Interesting. I immediately thought of the 2005 Cronulla riots in Australia, where text messages were used to incite and coordinate racial violence, on the one hand, and then to quickly spread news about anti-racism protests in the days following. Melbourne was able to pull a fair-sized crowd together for an anti-racism rally in a pretty short period of time - I think all the notices went out over SMS and the internet.

I read the “safeguards” comment in the original post as being concerned with safeguarding ICT tools from government interference. If safeguards were strictly for protecting citizen use of technology from government interference, would that alter your perspective on the call for safeguards at all?

Without drawing any conclusions, I have to draw attention to the fact that this exact same reasoning is used by those who oppose arms control (’Guns don’t kill people, people kill people’), like the NRA. Now would this mean that you endorse this view too?

Jennine: good point about the Cronulla riots. I’m wary of discussions about safeguards around telecommunications in general, because inevitably those safeguards are overseen by governments, in one form or another. If there is a sufficient level of accountability for the government in a particular country, then I have less problem with government involvement; but I don’t think it’s possible to make a blanket statement that would include (for example) both Somalia and Australia. Where government is involved, it should really be to ensure that people have access to the communications that they need, rather than to regulate how those communications are used.

Michael: I agree that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Or to be more specific, and in the words of Goldie Lookin Chain, guns don’t kill people, rappers do. I don’t endorse the argument that the NRA claim follows from that statement, however; it’s perfectly legitimate to regulate the ownership and use of firearms, and my personal opinion is that it should be very tightly regulated.

Different technologies require different regulatory regimes. Guns differ from almost every other technology in one vital respect - they are designed for the purpose of killing. It’s not a case of whether a gun is used for good or ill - as in the case of mobile phones - because they only have one use. We could easily get derailed into a discussion about the legitimate use of force at this point, which would be an interesting departure for this blog…

Paul: Of course you are right that guns are qualitatively different from SMS in their aim (pun intended). So let’s take another example, which might be a bit more interesting because we are getting into more greyish areas: non-lethal self-defence weapons, e.g. tasers or mace. They are not designed to kill, but recent examples have shown that they, or those who use them, do. In fact, they were originally developed as personal self-defence weapons. So should everybody be allowed to carry a taser? Mace? Or a cattle prod? Or should they be prohibited, and people be forced to be defenceless?

Or if we want to stay away from weapons of whatever kind, let’s have a closer look at SMS. Transmission of SMS messages is completely dependent on at least two carriers: the sender’s and the receiver’s carrier. Now if we don’t want any government regulation, the corollary is that those carrier’s should decide for themselves which messages to transmit and which not. Is corporate censorship what we want?

To make my argument a bit more explicit: Regulation has always been used for almost any technology (including ICT). Yes, prevention of abuse will inevitably also curtail some uses for good, but in the end you can only weigh on a case-by-case basis whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of a certain regulatory approach. Wholesale liberalisation hardly ever did anyone any good, nor did outright prohibition: almost always you will need some compromise, hopefully a golden mean (although one person’s golden mean is another’s grey muddle, of course).

And yes, by all means, let’s keep the discussion about legitimate use of force for e.g. discussions about peacekeeping forces.

I don’t believe there’s any such thing as “non-lethal weapons” - they’re only “less lethal” - a position that I’ve held for about 15 years now. I notice (courtesy of Wikipedia) that the terminology has now changed to reflect this. Although the initial impetus behind some of those technologies (such as the Taser) were for self-defence, the vast majority of research and development has always been in crowd control - and of course crowd control is nearly always government exerting its will on citizens.

Oh damn, I’ve slipped into the discussion about the legitimate use of force again. Hold on, I’ll try again.

As you say, the trick is to strike the right balance depending on the particulars of any situation - and not to imagine that the balance struck in one country is in any way relevant to another country. I’m not arguing for no regulation of technology; I’m arguing for minimal regulation of technology, and for that regulation to be geared towards ensuring access rather than controlling use.

So in the case of carriers deciding for themselves which messages to transmit, the role of the government is in ensuring that the carriers do not have the right to do so. However this doesn’t mean that the government then has the right to decide which messages should be transmitted. People should be free to send whatever messages they want; if those messages are criminal in nature, that’s the point at which the law can step in.

But am I wrong? Let’s take the specific example of Kenya - what should the government’s response have been?

Let’s just forget about weapons — I wouldn’t want to lead you into any further temptation.

So if I understand your argument correctly, you are all in favour of repressive regulation (i.e. let government step in after the fact if messages with a criminal nature have been exchanged), but do not want preventive regulation (i.e. have government regulate to prevent such messages being exchanged).

My immediate next question would be: how do you feel about speed limits? They are clearly instituted as a preventive measure: it is not the excessive speeds per se that government wants to avoid, but their results (accidents, injuries and deaths, environmental damage). So should we abandon speed limits and/or decriminalise speeding? I would admire the courage of your convictions if you say ‘yes’, but hardly the wisdom of such a stance.

Specific to Kenya: I think the Kenyan government’s SMS campaign showed eminent good sense and a healthy dose of lateral thinking. They managed to avoid the whole issue of regulating the technology by using it instead. Although I find it difficult to come up with any real evidence for it, I think this is actually quite often the case: governments use a regulatory approach (and often a very heavy-handed one at that) instead of a more creative, non-regulatory approach that in the end will probably be much more effective. ‘When you only have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail’, and many governments typically do not have the smarts to think of anything but the hammer of regulation. I partly agree with you in the sense that regulation should be a last resort and often is unnecessary or even counterproductive; however, I disagree in that, in the end, government is responsible for e.g. public safety, and should use any tool in its toolbox that is necessary to safeguard it.(I almost wrote ‘arsenal’ instead of ‘toolbox’, but that would probably only lead to further discussion about weapons and force.)

[…] health, advocacy and disaster response, with some interesting case studies (including the recent post-election riots in Kenya). You can read more about it at the MobileActive […]

So should we abandon speed limits and/or decriminalise speeding? I would admire the courage of your convictions if you say ‘yes’, but hardly the wisdom of such a stance.

Actually, I do say yes - in certain situations. Drachten and Makkinga in the Netherlands have pioneered the “shared space” concept of urban space, getting rid of speed limits - getting rid of road markings altogether - and bringing down the accident rate as a result. However this approach clearly relies on there being a certain level of a) driving skill and b) common socialisation in order to work - it wouldn’t work in (for example) Pakistan, where the driving culture is much different. On the other hand, in Pakistan people simply ignore speed limits and road markings. And of course in some countries - most obviously Germany - many motorways have no speed limits; the removal of speed limits on the autobahn system in the 1970s actually lowered fatalities. How did I get onto this topic again?

So if I understand your argument correctly, you are all in favour of repressive regulation (i.e. let government step in after the fact if messages with a criminal nature have been exchanged), but do not want preventive regulation (i.e. have government regulate to prevent such messages being exchanged).

There’s no distinction between the two categories that you describe. The government can’t act after the fact unless there is regulation in place to define an act as criminal in the first place. However my point is that it’s not “repressive regulation” to enforce the law, but it is repressive to prevent people from acting (unless that action causes direct harm, which sending text messages will not).

I think the Kenyan government’s SMS campaign showed eminent good sense and a healthy dose of lateral thinking. They managed to avoid the whole issue of regulating the technology by using it instead.

The Kenyan government has clearly not acted in good faith around the elections, and their interest in preventing violence is not just a question of public safety but also of controlling the population. I agree that their use of SMS was a good move - but that’s precisely because I support freedom of communications, which includes the government’s right to use it as a medium. However the government’s first act was to prevent radio broadcasts, which doesn’t sound like the sort of thing we want to be encouraging. It’s a short step from there to pulling the mobile phone service completely - which is exactly what the Sudanese government does in Darfur whenever there’s a security incident.

I partly agree with you in the sense that regulation should be a last resort and often is unnecessary or even counterproductive; however, I disagree in that, in the end, government is responsible for e.g. public safety, and should use any tool in its toolbox that is necessary to safeguard it.

You’re working from the assumption that the government is acting in the best interests of its citizens. This may well be the case in countries where the rule of law holds, but it is not the case in very many countries around the world. That’s why I previously said that if there is a sufficient level of accountability for the government in a particular country, then I have less problem with government involvement; but I don’t think it’s possible to make a blanket statement that would include (for example) both Somalia and Australia.

Drachten and Makkinga in the Netherlands have pioneered the “shared space” concept of urban space, getting rid of speed limits - getting rid of road markings altogether - and bringing down the accident rate as a result.
Actually, they didn’t. They got rid of road markings and signs (inter alia speed signs), but the general legal speed limits and other road rules are still in place and are enforced. (You have the bad luck talking with someone who used to live close to Drachten here, and I have followed this experiment with interest). In general, there are more and more places in the Netherlands where e.g. road markings are removed, but that doesn’t mean that you are now allowed to drive on the left hand side of the road or drive at speeds higher than the general speed limits (50 km/h in built-up areas, 80 km/h outside those areas, 100 km/h on ‘autowegen’). Too bad for me as an Australian driver.

Anyway, I will not pin you down on this example and take your argument as I think it is meant. (In any case I would not want to get sidetracked into a discussion about forcetraffic rules.)

However my point is that it’s not “repressive regulation” to enforce the law, but it is repressive to prevent people from acting (unless that action causes direct harm, which sending text messages will not).

I think we use the word in different meanings: you in the sense of to reduce to subjection or quietness; to put down by force, I in the sense of to check by some special treatment; to make less troublesome; to cure and hence as opposed to prevent (you know the old say about prevention versus cure). Both quotes from the Compact OED, second edition.

I do understand your argument, but I think the crux is in your use of the expression ‘direct harm’ (emphasis added). What is direct and what is indirect? E.g. if I incite hatred I do no direct harm, nobody dies or is injured by it, yet this is criminal behaviour in almost any country, and with good reason. (Hurray! Finally an example that stays close to what we are talking about!) Is this repressive, in your sense of the word? If you say ‘yes’, then again I must applaud the strength of your convictions but doubt their good sense.

You’re working from the assumption that the government is acting in the best interests of its citizens.

Totally correct. I do so because for countries where this is not the case, this whole discussion is useless, because these regimes (on the whole) don’t give a fig for what you or I or the international community think of their actions. You mention Sudan, and I think you will agree with me that the regime there will not be very impressed by any rule or principle that states that they shouldn’t regulate communication technologies to their liking.

So it seems that we do agree about countries where we have ‘good’ governments (as shorthand for the more cumbersome description mentioned above).

As to ‘bad’ regimes (again as shorthand):

who should be the arbiter of whether a regime is ‘good’ or ‘bad’?
what is the use of this discussion for these countries, as they would not be influenced by it anyway?

However the government’s first act was to prevent radio broadcasts, which doesn’t sound like the sort of thing we want to be encouraging.
Finally one that we totally agree on. If they would have used half as much original thinking on that one as they did on SMS traffic, they would probably have come up with something much more effective and less repressive (again, in your sense of the word).

Drachten / Makkinga - point conceded on speed limits. Hoewver I think these examples do support my point that it is possible to do away with formal social regulation (traffic signs) if you have the informal social regulation that ensures that people don’t drive on both sides of the road. I think this is the weakness of the shared space concept.

Tangential, more relevant points to follow.

I think we use the word in different meanings: you in the sense of to reduce to subjection or quietness; to put down by force, I in the sense of to check by some special treatment; to make less troublesome; to cure and hence as opposed to prevent

When people talk about repressive governments, they mean it in the sense that I use it. By all means you may use this other definition, but you should make that clear at the start of the discussion - otherwise you’ll be misunderstood.

I do understand your argument, but I think the crux is in your use of the expression ‘direct harm’ (emphasis added). What is direct and what is indirect? E.g. if I incite hatred I do no direct harm, nobody dies or is injured by it, yet this is criminal behaviour in almost any country, and with good reason.

I’m personally opposed to all constraints on free speech (e.g. I don’t believe there is good reason). However there is a difference between inciting hatred and inciting people to commit specific criminal acts. In the latter case, there is clearly an actionable offense - but that is not a justification for preventing people from communicating in the first place, which is what the original post was talking about in terms of “safeguards”.

I do so because for countries where this is not the case, this whole discussion is useless, because these regimes (on the whole) don’t give a fig for what you or I or the international community think of their actions.

I think this argument relies on an artificial distinction between “good” (which act in the best interests of the citizenry) and “bad” regimes (which don’t); and the misconception that “bad” regimes act regardless of international pressures. I don’t think either of these positions can be maintained - clearly there are different levels of good and bad governance, and (with the possible exception of DPR Korea) all regimes take an active interest in how they are perceived externally.

You mention Sudan, and I think you will agree with me that the regime there will not be very impressed by any rule or principle that states that they shouldn’t regulate communication technologies to their liking.

I have not been arguing that governments shouldn’t regulate communication technologies; what I objected to was “legislating about who should have access to it on the basis of their ideology”. In one of my early replies to you, I clarified this by saying that “I’m not arguing for no regulation of technology; I’m arguing for minimal regulation of technology, and for that regulation to be geared towards ensuring access rather than controlling use.” I don’t see how you can interpret these statements as an argument that governments shouldn’t regulate communication technologies.

This discussion is getting very convoluted, but I find it highly stimulating and enlightening. Thanks for that!

Hoewver I think these examples do support my point that it is possible to do away with formal social regulation (traffic signs) if you have the informal social regulation that ensures that people don’t drive on both sides of the road.

Not at all! The road rules are not in the least informal but highly codified and are very much enforced by police — in fact, more so there than here in Australia, where there is a speed sign on about every street corner. The signs are not the regulation; they are just reminders, and the only thing that this example shows is that too many reminders only serve to detract from the central message. This is about communication, not regulation.

By all means you may use this other definition, but you should make that clear at the start of the discussion - otherwise you’ll be misunderstood.

Yes, I totally agree. I can only say that there are extenuating circumstances, notably that I worked for many years in a field (business assurance) where this use of the word ‘repressive’ was common. A lesson learned, here.

I’m personally opposed to all constraints on free speech (e.g. I don’t believe there is good reason).

I guess this is were the bedrock of our difference of opinion shows up. I feel that free speech, just like any other right, will always be limited by the extent of other people’s rights. There is no such thing as an absolute right. As a friend of mine once expressed it: my right to swing my arms is limited by your right to position your nose. Or to put it differently: “[w]ho will meet the duties required to honour rights if members of society see themselves only as holders of rights?” (SR Benatar). Perhaps the Trieste Carta of Human Duties might be a good place to have a look.

… but that is not a justification for preventing people from communicating in the first place …

Again, this comes back to our totally different ideological starting points. BTW: do you realise that (as far as I know) there is no single state on earth that practices such a far-reaching concept of free speech? Even the USA, which is often seen as a bastion of free speech, has preventive safeguards on communications — see e.g. Schenck v United States for an example.

I think this argument relies on an artificial distinction between “good” (which act in the best interests of the citizenry) and “bad” regimes (which don’t)

Exactly my point. Please consider that you were the one to bring up that distinction (in your posting of 8.14 AM yesterday). And since that distinction is artificial, limitations on the use of technology should a priori be allowed to all regimes.

… (with the possible exception of DPR Korea) all regimes take an active interest in how they are perceived externally

Again, agreed. However, the question is how far that ‘active interest’ goes. Sudan might be slightly more amenable to external pressure than the DPRK, but it would still need considerable pressure to get them to budge on this, and I would rather see that pressure being exerted for other causes, e.g. the right to life and health for its citizens. And remember that even the current regime in the USA has been remarkably resistant to international pressure regarding human rights issues, so how much more so would a country like Sudan be?

I don’t see how you can interpret these statements as an argument that governments shouldn’t regulate communication technologies.

I don’t. I literally said: ‘… regulate communication technologies to their liking‘ [emphasis added].

Please consider that you were the one to bring up that distinction [between good and bad governments] (in your posting of 8.14 AM yesterday). And since that distinction is artificial, limitations on the use of technology should a priori be allowed to all regimes.

I merely said that not all governments act in the best interests of their citizens, and I did not (and do not) make a binary distinction between “good” and “bad” governments - that was your contribution in your following response. It should be fairly clear that I am arguing that governments vary in their responsiveness to citizens, and that “the trick is to strike the right balance depending on the particulars of any situation - and not to imagine that the balance struck in one country is in any way relevant to another country.”

I feel that free speech, just like any other right, will always be limited by the extent of other people’s rights. There is no such thing as an absolute right. As a friend of mine once expressed it: my right to swing my arms is limited by your right to position your nose.

Your friend was misquoting Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said “the right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins” - Holmes of course also being the judge who wrote the opinion in Schenk vs United States. The Schenk decision has been superceded by Brandenburg vs Ohio (I believe), as part of which ruling Douglas pointed out that “The line between what is permissible and not subject to control and what may be made impermissible and subject to regulation is the line between ideas and overt acts.” The law of the United States is not the final word on how we should conduct ourselves anywhere except the United States, of course, but this is exactly my position. Government has no role to play in telling people how to think, speak or write - SMS included, since it does not strike anybody on the nose.

We have flown far from the topic at hand, which is whether unspecified “safeguards” can or should be put in place to ensure that ICT is used for empowering and not repressive purposes. My answer to that is “no”, because I believe that free and open communications are frequently the best defense against the sort of speech that you would seek to ban; because I don’t believe that it is possible to implement safeguards against “repressive purposes” without adversely affecting “empowering” purposes; and because in many countries around the world such safeguards would offer too much power to governments over their citizens’ right to free speech. Government regulation should address the provision of communication technology, but not how that technology is used.

My apologies for the big silence here. A project that I am working on is close to derailment and at the moment needs my almost full-time TLC, and as a result I have no time left to pursue this discussion. In any case I would like to thank you for what has been a very stimulating exchange that has given me a lot to think about.

Michael - it’s been an unexpected pleasure, and I hope that you can re-rail the project.