Government depends upon knowledge. Not simply the knowledge of statecraft, which had been the subject if innumerable books of advice to princes in classical antiquity and in the Middle Ages. But a positive knowledge of the domain to be governed, a way of rendering it into thought, so that it can be analyzed, evaluated, it’s ills diagnosed and remedies prescribed. Such ‘representation’ has two significant aspects: the articulation of languages to describe the object of government and the invention of devices to inscribe it . . .

. . . Modern citizens are thus not incessantly dominated, repressed, or colonized by power . . . but subjectified, educated, and solicited into a loose and flexible alliance between personal interpretations and ambitions and institutionally or socially valued ways of living. The languages and techniques of psychology provide vital relays between contemporary government and the ethical technologies by which modern individuals come to govern their own lives.

The protection of an individual is fundamental to today’s society and business freedom should never come above that of person’s dignity and that is what this trial has shown.

I agree, entirely, with the first part of that statement — but when the prosecutor argues “… and that is what this trial has shown” I have to ask myself: what trial is he talking about? Whose dignity is being protected here? Certainly not the dignity of a wired society who is likely to face greater surveillance and censorship as a result of this irresponsible ruling. And, certainly not the dignity of that poor boy who can not “delete” his memories of that horrible act of violence. Of all the serious privacy issues associated with the practices of corporations like Google (see here) and Facebook (see here), and governments like the U.S. (see here and here) and China (see here), how does this qualify as a triumph for privacy when it has the potential to further erode individual privacy on the Internet?

Peter Fleischer is quoted in the Telegraph as saying he found it ironic that “as privacy director I have been found guilty of breaching privacy.” With respect to Fleischer, that’s not ironic — it’s to be expected that the person in charge of privacy policies for the most prominent global information company would find himself (fairly or unfairly) held accountable for those policies. What’s ironic is that three Google executives were convicted for violating privacy laws in an instance where they actually didn’t violate anyone’s privacy, and that conviction has the potential to further compromise individual privacy. Now, that’s irony.

Labour MP Tom Watson said it best in the Telegraph:

This is the biggest threat to internet freedom we have seen in Europe. The only people who will support this decision are Silvio Berlusconi and the governments of China and Iran. It effectively breaks the internet in Italy.

The first subtopic (1.1) of “The Cybercity” is titled “identifying the cybercity” and focuses on understanding the cyborgization of the city as well as shaping a coherent definition of the cybercity. The second subtopic (1.2) is titled “identity and the cybercity” and explores what a collective cyber-urban identity might look like and how it is developed. The final subtopic (1.3) is titled “governance and the cybercity” and focuses on understanding the modes of governance which do (or could) assist in producing/reproducing the cybercity.

Exploring the link between the processes of democracy and education as well as understanding the mutual shaping of each process and the cybercity is the objective of the second topic: “Democracy and Education in the Cybercity.” The first subtopic (2.1) of “Democracy and Education in the Cybercity” is titled “education and democracy” and focuses generally on exploring the link between education and democracy particularly in regards to the Dewey-Lippmann debate. The second subtopic (2.2) is titled “citizen participation and the cybercity” and explores how the process of citizen participation is transmuted by the cybercity and how such a process produces/reproduces the cybercity. The third subtopic (2.3) is titled “education, development and the cybercity” and explores how the processes of education and development are transmuted by the cybercity and how such processes produce/reproduce the cybercity.

You can view my reading list by clicking here.