cause we can control our women better than you can! So we have better morals! Fuck this shit.
5) C & S (WHAT): It polices sexual boundaries. Sexual boundaries polices gendered boundaries. Gendered boundaries polices hegemonic masculinities. Hegemonic masculinities polices the nation state. The nation state policies idea of the “global”.
The “SO WHAT”? I don’t know la. Can’t think anymore. But I think I should have enough to hammer it out… esok.