Per un Governo, qualunque Governo, e’ molto difficile fare il portabandiera di quei valori di liberta’ della rete senza apparire ipocrita. Questo perche’ occorrerebbe prima che quello stesso Governo condividesse realmente quei valori, e lo dimostrasse attraverso l’attribuzione di diritti e doveri sia a chi condivide contenuti in rete, sia a chi quei contenuti li legge.
© Peterson
Se dunque un Governo vuole veramente salire sul pulpito e fare la predica agli altri Paesi, dovrebbe prima garantire e promuovere una reale tutela al diritto alla privacy e applicare appieno (pretendendone il rispetto anche negli altri Paesi) il diritto alla liberta’ di manifestazione del pensiero contenuto in quel bellissimo articolo 19 della Dichiarazione universale dei diritti dell’uomo, che recita cosi’:
“Ogni individuo ha il diritto alla liberta’ di opinione e di espressione, incluso il diritto di non essere molestato per la propria opinione e quello di cercare, ricevere e diffondere informazioni e idee attraverso ogni mezzo e senza riguardo a frontiere.”
Leggetelo e rileggetelo, imparatelo a memoria, stampatelo e diffondetelo, perche’ senza questo, ogni predica, ogni tentativo di ergersi a moralizzatori o paladini della liberta’, e’ solo un atteggiamento ipocrita. Ed e’ in questo modo che va visto il Governo degli Stati Uniti.
“Well, first of all, let me say that I have never used Twitter. I noticed that young people — they’re very busy with all these electronics. My thumbs are too clumsy to type in things on the phone. But I am a big believer in technology and I’m a big believer in openness when it comes to the flow of information. I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable. They can begin to think for themselves. That generates new ideas. It encourages creativity. And so I’ve always been a strong supporter of open Internet use. I’m a big supporter of non-censorship.
[...]
I can tell you that in the United States, the fact that we have free Internet — or unrestricted Internet access is a source of strength, and I think should be encouraged. Now, I should tell you, I should be honest, as President of the United States, there are times where I wish information didn’t flow so freely because then I wouldn’t have to listen to people criticizing me all the time. I think people naturally are — when they’re in positions of power sometimes thinks, oh, how could that person say that about me, or that’s irresponsible, or — but the truth is that because in the United States information is free, and I have a lot of critics in the United States who can say all kinds of things about me, I actually think that that makes our democracy stronger and it makes me a better leader because it forces me to hear opinions that I don’t want to hear. It forces me to examine what I’m doing on a day-to-day basis to see, am I really doing the very best that I could be doing for the people of the United States. And I think the Internet has become an even more powerful tool for that kind of citizen participation.”
Town Hall meeting in Shanghai (17 November 2009)
E piu’ recentemente:
“I also call upon the Egyptian government to reverse the actions that they’ve taken to interfere with access to the Internet, to cell phone service and to social networks that do so much to connect people in the 21st century.”
Remarks by the President on the Situation in Egypt (28 January 2011)
Anche il Segretario di Stato USA, Hillary Clinton, non manca di dire qualche bella parola sulla liberta’ di Internet, l’ha fatto un’anno fa:
“countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century”
e lo ha confermato martedi’ alla George Washington University:
“We are convinced that an open internet fosters long-term peace, progress and prosperity. The reverse is also true. An internet that is closed and fractured, where different governments can block activity or change the rules on a whim – where speech is censored or punished, and privacy does not exist – that … is an internet that can cut off opportunities for peace and progress and discourage innovation and entrepreneurship,”
avendo addirittura il coraggio di affermare:
“I urge countries everywhere to join the United States in our bet that an open internet will lead to stronger, more prosperous countries,”
“The United States could neither provide for our citizens’ security nor promote the cause of human rights and democracy around the world if we had to make public every step of our efforts, [...] Confidential communication gives our government the opportunity to do work that could not be done otherwise…By publishing diplomatic cables, WikiLeaks exposed people to even greater risk.”
Ecco la soluzione alla contraddizione tra parole e azioni del Governo degli Stati Uniti, siccome sono i promotori della liberta’, hanno il diritto di infrangere queste liberta’ per garantirsi il potere di promuovere la liberta’. Se vi sembra un ragionamento contorto e incoerente non preoccupatevi, avete ragione.
Al Governo degli Stati Uniti, alle sue agenzie e a tutti i Governi del Mondo, conviene che i grossi fornitori di servizi continuino ad avere i dati degli utenti nei loro database, cosi’ che con una legge, o con una minaccia, o in qualunque altro modo, possano pretendere di accedere a quei dati, sorvegliando, controllando e censurando. E chi mette in guardia contro il pericolo di questi enormi servizi centralizzati viene censurato.
[^] torna su | post<li> |