The following websites relate to "Cyber Warfare" that is conducted over cyberspace.

1) http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90780/91343/6699021.html (China)

The above article first starts off by describing how international terrorist organisations are using the Internet to adapt to their own purposes and terrorist activities, with the Taliban being one of the examples cited.

The interesting part actually occurs when the article ends off with "This is not because that cunning Al-Qaeda has many places to hide, but because every website on which news is released will be hijacked by US army network."


2) http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/30/obama-orders-military-to-focus-on-cyber-warfare/ (America)

This website from America describes how the US describes how the US military is creating its first "cyber command" designed to "bolster America's potential to wage digital warfare as well as defend against mounting cyber threats."


3)http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article2409865.ece (UK)

This last website from the United Kingdom describes how hackers employed by the Chinese military are on a warpath to assert China's "electrical dominance" over global rivals. This article interestingly, ends off with an official from the Pentagon stating how "China is aggressive in this", meaning how China is aggressive in deriving cyber solutions to defend against, and cause, maximum strategic damage by taking out banking systems, power grids and communications networks.


Based on the three perspectives of the websites, we can see that there seems to be a "Cold War-esque" confrontation that is arising in cyberspace. The two world superpowers (US and China) are seemingly trying assert their political and geographical clout into the digital realm and the world's information system networks are at stake in this political game of one-uping each other.

If both countries start to monitor and infiltrate websites beyond those that are hosted on their local servers, will this warrant an investigation into the violation of privacy and sovereign rights?

Terrorist networks could be clamped down via such online surveillance but would the hundreds of terabytes of data that flow freely over the Internet be at stake and lead to a restriction on individual freedom of speech?

Finally, would Internet users be willing to give up personal privacy and speech rights) in exchange for the possible mitigation of future terrorist risks through the increased crackdown on terrorism websites over the Internet?

http://www.mrbrown.com/blog/2007/04/muar_rapper_on_.html

http://mt.m2day.org/2008/content/view/13039/84/

The two links above talk about Wee Meng Chee, a Malaysian rapper who is currently pursuing his degree in Mass Communications in Taiwan. "namewee", the moniker that he is more popularly known by, has already gotten himself into trouble with the law on numerous occasions due to the controversial nature of his rap lyrics.

As seen and heard from the video on Mr. Brown's website, his rap lyrics often talk about racial discrimination and racial animosity. However, many have commented that his lyrics provide quite an accurate portrayal of the reality of Malaysian (and sometimes, Singapore) society.

The Malaysian authorities have hauled him in on a few occasions under the Sedition Act, a legal constitution that does not differ much from Singapore's very own Sedition Act and Internal Security Act.

My question is:

One of the reasons behind the incorparation of the Sedition Act into Singapore's Constitution was to prevent controversial content from being published on traditional media, which could lead racial or religious conflicts.

However, with the advent of the Internet, this Act has been applied into the online context, as seen in the arrest of bloggers that posted racially-discrimating remarks on their blogs (http://www.asiaone.com/Digital/News/Story/A1Story20080522-66514.html).

Should the Sedition Act be applied onto the online context without considerations for the characteristics of the Internet itself? Are we assuming that netizens do not have the autonomy to make decisions for themselves (with regards to racial/religious issue)?

Is the Sedition Act actually a "barrier" to the freedom of speech and thought which results in Singaporeans living in a "safe bubble" where all contentious information is blocked out?


The problem is: What/Who determines the term "Democracy"?

There seems to be many interpretations over this term and Singapore (particularly in Kishore Mahbubhani's writing) has repeatedly stated that the country is an "Asian-style" democracy. Can there be a universal term of "Democracy"?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6227619

This article on the MSNBC wesbite discusses the increasing popularity of online cartoons and animations with pornographic themes. These include from "hentai" (japanese anime porn), western cartoon characters and computer generated "porn characters".

Ethical question:

Can cartoon characters (involved in a pornographic theme) be deemed as being representative of humans involved in similar sexual/pornographic acts? Cartoon characters afterall, are often a product of our imagination and we can often relate (in reality) to these characters in terms of the words they say or the things they do.

On the flip side, what if stick figures or humanoids were used in such pornographic portrayal instead? Could we then argue against the portrayal of such characters or would they be deemed as not representative of a human being?


Ethical problem:

Should viewing online pornography be deemed as a negative act if an individual only intends to view such photos/pictures/videos for the sake of curiousity? How do we know if viewing pornography actually lead to action and imitation (which is one of the factors being put forward to argue against pornography)?

Hi Elaine and Weiting,

Yes after reading up on the topics posted in the forum I have realised that it's always good to state the P.O.V (point of view) from which one is coming from. From my perspective as a member of a society with norms, values and various codes of conduct, I will say that I'm acceptable with people viewing pornography, but as with Elaine, Child pornography to me is a big no-no.

As Elaine has pointed out, the notion of the word "child" has been constructed to represent something that is "innocent" and angelic". Add to this the perspective that I believe most of society have of children; that children are usually not well-informed enough to make decisions and understand the consequences of their decision. Thus, most of society would perceive child pornography as negative.

To take this discussion a little further, the meaning behind the word "pornography" could even be debated. A photo containing nudity which was taken by a professional photographer would most likely be deemed as an "artwork", but would a similar photo taken by an amateur photographer be seen as "pornography"?



Elaine Ong wrote:
> Hi Weiting,
>
> I would just like to ask further as to how pornography would be affecting human rights? Is it what you mentioned in the previous paragraph, where it is 'an assault on human dignity'? To a certain extent, I agree with you, as pornography very often objectify the subjects involved, debasing them. But for those who watch it, how would it affect their dignity? Is that just a third person effect on their part, where they THINK that it would be assaulting another human's dignity? Perhaps individuals find that taking videos of themselves engaging in sexual intercourse is a form of liberation, a form of self-admiration and respect, and gaining excitement from a sense of voyeurism as well?
>
> The word 'child' has been constructed (in the past) to signify innocence, angelic and have to sheltered by adults from the 'evils' which society (made up of adults) perceive them to be. In certain societies, children are already undergoing certain stages which are considered sexual (eg, consuming sperm as a rite to attain manhood). To them, it was a natural thing to do. As for other societies, the construction of the innocent child has been so deeply entrenched. As such, sex which is inherently constructed to be negative (the word itself, activities and symbols relating to that), an evil, has to be separated from children....
>
> I am just trying to deconstruct the negativity towards child pornography, but as I am a very successful product exercising learned constructions and being situated in the very reality presented to us, I will have to admit that as of right now, I would say that child pornography is a big 'nono', giving reasons like adults manipulating the young..tainting their innocence, even taking away their respect and rights of being a 'child'. But it does not mean this will always be fixed. Take for example, gay porn. In the past, the very notion of it would send someone throwing up, create disbelieving looks, taunts and perhaps beat you to death at the same time (gay-haters, usually heterosexual men). It was a profanity. But today, it is accepted and even research has shown that hetero men are aroused when shown gay porn. Perhaps child pornography may reach that same platform some day..but definitely not any time soon~

Before I start, I should first say that this is coming from my previous experience as a non-professional film-maker hahaha......

I feel that film producers and directors should have the freedom to express their thoughts and opinions in their films (and possess the "artistic licence" to do so). However, in the Singaporean context, there are film-makers that stay within the OB-markers but try to push its limits. Jack Neo is one of them, but one must realise that the film-makers that usually practice restrain (or self-censorship) are those whose films are deemed to be commercially viable (to be screend in all major theatres).

Royston Tan's "15" (a short film about gangsterism in Singapore) was banned by the authorities previously. One of the reasons given was that rival gangs might take offence to the gang chants that were depicted in the film. He has since moved on to more "commercial" films such as "881" and "12 Lotus".

This is where cinemas that screen the movie come in as the "1st line" of "moral defence" in deciding whether they should screen a controversial film. However, one should remember that in this day and age, one can easily find online versions of almost any film produced via online platforms.

Perhaps the bottom line really boils down right to the individual and his/her autonomy to select the shows that he/she wants to watch. The government (in Singapore's case) has implemented different age restrictions to the various categories of film ratings (G, PG, NC-16, M-18, R-21), but one can argue that its effect is limited and is only but an attempt to construct an artificial barrier for local audiences.

After all, I think most of us must have heard of stories of friends who bought tickets for a show that was "rated PG" and ended up in the movie theatre screening "Saving Private Ryan" when it was released with a restricted rating quite some time ago in Singapore. hehehe...


Weiye Loh wrote:
> http://yawningbread.org/arch_2009/yax-1056.htm
>
> My friend asked: So, if we cut out these parts, we can submit again?
> Yes, she said.
> Fine, then, we'll do that. But where's the film?
> You can't have it, she said. It's been rejected, so we're keeping it.
>
> [...]
>
> Instead of asking the film to be cut in France, the original country, and then having to courier the edited version back here -- it would take too long and cost too much -- we asked a filmmaker in Singapore to make the necessary edits for us.
>
> We asked her to insert a still frame at each point where she made a cut, as in the example on the left. We wanted our audience to know that what they were seeing was not the entire original but a mutilated version of it. We wanted them to know exactly where the cuts were made and how much. We believed it was important in terms of our transparency and accountability to our audience.
>
> This second version was resubmitted a few days later to the MDA.
>
> When my friend went back to collect it -- I was too busy to go with him -- the MDA told him it was rejected too. The censors said the still frames were not allowed. And this time, they insisted on retaining the copy.
>
>
> ------------------
> Ethical question: Who should be accountable for (non-)censorship? The producers or film makers? The screening cinemas/ organizations? Members of the public (to choose what they watch)? The government or some higher moral vigilante?
>
> Ethical problem: If censorship is absolutely necessary, what then is the best way to practice it given the varied stakeholders involved?

" It goes back to the question raised during the virus presentation that police are in jobs because of the thieves. If there's no thieves there wouldn't be a need for police. But is it ethical to assume that people are likely to be thieves and hence warrant the need for police? Chicken and egg."

With regards to the above statement, I have to say that the situation is actually occuring amongst the NUS fraternity. There have been cases where lecturers have doubted the writing abilities of students to come up with sentences that "does not seem to be written by them", meaning that the lecturers actually suspect that the students had plagiarise the paragraph and used it for their own purposes with attributing the proper credits.

Can one say that the presence of software such as Turnitin actually helped to increase the cynicism of lecturers by assuming that all students might have a tendency to plagiarise in the first place?

http://www.asiaone.com/Digital/Features/Story/A1Story20090812-160713.html

This article on the Asiaone website discusses the copyright ownership of different elements in user-generated content on the popular video sharing website, YouTube. These "fan videos" usually consist of users either lip synching to the lyrics of popular songs, adding subtitles to original music videos (think "Indian Micheal Jackson" or "fan subs" of foreign-language videos) or singing their own versions of popular songs ("covers").

The issue of contention here is with the copyrights attributed to different owners within a single "fan video". In subtitling, the copyright of the subtitles (if not related to the original lyrics) reside with the creator of the video (sub-titler). However, the copyright of the video's visual content resides with the record company.

In lip-synching, the copyrights of the lyrics and musical content of the song reside with the record company, while the visual content of the performance resides with the people who performed in the video. According to the article, "the copyright of the music and lyrics reside in the composers of the original song while the copyright of the performance and any new arrangement or orchestration of how the song is played would belong to the cover musician." (Koh & Low, 2009)

Question:

In the case of the inclusion of subtitles for a foreign-language video, the copyrights of the video's visual content belongs to the original producers, but the subtitles are derived from the interpretation of the sub-titler.

By preventing users from creating their own "fan subs" to foreign language videos and sharing them on YouTube, are we suppressing the freedom of expression of these individuals? The addition of sub-titles by an individual can also be argued as an action that create benefits to the online community, since more users would be able to enjoy the video and understand the story content (from a teleological perspective).


However, the benefits gained by the online community would be at the expense of the potential losses suffered by the film producers. Since the Internet is often described as a public space, film producers could actually sue these "sub-titlers" for publicly screening the video without permission.

On the other hand, the main reason why many film companies are concerned over the uploading of content onto YouTube is due to the loss of potential income. Would this constitute egoism since the companies seemed to be more concerned over their own revenue than the impact of the video on society?

For example, if "An Inconvenient Truth" was produced in French, would the copyright claims by the film's producers (against uploading on YouTube with added subtitles) actually be preventing the greater public from understanding the dangers of global warming?