Start Searching the Answers
The Internet has many places to ask questions about anything imaginable and find past answers on almost everything.
Well, as the last human development report already came out, I already have a copy (thanks Rodrigo), tap the time to comment. And (sorry Rodrigo), but it seems to me that not turn out so well. Three, I believe, are the main problems:
There is a fourth topic that I do not finish convincing, but being more theoretical in nature’s best to separate it from the above (which are problems and inadequacies of analysis). And it has to do with the subject of ‘naturalization’. Basically, the report operates with an opposition between processes that are seen as natural processes and are the product of the group’s discussions. When the society manages its destination is when there is a political discussion and collective decision-making. Another thing is to see the processes as if they were natural processes.
Now, I think that in it there is a trap. Every sociologist would immediately agree with: ‘The evolution of technologies is not a product of natural evolution. It is a historical event, conditioned by facts cultural, political and economic specific, mobilized by actors with particular interests and who have particular images about the society‘ (page 209) (***). And would you agree, let’s say our sociologist medium, with the claim on the grounds of empirical, because it would be simply false that the technological development is the product of a natural evolution.
But from there, it does not follow that we have to make collective action reflexive (for which the society ‘reign’ on these processes). The social processes that do not follow the logic of collective action, joint remain social processes. The language does not develop at the point of a large collective decisions (but rather, with multiple separate decisions of multiple agents), and clearly remains a social product -it is conditioned by facts of cultural, political and specific economic (and here you can follow all of the citation of the report). That is, the falsehood that the process is natural it does not follow per se the defense of the reflective action collective.
To put it another way, the opposition between ‘the company controls’ and ‘technologies are handled alone’ is a false opposition, because the processes of technological development are social processes (they are part of ‘the society’). That do not follow the process of collective discussion in public is another thing. But to assume a distinction double (together with the distinction natural / social with the theme of the reflexivity of collective decisions), the Report simply does not discuss all of the possibilities.
(*) Now, nor is it so strange that the Report does not address such possibilities. Because the propositions of regulation of the Report also have the defect come from a look very restricted regulations on the Internet. The third condition (promote regulations that safeguard the rights of the people) is immediately transformed into a regulation to protect us from the dangers of the Internet: ‘Some of the rights of the people can be violated by the expansion of the TECHNOLOGIES and some of their uses can have harmful effects. These risks are layered in two levels, which are related. The first refers to the risks to the individual subjectivity that is the result of some uses of harmful new technologies, derived from the dependency and isolation. The second alludes to the threats to certain rights in the networking world, as the violation of privacy and the possibilities of control, almost permanent, of the people‘ (page 204). Now, what disappears from this discussion is the own NTIC as a space to exercise rights and to the defense of some rights that currently exist with respect to NTIC that could be violated. It says that the regulations must be compatible with the freedom of the people, but this has to do with the limits of the regulation, not with the fact that -in about the issues of legal regulation – perhaps the TECHNOLOGIES were not only a risk.
( * * ), Which by the way we can make the conclusion that if the society is divided on all issues d technology with the single exception of that serve for the economic development, a look at the State that emphasizes economic development is unique in that it reflects consensus in the society. But let’s stop the digression here. What is relevant is that there is a data point that was not analyzed with any property, and that affects the descriptive findings.
(***) Short-hence the quote because the example that gives the UNDP is not the most fortunate. We posed that much of how it was initially the Internet is due to the military interests of defence. But the fact is that, apart from the search for a network that was robust against attacks, there are not many initial characteristics of the Internet that one might think were designed from the defense. In fact, initially the Internet was heavily academic (the web was invented at CERN at the end of the day) and many of its features were arranged around the interests of academic communication: decentralization of the decision-making process (each node decides on its services), the opening of content (each node adds content to your liking, without external control). Non-negligible part of the vulnerability that gives Internet to whoever is connecting is based on that in an academic network, there was little reason to limit the connectivity, and therefore the behavior default was the opening of the connection. Now, it is not the type of things that one associates very clearly to the military.