Internet, chance ou danger pour les libertés ?

[Fëanor]

Bonjour tout le monde,

Je dois faire une dissertation en libertés fondamentales sur "internet, chance ou danger pour les libertés?"

Évidemment c'est une dissertation juridique, là dessus pas de problème, on peut évoquer les nombreux contentieux quant à la conservation et à l'abus des informations laissées par des internautes (spam, arnaques etc).

Il faut aussi évoquer la formidable garantie pour la liberté d'expression et le bouleversement, grâce à internet, des techniques de communication et la remise en cause des médias traditionnels.

Bon ça c'est pour le B.A BA.

Je cherche quelques idées pour pimenter ma dissert, lui donner un côté un peu plus … rothbardien

Je lance donc un appel public à l'idée

Je compte la rendre pour me faire noter, donc des idées radicales, oui, mais ça doit rester citoyen et festif

[G7H+]

In The Constitution of Liberty Hayek says that "we are probably only at the threshold of an age in which the technological possibilities of mind control are likely to grow rapidly and what may appear at first as innocuous or beneficial powers over the personality of the individual will be at the disposal of government. The greatest threats to human freedom probably still lie in the future."

Has Hayek's gloomy warning been borne out by events, or has technology become more a force for liberating people from government?

Réponses des trois gagnants du concours :

http://www.montpelerin.org/documents/1st%2…ames%20Todd.pdf,

http://www.montpelerin.org/documents/1stPl…avidSeymour.pdf,

http://www.montpelerin.org/documents/3rdPl…chaelHammer.pdf

[Chitah]

Je compte la rendre pour me faire noter, donc des idées radicales, oui, mais ça doit rester citoyen et festif

Tu as entendu parler du hacking citoyen?

[Baltar]

Par ici peut-etre.

Liberation by Internet

In The Constitution of Liberty, Friedrich Hayek gave a dire prognosis for the future of technology: "[W]e are probably only at the threshold of an age in which the technological possibilities of mind control are likely to grow rapidly and what may appear at first as innocuous or beneficial powers over the personality of the individual will be at the disposal of government. The greatest threats to human freedom probably still lie in the future."[1]

Hayek, like most of the leading intellectuals of his time, did not foresee the emergence of the Internet — the quintessential Hayekian spontaneous order. As a decentralized communication system facilitating the sending and receiving of messages by billions of people, the Internet has greatly shifted the balance of power away from governments and toward sovereign individuals. Even in its early days, the Internet played a vital role in bringing about the downfall of the Soviet Union's government. Since then, it has catalyzed tremendous economic, social, and political liberation in countries ranging from Cuba to the United States.

While governments have tried to use modern communication technologies to monitor and regulate private individuals, their efforts are doomed to failure stemming from a much more powerful and competent market response.

http://mises.org/daily/3060

[ShoTo]

Even in its early days, the Internet played a vital role in bringing about the downfall of the Soviet Union's government.

Est il possible d'en savoir plus ?

[Baltar]

Est il possible d'en savoir plus ?

Oui ce n'est que l'introduction. Il est question d'un operateur prive, Relcom, apparu en 1989 en URSS.

(…)

The Internet came to have a vital role in spreading the truth. In 1989, Relcom, a privately owned network, emerged in the USSR. According to Kedzie,

Relcom (short for "reliable communication") was implemented specifically to support commercial activity otherwise stultified by the intentionally constrained Soviet telecommunications infrastructure. Supported by its own user fees, this network has blossomed to hundreds of thousands of users.[22]

Not only did Relcom liberate many Soviet citizens by enabling them to engage in economic transactions that enhanced their standards of living — it also gave them a forum for self-expression outside the purview of the government. Relcom enabled its users to spread and develop ideas, immune from oversight and the need for prior approval. Key to this ability was the very structure of the Internet.

Clay Shirky writes that the Internet is based on the end-to-end principle: "What made it worth adopting in a world already well provisioned with other networks, was that the sender and receiver didn't have to ask for either help or permission before inventing a new kind of message."[23] While even under Glasnost, the Soviet government exercised some oversight and censorship over the printed media, radio, telephones, and television — such control was impossible on the Internet by virtue of the Internet's very design. The most governments can do is filter major search engines — but engines like Yahoo! and Google did not even exist in 1989. Hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens became informed nonetheless through Relcom, which, in Kedzie's judgment, "proved to be a powerful social weapon against centralized power."[24]

Relcom was not the sole online source influencing the downfall of the Soviet Union. More diffuse and personal means of communication — such as email — were also crucial. In Kedzie's words, "The international flow of e-mail messages strengthened the conventional media, which could no longer be deprived of outside sources for information."[25]

While most of the public still got its facts from the newspapers, radio, and television, the journalists in each of those media often looked to electronic communications to get accurate information from the West and from within the USSR. Facts conveyed through the Internet found their way into the pages of newspapers and onto television screens. A wide array of technologies worked symbiotically to collapse confidence in the Communist Party:

(…)

http://mises.org/daily/3060#part2

[ShoTo]

Tant pis ça me brûle trop les lèvres je pose ma question de noob : Pourquoi le gouvernement a t il laissé faire ?

[Guest]

Dans le forum socialiste (badurl) http://forumsocialiste.fr/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=18906&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=internet (badurl)

[Baltar]

Tant pis ça me brûle trop les lèvres je pose ma question de noob : Pourquoi le gouvernement a t il laissé faire ?

L'explication de l'article est qu'un regime totalitaire est confronte a un dilemne:

- prevenir le developpement des technologies de l'information et ainsi eviter la diffusion d'opinions critiques

- ou laisser emerger ces technologies pour participer au developpement economique et s'epargner des mecontentements internes

La politique de liberte d'expression, le glasnot, initiee par Gorbatchev en 1985 est en partie presentee comme la reconnaissance d'une necessite technologique.

Author Scott Shane agrees and writes that the "death of the Soviet illusion… [was] not by tanks and bombs but by facts and opinions, by the release of information bottled up for decades."[16] The initial visible stimulus for the flood of information that led Soviet citizens to question their regime was Mikhail Gorbachev's policy of Glasnost,[17] initiated in 1985 and gradually relaxing restrictions on access to information and travel through the late 1980s. However, Glasnost did not originate from Gorbachev's good will alone — but rather from his recognition of a technological necessity. In Gorbachev's own words from 1988, "International communication is easier now than ever before. Nowadays, it is virtually impossible for any society to be 'closed.'"[18]

Gorbachev faced the dilemma of totalitarian societies, as described by George Schultz three years earlier:

[T]hey try to stifle these [information and communication] technologies and thereby fall further behind in the new industrial revolution, or else they permit these technologies and see their totalitarian control inevitably eroded. In fact, they do not have a choice, because they will never be able entirely to block the tide of technological advance.[19]

The tremendous ability of communication technologies to drive economic growth and prosperity implies that governments that do not embrace such technologies condemn themselves to falling greatly behind their freer counterparts. Failure to at least partially permit the spread of recent technological developments could be fatal to a regime that needs some semblance of economic growth to be seen as a possible alternative to Western political systems.

As Kedzie notes, "a dictator who eschews interactive communications perhaps does so only at the peril of healthy economic growth."[20] If too glaring a technological and economic disparity occurs, this alone could generate enough internal discontent to result in a coup or a rebellion. On the other hand, adopting the new technologies enables information critical of the regime to spread and become available in the marketplace of ideas.

[ShoTo]

Donc en fait il suffisait de cliquer et j'aurais eu les réponses à toutes mes questions, merci d'être venu en aide à un pauvre assisté

Je dois avouer que je n'aurais pas eu la patience dont tu as fait preuve à mon égard.