Sam's Internet

One of the most poignant points that David Eaves, our guest speaker for the day, made was in regard to the metaphor that he drew between the Internet and the printing press. To poorly paraphrase, he described that in the first hundred years of the printing press, individual power was massively increased in terms of disseminating information. However, drawing on the example of Napoleon raising a one million man army, he argued that in the next hundred years, the power of the printing press shifted dramatically from the individual level to the state level. In other words, being able to standardize the distribution of information lead initially to individual power and eventually to state power. According to David, we are approaching the equivalent of the latter hundred years of the printing press with the Internet, where state actors will begin to more effectively use the power of the Internet and wield it in a manner that supersedes individual power.

Some might argue that this is already the case, and it certainly is in countries like China, where government control over the Internet effectively means government control over information that citizens can access. Yet, is there a way that open government can prevent this change?

I think that e-government is inevitable. We live in a technological world and when there is a more efficient solution to a problem, despite how long it may take to be implemented, the technological solution will eventually win out. When countries who invest in e-government begin cashing in, similar to the way that Estonia has drawn business through its e-government, other countries will follow suit. It is a simple matter of economics. Thus, the only question that remains is will these e-governments be open or closed?

Complete government transparency is almost impossible, yet taking steps toward open data sets allows for citizen and NGO oversight of government activity that is certainly a step in the right direction. Open government paired with e-government sounds like a reasonable check and balance, though providing the government with even more information about myself never seems like the greatest option.

On the other hand, closed e-governments could lead to nightmare scenarios. Systems like India’s Aadhaar, a citizen tracking system/unique citizen identification code, lead to more government power by providing governments with even more information about their citizens. This information can be used for good or it can be used to control citizens. This is what open government tries to prevent.

Ultimately, as David described, the civil war between open and closed governments must be won by the open side if we are to ensure our safety in the e-government future.