Oct 09
11
Who the Hell is that Anonymous Dude?
Unfortunately in our enlightened world, no-one likes to be
criticized.
This includes big business, Government and the next door
neighbour.
Thousands of Bloggers choose to write their opinions and
interpretations of current events.
Even more choose to hide behind pseudonyms, avatars and
anonymous commentary.
Why?
Because we as a world are scared. We are scared that the big
end of town will come after us and punish us for speaking our minds.
Because Government and big business combined own a very
large steam roller that is capable of squashing a mans entrepreneurial efforts,
lifestyle and opinions faster than any car-crash.
It used to be that only academics and a few Journalists were
brave enough to speak up about the injustices occurring in the world. (The
draft for Vietnam
as an example.)
Throughout history, men that have wanted to change the world
have met with resistance and threat, dis-creditation, incarceration and worse.
The threat is invisible. Covered up by a media that wants
you to see only the sanitized approved censored version of the news.
What about letters to the editor?
Letters to the editor have always been censored to reflect
the opinion of the media owner.
Besides have you actually tried to send a letter to the
editor on any of the Media sites? Try
it, then come back here to read on.
Anti threat deployment is usually not for publicity related
reasons. Individuals are targeted and then taken out in a variety of ways.
The attack could be via the IRS or via the SEC or in fact
the FBI, (or the equivalivents in your home state).
The attack is usually designed to totally discredit the
individual in a manner designed to have nothing to do with the subject matter. (Example.)
The recent wikileaks document that expounded on the threat
to investigative journalists was unfortunately not a
fairy tale.
Most countries globally would consider me a radical element
throwing a spanner in the works of rational and good government.
The question is not whether or not I am a radical, the
question is what made me question the modus operandi of elected officials that
allow companies that operate as a monopoly to dictate legislation.
So one must ask:
Does good Government depend on a few corporations reaping
the exclusive rewards of their legislative engineering efforts?
Does good Government include negotiating secret trade
agreements behind closed doors?
Does good Government require short or no notices of public
involvement in matters affecting the entire country’s economy?
Does good Government mean refusing to listen to the people?
When a Government targets it’s population, some would say
that is a human rights issue.
I say, it is actually a warlike tactical skirmish, carefully planned and executed. Unfortunately a skirmish
that the incumbent political power will always win against an individual.
The Blogsphere, Twitter and Anonymous are making sure that
the individual has support. Mainly from people that are scared to put their names
on a comment or article for fear of
retribution from the Government.
Koltai, are you not worried that by writing this article,
you will be targeted? Why aren’t you hiding behind Anonymous?
Because we currently have a Government that is forward
thinking and responsive and I don’t believe that I have to hide.
Let me put it another way. If the Libs were still running
the show, I would be so anon, encrypted and SSH’ed that I would be totally invisible.
Only history can answer whether Australia
currently has a good Government or not. With the exception of the rabbit proof
internet filter, I think the current Government have shown that they are
prepared to engage with the people of the country in what most see as still a
one way discussion (blog postings from government departments, officials and
political representatives with comments mode turned off). However the one way
nature of some Government representatives is changing.
Projects like the Kate Lundy Public-sphere
series give me a very real reason to believe that open, transparent and real
Democracy is gradually infiltrating government.
In an essay in the current version of UPGRADING
DEMOCRACY INSIGHT EDITION
From the Centre for Policy Development in an article
entitled “Promise versus Practice: The Dilemma of Open Government”, Michael
Richardson writes:
“Openness can make life tough. Transparency opens the
door to criticism; ending secrecy increases risk and exposure; accountability
means being held accountable.
The reflexive progressive response is to recognize the
obviousness of these claims and nevertheless assert the need for the principle
to triumph. It’s thus tempting to dismiss Prime Minister Harper as having a
penchant for secrecy, much like his political role model John Howard.
Such an analysis isn’t helpful. It fails to recognize the
pressures and dynamics at play in putting promises of open government into
practice.
One clear factor is that the pay-offs from increased
accountability are often deferred: avoiding scandal and corruption; increasing
citizen and civil society engagement; making it tougher for the opposition to
wield the same blunt tool of ‘no accountability, no transparency’. All
benefits, but ones that can feel distant to a new and surely-virtuous
government. By contrast, the risk of mistakes and negative stories overwhelming
the government’s message and narrative seems immediate. Given the dominant role
of communications and media staff in many political offices, it’s not
surprising that short-termism dominates. The prevention of immediate damage is
often more highly valued than potential long-term benefits. In a media culture
transfixed by scandal, openness in action can seem like a very big risk to spin
doctors, press secretaries and strategists.”
I would like to quote the whole essay as it touches on the
subjects mentioned above about issues of national security versus the public
right to know and is a fascinating discussion of the long term benefits of
Freedom of Information and transparency in Government.
I highly recommend the article (commencing on page 7) that
can downloaded here.
The conclusion that I reached from Michael Richardson’s
article was that it takes a brave politician to institute open Government.
Just as it takes a brave blogger to not hide behind
anonymous.
Will these efforts at open Government eventually create a
better more economically sound Australia?
Anonymous and I think so.
References:
Lundy
short-listed for international Top 10 people changing the world of Internet and
politics
Regulatory Transparency in OECD Countries: Overview,
Trends and Challenges
Rex Deighton-Smith – Australian Journal of Public
Administration Volume 63 Issue 1, P 66 – 73
Man arrested for using Twitter
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/29569