Wednesday 10 February 2010
Tuesday 9 February 2010
Gearing up for Thursday...
Iran's hard-line government and the green-themed opposition are gearing up for another confrontation Thursday, this time on the 22nd day of the Persian calendar month of Bahman, the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution.
This weekend the Coordinating Council of Reform Front, a coalition that brings together 17 moderate political groups, called on supporters to head to the streets Thursday, traditionally a time of pro-government rallies.
"We’ll come on 22 Bahman to show that the green movement is intertwined with national and religious values and it insists on its rightful demands stipulated in the constitution," said a notice in Persian posted to several websites.
"We’ll come to make our voices heard by our comrades, friends, rivals and enemies -- to tell them that the green movement is independent, and it will spare no efforts to revive and protect the values, implement the law, ensure liberty for the nation and save the society. ... We’ll call for return to ideals and principles instead of jail, violence and confrontation with the nation."
Supporters of the opposition have issued a list of suggestions about what protesters should bring, wear and do Thursday.
Still, many wonder what will happen. Will the protesters come out en masse? Or will the government be able to squelch any opposition demonstrations with a combination of dire threats, harsh police tactics and deafening loudspeakers?
"We oppose hooliganism, disturbing public order and insulting religious sanctities," police chief Brig. Gen. Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam said, according to the Persian-language PGNews.ir. "I've already said that police will no longer tolerate lawbreakers. ... Police feel obliged to confront anyone threatening national security, insulting sanctities and crossing red lines."
Ahmadi Moghaddam also warned that police have "highly sophisticated security systems" that allow them to "identify anyone calling for rioting through text messaging."
This weekend, security forces arrested seven people allegedly cooperating with "counterrevolutionary satellite networks and Zionist media," according to a statement broadcast by state radio.
"Some of them had been officially recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency," the statement said. "They had relayed news to their bosses and instigated riots. They were expected to carry out similar programs on Feb. 11 before leaving the country for the United States."
Iran's prosecutor-general, Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei, told Fars News this weekend that the Tehran prosecutor's office is now "handling the complaint lodged by a group of lawmakers" against opposition leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the latest in a series of threats to have him and other opposition figures arrested.
But a wave of mass arrests of activists and journalists and the threats have failed to silence opposition voices. The Kargozaran party, which supports the relatively moderate cleric Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, issued a statement condemning the government.
"Undesirable and bitter events plunged Iran into unrest," said the statement, published by the Iranian Students News Agency. "A large number of those who were celebrating 31 years ago their contribution to the triumph of the Islamic Revolution have unfortunately been arrested or pushed into isolation."
The statement demanded that the government "respect basic freedoms and civil rights, and tolerate political activism within the framework of the law."
Otherwise, it warned, "people's demands and political differences will be followed up in the streets."
Opposition figure Mehdi Karroubi, who ran and lost against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in last summer's disputed election, lashed out this weekend at the mass detentions of activists and journalists during a meeting with the families of prisoners.
"Such behaviors are irrational and mismanagement of state affairs has plunged everyone deep into surprise," he said, according to his website, Sahamnews.org. "The continuation of these behaviors will be detrimental to the regime."
He said the accusations of connection to foreign-based opposition groups were an attempt by hard-liners to "revive these dead grouplets."
He vowed to secure the release of prisoners regardless of the restrictions imposed on him and his colleagues.
Meanwhile, hard-liners showed no signs of brooking compromise.
Extreme right-wing lawmaker Ruhollah Hosseinian, told ISNA that the critics of the government had no place in the system. "They are in no position to be taken into account," he said.
The extremist cleric Ahmad Khatami told the Iranian Labor News Agency that there was no middle ground in the current political crisis.
"Today, we have only two fronts and no third front is recognized," he said. "The first front brings together the revolution and people. The second front regroups the United States, Britain, Zionists, hypocrites, monarchists, communists, fugitive singers and dancers. There is no third way."
Anthrax alert for heroin users in London
The Health Protection Agency (HPA) and NHS London can confirm that a drug injecting heroin user has tested positive for anthrax and is being treated in a London hospital.
This is the first case of anthrax seen in an injecting drug user in England since similar cases were first seen in Scotland in December 2009. Nineteen cases have so far been confirmed in Scotland. Similarities to the cases in Scotland suggest that the heroin, or a contaminated cutting agent mixed with the heroin, is the likely source of infection.
Dr Brian McCloskey, Director of the Health Protection Agency in London, said:
"We are working closely with NHS London to monitor the situation. There is no evidence of person to person transmission in this case and I'd like to reassure people that the risk to the general population, including close family members of the infected patient, is negligible. It is extremely rare for anthrax to be spread from person to person and there has been no evidence of a significant risk of airborne transmission associated with the current situation in Scotland.
"We are working closely with NHS London to monitor the situation. There is no evidence of person to person transmission in this case and I'd like to reassure people that the risk to the general population, including close family members of the infected patient, is negligible. It is extremely rare for anthrax to be spread from person to person and there has been no evidence of a significant risk of airborne transmission associated with the current situation in Scotland.
"While public health investigations are ongoing, it must be assumed that all heroin in London carries the risk of anthrax contamination. Heroin users are advised to cease taking heroin by any route, if at all possible, and to seek help from their local drug treatment services. Heroin users in London are strongly encouraged, as soon as possible, to find out more about the support services in their area. They can be put in touch with local drug services and receive advice by contacting Talk to Frank."
Professor Lindsey Davies, Regional Director of Public Health from NHS London, said:
"I urge all heroin users in London to be extremely alert to the risks and to seek urgent medical advice if they experience signs of infection such as redness or excessive swelling at or near an injection site, or other symptoms of general illness such a high temperature, chills or a severe headache or breathing difficulties, as early antibiotic treatment can be lifesaving. This is a very serious infection for drug users and prompt treatment is crucial.
"I urge all heroin users in London to be extremely alert to the risks and to seek urgent medical advice if they experience signs of infection such as redness or excessive swelling at or near an injection site, or other symptoms of general illness such a high temperature, chills or a severe headache or breathing difficulties, as early antibiotic treatment can be lifesaving. This is a very serious infection for drug users and prompt treatment is crucial.
"Drug injecting is an extremely risky and dangerous practice and users are vulnerable to a wide range of infectious diseases, both from the action of piercing the skin, as well as contaminants in the drugs that they use.
"Health professionals and drug action teams in England had already been alerted to the situation in Scotland in December and we will continue to work closely with colleagues who work with drug users to monitor probable cases and raise awareness of the risks."
ENDS
Notes to Editors:
- Further information about the cases of anthrax in Scotland is available at:
www.hps.scot.nhs.uk/anthrax - Heroin users in London are strongly encouraged to find out more about the support services in their area. They can find drug services or seek advice from Talk to Frank: 24-hour helpline: 0800 77 66 00 / website: www.talktofrank.com
- The outbreak in Scotland began with the identification of cases in NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde in December 20009, with cases now having been identified in six NHS board areas across the country, and represents the first known outbreak of anthrax to have occurred in conjunction with drug use. It is important to note that there is no evidence of person-to-person transmission in this outbreak.
- The Health Protection Agency has produced advice for injecting drug users and guidelines on the clinical evaluation and management of people with possible cutaneous anthrax in England. These are available at: http://www.hpa.org.uk/HPA/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/1191942145749/
- Recent public health alerts issued by the Department of Health through the Central Alerting System are available at: https://www.cas.dh.gov.uk/Home.aspx
Media enquiries:
Health Protection Agency:
020 7759 2834
020 7759 2824
020 8327 6647
020 8327 7750
020 7759 2834
020 7759 2824
020 8327 6647
020 8327 7750
NHS London:
020 7932 3911. Out of office hours, please call 0844 822 2888 and ask for pager number LON01.
020 7932 3911. Out of office hours, please call 0844 822 2888 and ask for pager number LON01.
Anthrax in drug users: Q&A
Q1. What is anthrax?
Anthrax is a very rare but serious bacterial infection caused by the organism Bacillus anthracis. The disease occurs most often in wild and domestic animals in Asia, Africa and parts of Europe; humans are rarely infected. The organism can exist as spores that allow survival in the environment, e.g. in soil, for many years.
Anthrax is a very rare but serious bacterial infection caused by the organism Bacillus anthracis. The disease occurs most often in wild and domestic animals in Asia, Africa and parts of Europe; humans are rarely infected. The organism can exist as spores that allow survival in the environment, e.g. in soil, for many years.
Q2. How does anthrax usually affect humans?
There are three classical forms of human disease depending on how infection is acquired: cutaneous (skin), inhalation and ingestion. In over 95% of cases the infection is cutaneous, generally caught by direct contact with the skins or tissues of infected animals. Inhalation anthrax is rare and is caught by breathing in anthrax spores. Intestinal anthrax is very rare, and occurs from ingestion of contaminated meat or spores.
There are three classical forms of human disease depending on how infection is acquired: cutaneous (skin), inhalation and ingestion. In over 95% of cases the infection is cutaneous, generally caught by direct contact with the skins or tissues of infected animals. Inhalation anthrax is rare and is caught by breathing in anthrax spores. Intestinal anthrax is very rare, and occurs from ingestion of contaminated meat or spores.
Q3. How has anthrax been affecting drug users in Scotland?
There is an ongoing outbreak of anthrax in heroin users in Scotland. Since December 2009, a significant number of heroin users have been found to have anthrax infection. Sadly, a number of these people have died. It is thought that they contracted anthrax from taking heroin contaminated by anthrax spores.
There is an ongoing outbreak of anthrax in heroin users in Scotland. Since December 2009, a significant number of heroin users have been found to have anthrax infection. Sadly, a number of these people have died. It is thought that they contracted anthrax from taking heroin contaminated by anthrax spores.
Q4. How common is anthrax?
The disease was also known as 'wool-sorters disease' and was a recognised occupational hazard for some workers, including woollen mill workers, abattoir workers, tanners, and those who process hides, hair, bone and bone products. However, anthrax is now uncommon in humans in the UK, only a handful of cutaneous cases have been notified over the last decade. A death from anthrax occurred in Scotland in 2006; this was a case of atypical inhalation anthrax which probably followed exposure as a result of playing/handling animal hide drums. Human infections are more frequent in countries where the disease is common in animals, including countries in South and Central America, southern and eastern Europe, Asia and Africa.
Anthrax in drug users appears to be very rare; prior to the current outbreak in Scotland, only one previous case had been reported in Norway in 2000.
The disease was also known as 'wool-sorters disease' and was a recognised occupational hazard for some workers, including woollen mill workers, abattoir workers, tanners, and those who process hides, hair, bone and bone products. However, anthrax is now uncommon in humans in the UK, only a handful of cutaneous cases have been notified over the last decade. A death from anthrax occurred in Scotland in 2006; this was a case of atypical inhalation anthrax which probably followed exposure as a result of playing/handling animal hide drums. Human infections are more frequent in countries where the disease is common in animals, including countries in South and Central America, southern and eastern Europe, Asia and Africa.
Anthrax in drug users appears to be very rare; prior to the current outbreak in Scotland, only one previous case had been reported in Norway in 2000.
Q5. How long can you have the infection before developing symptoms?
This is dependent on the dose and route of exposure and may vary from one day to eight weeks. However, symptoms usually develop within 48 hours with inhalation anthrax and 1-7 days with cutaneous anthrax. It is not known exactly how long symptoms can take to develop following the use of contaminated heroin, however in most cases during the current outbreak, symptoms started within 1 to 7 days of taking heroin.
This is dependent on the dose and route of exposure and may vary from one day to eight weeks. However, symptoms usually develop within 48 hours with inhalation anthrax and 1-7 days with cutaneous anthrax. It is not known exactly how long symptoms can take to develop following the use of contaminated heroin, however in most cases during the current outbreak, symptoms started within 1 to 7 days of taking heroin.
Q6. What are the symptoms?
Early identification of anthrax can be difficult as the initial symptoms are similar to other illnesses.
Symptoms vary according to the route of infection:
Early identification of anthrax can be difficult as the initial symptoms are similar to other illnesses.
Symptoms vary according to the route of infection:
Anthrax in drug users
Drug users may become infected with anthrax when heroin or the cutting agent mixed with heroin has become contaminated with anthrax spores. This could be a source of infection if injected, smoked or snorted. The clinical presentation is likely to vary according to the way in which the heroin is taken and might include:
Drug users may become infected with anthrax when heroin or the cutting agent mixed with heroin has become contaminated with anthrax spores. This could be a source of infection if injected, smoked or snorted. The clinical presentation is likely to vary according to the way in which the heroin is taken and might include:
- Swelling and redness at an injection site, which may or may not be painful
- Abscess or ulcer at an injection site often with marked swelling (oedema)
- Septicaemia (blood poisoning)
- Meningitis
- Symptoms of inhalational anthrax (see below)
Cutaneous anthrax - Local skin involvement after direct contact.
- Commonly seen on hands, forearms, head and neck. The lesion is usually single
- 1-7 days after exposure a raised, itchy, inflamed pimple appears followed by a papule that turns vesicular (into a blister). Extensive oedema or swelling accompanies the lesion - the swelling tends to be much greater than would normally be expected for the size of the lesion and this is usually PAINLESS
- The blister then ulcerates and then 2-6 days later the classical black eschar develops
- If left untreated the infection can spread to cause blood poisoning
Inhalation anthrax - symptoms begin with a flu-like illness (fever, headache, muscle aches and non-productive cough) followed by severe respiratory difficulties and shock 2-6 days later. Untreated disease is usually fatal, and treatment must be given as soon as possible to reduce mortality.
Intestinal anthrax is contracted by the ingestion of contaminated carcasses and results in severe disease which can be fatal. This is found in some parts of the world where the value of an animal dying unexpectedly outweighs any fears of contracting the disease.
Q7. Can anthrax be treated?
Cutaneous anthrax can be readily treated and cured with antibiotics. Mortality is often high with inhalation and gastrointestinal anthrax, since successful treatment depends on early recognition of the disease.
Prompt treatment with antibiotics and, where appropriate, surgery is important in the management of anthrax related to drug use.
Cutaneous anthrax can be readily treated and cured with antibiotics. Mortality is often high with inhalation and gastrointestinal anthrax, since successful treatment depends on early recognition of the disease.
Prompt treatment with antibiotics and, where appropriate, surgery is important in the management of anthrax related to drug use.
Q8. How is anthrax spread?
A person can get anthrax if they inject, inhale, ingest or come into direct physical contact (touching) with the spores from the bacteria. These spores can be found in the soil or in contaminated drugs. It is extremely rare for anthrax to spread from person-to-person. Airborne transmission from one person to another does not occur; there have been one or two reports of spread from skin anthrax but this is very, very rare.
A person can get anthrax if they inject, inhale, ingest or come into direct physical contact (touching) with the spores from the bacteria. These spores can be found in the soil or in contaminated drugs. It is extremely rare for anthrax to spread from person-to-person. Airborne transmission from one person to another does not occur; there have been one or two reports of spread from skin anthrax but this is very, very rare.
Q9. How do drug users become infected with anthrax?
Heroin or the cutting agent mixed with heroin may become contaminated with anthrax spores from the environment. This could be a source of infection if injected, smoked, or snorted.
Heroin or the cutting agent mixed with heroin may become contaminated with anthrax spores from the environment. This could be a source of infection if injected, smoked, or snorted.
Monday 8 February 2010
Still can't believe how bad that Marianne Faithfull gig last night was...
But Faithfull soldiered on, the sweet girly voice that began her folk-singing career metamorphosing into a cigarette-ravaged husky drawl.
Despite middling musical success, Faithfull became, like others of her era, famed for her collaborations and, later, as with her latest album, Easy Come, Easy Go, her ''interpretations'' of songs. Always a risky conceit.
Faithfull, at least at Friday night's performance (the first of three), lacked both the charisma and the voice to pull off covers such as Black Rebel Motorcycle Club's Salvation, Dolly Parton's Down From Dover, or Billie Holiday's Solitude.
It wasn't only that Faithfull's once-sexy voice seems to have very little range - it was a sell-out show and many fans seemed appreciative just to be so near to her - or the fact she had to read the lyrics to many of the songs (her own included; she even forgot the name of the song she co-wrote with Nick Cave), but the fact she seemed so ill at ease on stage.
Faithfull rarely smiled, looked decidedly bored during a couple of the guitar solos, and seemed to have little to no rapport with her seven-piece multi-instrumentalist band.
The musical direction lent a distinct cruise-ship feel to the evening - while tight, the band made the down and dirty Stones song Sister Morphine (co-written by Faithfull) sound like an MOR Robert Cray number.
Even during her big hits - Broken English and When Tears Go By - Faithfull looked as if she'd rather be anywhere but on stage.
Worse still, some of her audience members looked as if they felt the same way.
Still can't believe how bad that Marianne Faithfull gig last night was...
MICK Jagger's former muse, '60s icon, drug abuse survivor Marianne Faithfull is rarely defined by her musical career alone, even after the release of her most successful album, Broken English, back in 1979.
But Faithfull soldiered on, the sweet girly voice that began her folk-singing career metamorphosing into a cigarette-ravaged husky drawl.
Despite middling musical success, Faithfull became, like others of her era, famed for her collaborations and, later, as with her latest album, Easy Come, Easy Go, her ''interpretations'' of songs. Always a risky conceit.
Faithfull, at least at Friday night's performance (the first of three), lacked both the charisma and the voice to pull off covers such as Black Rebel Motorcycle Club's Salvation, Dolly Parton's Down From Dover, or Billie Holiday's Solitude.
It wasn't only that Faithfull's once-sexy voice seems to have very little range - it was a sell-out show and many fans seemed appreciative just to be so near to her - or the fact she had to read the lyrics to many of the songs (her own included; she even forgot the name of the song she co-wrote with Nick Cave), but the fact she seemed so ill at ease on stage.
Faithfull rarely smiled, looked decidedly bored during a couple of the guitar solos, and seemed to have little to no rapport with her seven-piece multi-instrumentalist band.
The musical direction lent a distinct cruise-ship feel to the evening - while tight, the band made the down and dirty Stones song Sister Morphine (co-written by Faithfull) sound like an MOR Robert Cray number.
Even during her big hits - Broken English and When Tears Go By - Faithfull looked as if she'd rather be anywhere but on stage.
Worse still, some of her audience members looked as if they felt the same way.
5 reasons why the Internet shouldn't get the Nobel Peace Prize
Wired Italy's efforts have paid off: the Internet has been shortlisted as a candidate for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize (along with dissidents and human rights activists from Russia and China). Here are five reasons why the Nobel committee should not give the award to this quirky candidate:
Reason 1: It doesn't deserve it. Simply put, there are worthier technologies. Why not award the prize to the book, the telegraph, the radio, the syringe, the mobile phone, the Xerox machine, the pacemaker, or the water pump? Arguably, they have had a much greater impact on society - and many of them are still changing the lives of many people all over the world, particularly those in the "bottom billion". How about 5 billion people who are not yet online? Aren't there technologies which are more universal and life-changing?
Reason 1: It doesn't deserve it. Simply put, there are worthier technologies. Why not award the prize to the book, the telegraph, the radio, the syringe, the mobile phone, the Xerox machine, the pacemaker, or the water pump? Arguably, they have had a much greater impact on society - and many of them are still changing the lives of many people all over the world, particularly those in the "bottom billion". How about 5 billion people who are not yet online? Aren't there technologies which are more universal and life-changing?
In short, if the impetus behind the Internet's nomination is to recognize technology's (often) positive role in development and democratization, there are much better candidates. Discussions of the Internet's social and political impact in the popular media and the blogosphere are already so ahistorical - it's as if it's so unique we don't need to know anything about history, anthropology or sociology of societies which technology is supposedly remaking - that bestowing a Nobel prize on the Internet would only make matters worse.
Reason 2: It could kill Internet activism in authoritarian states. Scared by the prospect of yet another Twitter revolution, authoritarian governments are already getting very suspicious of Internet users. If in the past, bloggers were written off as some "geeks and freaks" - at best irrelevant, at worst kind of crazy - now Internet users are primarily perceived as a threat. Democratic forces would arguably have much more success with the Internet if they were still perceived as "geeks and freaks'. Now, of course, they can't do it as the government sees them as a political force. Most of these fears are, of course, bogus: the only reason why authoritarian governments are so scared is because of overblown reports in the Western media.
Reason 2: It could kill Internet activism in authoritarian states. Scared by the prospect of yet another Twitter revolution, authoritarian governments are already getting very suspicious of Internet users. If in the past, bloggers were written off as some "geeks and freaks" - at best irrelevant, at worst kind of crazy - now Internet users are primarily perceived as a threat. Democratic forces would arguably have much more success with the Internet if they were still perceived as "geeks and freaks'. Now, of course, they can't do it as the government sees them as a political force. Most of these fears are, of course, bogus: the only reason why authoritarian governments are so scared is because of overblown reports in the Western media.
Internet activists would have a much easier and safer existence if the Internet got "Nobel Cutest Cat Award" and regained its reputation as a hangout place for "geeks and freaks". Let's work towards that goal. Yes, this would also involve the US State Department being somewhat less vocal about all the great work they do with social time; at times, it looks as if the State Dept's social media team interprete the term "open government" just a tad too literally - can't they act without leaking everything to the press for a change?
Reason 3: It would undermine the reputation of the Nobel Peace Prize. Why reward people who were acting solely in commercial interest and it just so happened that their product/invention was used for some noble purpose? Take Twitter: when the "Twitter revolution" in Moldova happened, most of Twitter's senior executives probably couldn't place that country on the map. A few months later, however, they were already saying inane things like "Twitter has become more a triumph of humanity than a triumph of technology". I wouldn't be surprised if Twitter would now take an even more aggressive line and try to rewrite history, arguing that they helped to spearhead the protests in Moldova or Iran.
Reason 3: It would undermine the reputation of the Nobel Peace Prize. Why reward people who were acting solely in commercial interest and it just so happened that their product/invention was used for some noble purpose? Take Twitter: when the "Twitter revolution" in Moldova happened, most of Twitter's senior executives probably couldn't place that country on the map. A few months later, however, they were already saying inane things like "Twitter has become more a triumph of humanity than a triumph of technology". I wouldn't be surprised if Twitter would now take an even more aggressive line and try to rewrite history, arguing that they helped to spearhead the protests in Moldova or Iran.
But the Voice of America Twitter isn't: commitment to world peace does not rank high on the list of Twitter's objectives (for all the good reasons - they are in the business of making money, after all - leave the world peace to Bono). Don't we want to award this prize to someone who at least WANTS a more democratic and peaceful future and WORKS towards it? I'm all for leverage the unexpected consequences of technology - especially the positive ones - but we are not awarding "Nobel Most Random Good Deeds" prize.
Reason 4: It would stifle a very important and still unfolding debate about the Internet's broader impact on society. If the Internet gets the Nobel, it would further advance techno-utopian babble about the "hive mind" and ultimate peace that already occupies so many of the pages of Wired magazine (not to mention blog posts and tweets!). The debate about the democratizing potential of the Internet - both in authoritarian and democratic contexts - is far from over, and while I tolerate the possibility, however abysmal, that the Wired school of thought may be right, I think we've got good 20 or 30 years of debate ahead of us before we can say anything conclusively.
Reason 4: It would stifle a very important and still unfolding debate about the Internet's broader impact on society. If the Internet gets the Nobel, it would further advance techno-utopian babble about the "hive mind" and ultimate peace that already occupies so many of the pages of Wired magazine (not to mention blog posts and tweets!). The debate about the democratizing potential of the Internet - both in authoritarian and democratic contexts - is far from over, and while I tolerate the possibility, however abysmal, that the Wired school of thought may be right, I think we've got good 20 or 30 years of debate ahead of us before we can say anything conclusively.
The dangerous rise of direct democracy, the paralysis of the political process under the pressure of over-empowered grassroots movement, the polarization of public debate, the end of the national conversation, not to mention new opportunities for surveillance and control - the Internet may be directly or indirectly responsible for all of these activities (the original assumption of Wired Italy - that the Internet will "destroy hate and conflict and to propagate peace and democracy" - is even more contentious). We don't know for sure - but this is no reason to stop the inchoate debate. If anything, we are not spending enough time talking about these issues in an intelligent manner; chances are we'd be talking about them even less if the Nobel goes to the Internet.
Reason 5: It would convince world leaders that politics is secondary to technology. In one of my columns about Google's decision to pull out of China, I brought up the concept of 'computational arrogance': Google's unshakable belief that given enough engineers, all global problems are solvable. In Google's case, it's probably a healthier ideology to have than 'philanthropic arrogance' - a naive belief that throwing enough money at an issue would eventually solve it, so prevalent in Western governments and international development institutions - but it's still false (this, probably, explains the failure of Google.org). But it's not just technology companies who inhabit this dream world.
Reason 5: It would convince world leaders that politics is secondary to technology. In one of my columns about Google's decision to pull out of China, I brought up the concept of 'computational arrogance': Google's unshakable belief that given enough engineers, all global problems are solvable. In Google's case, it's probably a healthier ideology to have than 'philanthropic arrogance' - a naive belief that throwing enough money at an issue would eventually solve it, so prevalent in Western governments and international development institutions - but it's still false (this, probably, explains the failure of Google.org). But it's not just technology companies who inhabit this dream world.
Let's face it: most people in positions of power don't get the Internet. We definitely don't want some World Bank bureaucrat drawing false conclusions from the Wired-like enthusiasm about what the Internet can do. It may ultimately be an inept comparison, but I am increasingly noting similarities between the rhetoric of open government folks and those who were pushing for the establishment of elections as the means to democratize authoritarian states. Elections, like open data, are necessary but almost never enough.
Chances are that given enough time and resources, authoritarian leaders will learn how to trick their "online monitors" just like they have learned how to trick their "electoral observers". It does not mean we shouldn't be trying to make authoritarian regimes more transparent (and, hopefully, even more accountable, hardly the same thing) - but the success of those campaigns depends on factors that have nothing to do with the Internet - and this is where we need to concentrate most of our effort. Technology is the easiest (and most predictable) part of this equation.
Sunday 7 February 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
