February 3, 2009
Posted by yaman
Security, rights, and Facebook in Syria
Note: I wrote this when I was in Syria last summer. I’ve decided to publish it in the hopes of starting a discussion on the nature of the freedoms we tend to discuss in political activism in different parts of the world. At the very heart of it, the question is, what kind of freedom do states produce? The guiding logic is that the biggest threat to the state is a desire for freedom from the state.
In Syria, a number of sites like Facebook are blocked. The official reason has been security. The common response has been, “citizens’ rights are being violated.” Granted, it is easy enough to agree with the latter perspective: it is certainly more troublesome than it ought to be to access these sites, but more than a few of the Internet cafes I’ve come across in Damascus have found a way to get around the block. What I am interested in exploring, though, is the degree to which we can say that it is not actually a contradiction to believe in both the reason for the block, as well as the opposition to it. In other words, are state security and the liberal rights which justify the opposition to the block incompatible with one another, or do they in fact complement one another? It might appear here that I am trying to reconcile the two perspectives in order to find some imagined ‘happy balance’: in fact, I am only trying to show that they were never even separate in the first place to require reconciliation. Further, when I say that the first point should be “believed,” I am in fact not endorsing it, but only trying to make the point that there might be a connection between the “freedoms” we think we have in some places, and the extensiveness of “security” apparatuses in those places.
Let us put aside the obvious: that the government in Syria does not allow a true political pluralism in the country to proliferate, and will quickly attempt to co-opt any idea that might arise, if not to simply suppress it. The fact that Facebook offers too much proliferation potential can easily be read as further fear of the government that such ideas and organizing will spread outside of its purview. But let us also take on the topic from another aspect, that of the technical capabilities and resources available to the government today: could it be that the reason that all of Facebook must be blocked, is that there is no infrastructure to effectively monitor citizen activity on the website specifically or on the Internet more generally? We can keep in mind that at least one aspect of Facebook communication is analogous to telephone use: telephones, after all, are not banned in Syria. But the important point is that any telephone call on a Syrian line can be tapped and tracked with technical ease, as in places like the United States. The same is not necessarily true about Facebook use. Keep in mind, too, that high speed Internet connections in private homes require permission from the government on a case-by-case basis, which basically means a forfeiture of anonymity.
The liberal accusation, which maintains that a right is being violated in Syria that is not violated in the United States or elsewhere, neglects the fact that Internet communications in the United States are comprehensively monitored by American ’security’ apparatuses like the FBI and NSA. The extent to which these organizations sabotaged Black civil rights movements in the 60s and 70s for example is well documented, so the point cannot simply be dismissed by saying that the state won’t abuse its power, especially because often this type of monitoring does not occur as an abuse, but as a legally sanctioned practice. Furthermore, when it does arise illegally, it is rarely known unless outed by a leak, or if information obtained illegally is brought to court. Nevertheless, sometimes the goal of these organizations is not to prosecute or interfere, but simply to gather information. The affinity between a number of telecommunications companies and these security apparatuses in the United States, whereby the companies grant direct and unlimited access to organizations like the NSA, is also important to note. Wherever a “free” communication medium on the Internet or with other technologies has arisen, it has not taken long before these organizations tried to find a way to monitor all communications en masse for certain code words, patterns, or particular individuals. In other words, they sought ways to bring these modes of communication under their purview.
The apparent contradiction is linked to a continued devaluation of privacy, whether the assault be in the name of security, economic development, or other state projects. Privacy is the enemy of the state because it provides for an existence independent of the state. Things that happen in private happen outside of the state’s view, making it impossible for the state to regulate or oversee. One threat to a state’s control apparatus is anonymity in words, action, and existence, and we can already see that this is becoming more and more impossible in the States, as at the very least your birth, death, health, education, and finances are documented by the state comprehensively, if not also by corporations who might actually rival the state in gathering the information that constitutes their representation and management of you (credit reports, consumer loyalty, spending habits, etc). You can’t be born, or even die, in secret– the state must always know.
In Syria, the lack of anonymity or activity outside the view of the state will become more and more like that in the West as it undergoes this thing called “economic development” which is actually the spread of capitalist economic modes. The irony here is that, if the Syrian government wants its project of “economic development” to succeed, especially along the intended axis of telecommunications and Internet technologies such as call centers, then what it will need to do for its ’security’ is not “recognize a right” but develop a technology similar to that employed in the US and other places that will allow it to monitor citizen activity on these technologies with relative ease. Once that infrastructure is in place to monitor telecommunications over the Internet effectively, the state would know more about what was going on thus enabling more unfettered access to Internet sites by citizens. It is a principle of intelligence gathering that it is better to know things, than to push them into the dark further outside the purview and reach of intelligence mechanisms. If it were the case that the security apparatuses already could effectively monitor these sites, keeping in mind the possibility of encryption or the use of languages besides Arabic, then the site might not have been blocked in the first place. Upon the development of these capabilities, it is not so much that a freedom then appears, but rather, that a lack of freedom becomes obscured.
I am making this argument because sites like Facebook will probably be unblocked eventually if massive Internet censorship ends up being a factor that scares away investment in the country or limits income potential: and I can imagine that many people outside of Syria will see this as an increase in “freedoms” thanks to globalization or their descriptor of choice, when in actuality, it will be an improvement in the effectiveness and reach of state security apparatuses. In other words, economic “development,” “progress,” and “advancement” and the other code words for capitalism are all linked to the improvement of the state’s ability to monitor what its citizens do, say, and are capable of, not to the proliferation of freedoms or rights as is commonly claimed. The security apparatus in general is what makes a pseudo-democratic condition tolerable to the institutions of the state. The fact that a state’s new efficient monitoring methods permit the idea that (most) people can freely access certain websites, conceals the exception, which is visible when the state acts to abridge or punish this freedom after the fact–or by the monitoring it undoubtedly will carry out of, to take the example of the United States, anti-war, Muslim, Arab-American, and other organizations and activists.
That is not to say that these sites should not be unblocked, or that access to communication systems should not be unfettered for citizens. That is just to point out the kind of freedom which is produced in this state system, and the kind of massive surveillance on which it depends. We have already seen that major data-mining companies like Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google are willing to hand over customer records upon government request in certain countries in order to ensure greater access (as opposed to freer access) to their sites overall. The factors at play, then, are economic forces as well as political security concerns, the freedom produced being ultimately an illusion and, furthermore, freedom of an economic kind: the freedom of purchase and demand, which allows me to buy Ya Hala units on SyriaTel’s website, but not to send messages on Facebook.
9 Comments
February 4, 2009
This is an interesting argument, and you have a good point on a theoretical level, but I’m not sure I agree with you in the specific case of Syria and Facebook. By the logic you presented, the Syrian government should have blocked all email platforms if they aren’t able to monitor email–and monitoring email shouldn’t be much different than monitoring Facebook. In fact, it seems that email is monitored on some level, and Facebook should be much easier to monitor than email because any user’s activity is linked to his name, picture, email, and other personal information. One of the real paradoxes of the government having blocked Facebook is that it could have made the monitoring operation easier, not more difficult. Fortunately or unfortunately, there is so much about Syrian politics in general and especially internet policy that is quite random.
February 4, 2009
thank for bringing up this topic ,it should not be forgoten as people grow accustomed to censorship as being an integral part of living in this country.
let me tell you ,if there was such “balance” that you talk about and it was realistic to achieve I would be more than happy to conform . I don’t use Facebook for any activity rerlated to political or social activism ,ever . just to keep up with friends and to know about what is happinging in Syria ,but that didn’t stop the security apparatuses to deny me access , not because I am a threat to the security of the regime ,but for the very basic fact that by severing the links between the syrian people and the ouside world you will make the task of oppening up and gradual freedom more difficult , let me tell you the state is taking no risks here ,it is an existential issue for them and so they behave in a preemtive fashion ,so monitoring avtivity is not “secure” to them enough ,because unlike the U.S the regime here doesn’t enjoy legitimacy and doesn’t represent the public .and so it has to maintain its rule by resorting to all it can do to stifle the freedoms of the citizens.
February 4, 2009
Sarah, in general I agree with you that the logic of censorship gets a little more fuzzy and inconsistent as you include more mediums. I think Yaser had a good point about exposure to the outside world, but as more people have relatives, and on satellite tv, not to mention the MBC2 + 4 channels, I’m not sure that Internet is the primary way to reach the outside world.
On a technical level, Syrian ISPs are reported to use software developed by Platinum, Inc (www.platinum.sy) to handle their censorship and monitoring. It’s not clear whether the company has developed customized software for the government, but their other products allow comprehensive monitoring and logging of AIM, Yahoo IM, MSN chatting (www.thundercache.com). That does not surprise me because these are easy to monitor. They also say they can filter HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, etcetera– but filtering just means it won’t let you connect to domain names; it’s not clear whether they log and analyze the actual content you are downloading from websites (which would enable monitoring Facebook) or whether they only log the URLs/IP addresses.
Nevertheless, various e-mail platforms have been randomly blocked and unblocked in the past. So have blogging platforms. Again it’s not exactly clear who decides and why, or what the monitoring software is capable of doing, but at the very least we know that e-mail through the Syrian ISP mail accounts (like mail.sy, aloola.sy, etcetera) are monitored, and since the accounts are already connected to someone’s name, there’s no need for identification software.
So in principle I agree with you that unblocking Facebook makes monitoring easier– but only on the condition that the software actually exists to do so.
February 4, 2009
yaser, I agree with you, but I want to clarify that I wasn’t suggesting there was a balance. I’m saying too that when the freedom doesn’t include freedom of privacy or anonymity, it’s not really free. My post is just as much a criticism of Syrian censorship policies as it is of American monitoring policies.
February 4, 2009
Well thought post, and could be great opening discussion for the case of freedom of expression in Syria. The authority still fear any word to do with freedom and they need to know that freedom of expressing will open for them new frontier that make them able to stand the time factor. On my part, I think new generation should concentrate on different factors other than right or wrong of authority to curtail freedom of speech and expression. In a case like Syria and most third world countries, the emphasis should be on the risk factor and gain and loss for the country as a whole and for authority in particular. A good example of the gain and loss could be easily presented through the authority previous experience regarding the Fax machine back in the 80s. The fax machine never would have created a revolution or gave advantage to the dissents and it did not take long till it went absolute. The problem with authority that they do not see beyond their nose and new generation should bring simple example and make authority understand that they are in the end loosing their advantage if not jump on the technology wagon with their population. The technology is changing in the speed of light and they think that they can stop it and they do not compute and lost gain factor which suppose to reflect on them and their performance in the future. Which validate your point that authority in the USA always jump on the wagon, learn and try to control not block and prohibit technology as a whole.
I too agree with the first comment that Syrian authority went in the wrong direction when they blocked some site where they would have the chance to have better monitoring system. The current philosophy by authority is to block and hide their head in the sand which would backlash on them in the future.
It could be out of scheme of your post to raise the issue of the cost on the national level from such policy but it does make sense to bring it forward as a factor more important than temporary small gains.
February 5, 2009
Yaman, this sounds as though the main threat to privacy comes from the state. But when some of the content was removed from your own Facebook page last month (during the war) who was behind that? surely not the American or Syrian states.
February 19, 2009
Yaman, I was directed to this blog by a friend and I would like to begin by commending you for your thought-provoking entries.
I had a few questions if you don’t mind. With regards to the argument that you articulate on censorship in Syria, do you believe it can be applied to the banning of Youtube as well? How does the fact that Myspace has not been banned in Syria factor into your argument?
February 19, 2009
Hi Hadia, I think you bring up a very good point which highlights the weaknesses of my argument. By no means did I mean to suggest that this explains all of Syrian policy regarding the Internet– it might be a mistake to say that there is even a unified, centralized strategy or policy about the Internet in the first place.
I think the banning of YouTube has occurred for primarily censorship reasons. The difference between Facebook and YouTube is that Facebook has a social aspect, while YouTube is mainly used for content-delivery. So censorship of YouTube is similar to censorship of newspapers, while blocking of Facebook is closer to banning of civil society groups. Facebook facilitates organization, but YouTube facilitates free transmission of information. So I think they are both censored out of political fears, but I think each site poses a different kind of threat.
As for MySpace, well, that is a good question. I wish I knew the answer. It could be something mundane like not many Syrians use MySpace, or it could be something else. I wish I had an answer. Personally I don’t use MySpace either, so I don’t know what its potential is. For that matter, we don’t really even know the specifics of Syrian policy on Facebook. I was offering this theory in order to emphasize the privacy that is sacrificed, because even if Facebook is unblocked, that does not mean people will not be punished for expressing their views on it.
December 1, 2009
They’ve blocked sites incl. Facebook here in China as well, and right now I’m using Freedur to access these blocked sites. Where there’s a will there’s a way.
Leave a comment