Does Freedom of Information Mean Freedom?

One of the questions that keeps buzzing around in my head is whether the “information economy” really requires the free flow of information to function and, if so, does this mean that broad use of the Internet will lead to a more participatory democracy? Assuming for the moment that the information economy actually exists, China’s pervasive political censorship looks to be the premier test for this idea. There is an interesting article about press/web censorship in the latest issue of the Christian Science Monitor which also mentions the complicity of US companies like Yahoo and Google in suppressing dissent.

I think that once a particular technology is released into the wild, whether it’s atomic energy or the web, it is impossible to put it back in the box. However, due to the complexity of the medium, all this means is a permanent arms race where the government rolls out new and better control techniques and the opposition finds holes and vulnerabilities in the information blockade. There is a good discussion of the technologies of suppression in Wikipedia, most of which goes far beyond my tech comprehension.

I believe that using the Internet for purposes of control substantially decreases it’s value and efficiency to the market, but bureaucracies will always chose control over maximizing either value or efficiency. It makes me think of the movie "Burn" staring Marlon Brando, where he plays a British counter-insurgency expert who burns the cane fields and destroys the economy of the island to put down a grassroots rebellion. Stupid, powerful people are never stupid about staying in power.

It’s also true that China must compete with countries who do not censor the Internet quite as broadly. On this point such august personalities as former president Bill Clinton are saying that China's example proves you can grow your economy quite well by allowing business apps to run free while simultaneously hammering the political opposition. Since China’s current economic grow rate is around 10% he may be on to something.

It is difficult to assess how the fight is really playing out in China because of, well, censorship. The Chinese authorities acknowledge 10,000 “disturbances” last year which is certainly a gross underestimation and covers everything from small confrontations with the government to full scale battles with the Army.

It is also hard to draw a fine line between business apps and political apps. It has been reported that Chinese workers are organizing unions through coded messages over cell phones and we know that business technologies such as text messaging were turned on their head in the Battle for Seattle.

Access to information is not the only ingredient necessary for successful political action. It is the combination of leadership, organization and technology that usually does the trick. However, without cheap and effective communication, the coordination of isolated protests into meaningful mass action is certainly impaired. This would also hold true for the more exotic "emergence" scenerios currently receiving heavy play in progressive political circles.

It seems to me that the example of China strikes at the heart of any tool-centric political theory. What should we make of reports that the US Army is preparing contingency plans that shut down the Internet in the event of national emergencies?

I would welcome any perspectives that might help me think through this problem.