Living in a virtual society
Interview with Raul Trejo Delarbre
Ariel Ruiz Mondragón
product of a formidable scientific and technological revolution, the Internet has become a fundamental part of a phenomenon of gigantic dimensions in the different aspects of the life of mankind: by some called the Information Society, which exists around the vast amount of information and communication facilities with formidable allow us to quickly and easily digital media, especially network networks.
As the Internet has opened many opportunities for development and welfare, has also deepened existing inequalities in the world, to be a resource that is not yet available to large sectors of the global population, mainly the poorest. In this regard, one of the most important challenges and aspirations for the future will generalize and democratize access and its use as a way to reduce social and economic gaps. On these issues
Raul Trejo Delarbre published a couple of years ago his book Living in the Aleph . The Information Society and its labyrinths (Barcelona, \u200b\u200bGedisa, 2006), then take this opportunity to talk with the author on issues like inequality and exclusion in the society, public and educational policies to extend the freedoms, rights and duties of citizens surfer, the choice of valuable information, their use in democracy and main advantages and risks in the future.
Delarbre Trejo is a researcher at the Institute of Social Research and professor den UNAM Faculty of Political and Social Sciences at the university. National System of Researchers, author of 15 books, founded the magazine Etcetera and has worked in newspapers as El Universal, La Jornada , Unomásuno , El Nacional and today's Chronicle, as well as in magazines and Links socket.
Ariel Ruiz (AR): Why write and publish a book like yours? Raul Trejo Delarbre
(RTD): I'll give you an answer in simple principle: first, because it is my job. At the Institute of Social Research of the UNAM, where I work, one of my projects is on the Information Society in Latin America, and this book fulfills part of that project that has many aspects. So it is, of course, part of my obligation.
That is an obligation one is fortunate to have the choice, and I found some time in the Internet, and more broadly in the information society, issues likely to have a look beyond technology and beyond a specific discipline. I was struck how there are economists, historians, sociologists, lawyers, physicists, mathematicians who write and study about the Internet. I want to benefit from input from a large number of authors and an interdisciplinary view, of course with the bias of my own personal training.
has long had a huge amount of data and information resulting from exchange with colleagues from other countries, resulting from my own observation and practice on the Internet, and also because ten years ago, in 1996, I had occasion to publish a book in Madrid called The new carpet. Uses and abuses of the Internet, Red Network, and since then I had answers, suggestions and criticisms of colleagues from many sites, which have benefited me to have a more specialized, I do not know if more analytical, less descriptive perhaps than that which was pioneered very early Internet. This book, incidentally, has the opportunity to appear ten years after that magic carpet, so I wrote and that is circulating.
Hopefully readers of this talk are readers of this book. I sincerely believe that it is a readable book, which is covered by numerous alibis I've searched the literature, particularly in that of Jorge Luis Borges and hence the title, pretentious but wants to be more a tribute to the appropriation of this great author Argentina.
AR: The book is about the information society. You point out that this is typical of a globalized world, a society in which they also reflect social inequalities. In that sense, who, how and why they are excluded from it?
RTD: Varies indicator we use, and depends on what we understand by information society. I assume a broad definition of it, and understand how the context is created by a wide variety of technological resources. The information society is one that is hinged on the Internet, first (I insist on calling the book "backbone of the information society") but also is one to which we connect the satellite TV, radio digital, the huge number of albums that are in music stores, the ability to scan a video and selling it illegally to give to a friend. Residents or citizens of society partners la información son los muchachos que abren un blog en internet, o los que descargan en su Ipod una colección de música para su uso personal, somos lo que utilizamos correo electrónico, o los que participan en los salones de chat.
Podemos decir, con una precisión limitada, que están en la sociedad de la información los que tienen conexión regular a internet; pero quizá no es del todo cierto porque hay gente que no está en internet pero sí tiene televisión satelital.
En todo caso, para darle una respuesta más concreta, hoy en día entre el 80 y 85 por ciento de la humanidad no tiene conexión a internet. Entonces estamos hablando de un 15 por ciento, que son muchos centenares of millions of people, and they are all but missing a lot. In the Mexican case are regular Internet connection 18 or 19 percent this year, we need more than 80 percent, about 83 million Mexicans who do not have this resource, much as for those who live in cities like Mexico we have become so familiar and so indispensable.
That is, the information society is so malleable, so elusive at times, with a single definition and a single statistical indicator, which depends on the criteria used to assess the amount of people in that society.
AR: The discussion of the first chapter, but is present in several other parts the book is about how public policies may be appropriate to promote information technology and communication. I was struck by the case of Uruguay, which you mention, which has achieved a coverage of 37 percent online. What policies can be suitable for this?
RTD: First, the worst public policy is one that does not exist. The great problem of Mexico has been the absence of policies specifically designed to extend internet coverage and ownership of Mexican society of these resources.
We had specific policies to allow more computers in government or to have electronic whiteboards in schools, partial and questionable policies. In this administration, President Vicente Fox pushed some measures to community centers have internet access, but with such poor planning, with so few resources and with such a propaganda effort (above all), which occurred in many municipalities computers already in schools or in hospitals of the Ministry of Health, joined the network and the system of Mexico, it is great that the links which mean to say that this is something new, they were and are as old computers, with processors such obsolete, not used to surf the internet.
A policy should national resources, will the government have a multidisciplinary orientation that had not only the desire to promote the ruling in turn. Should have a flexible and comprehensive technological development does not occur, as in the case of Enciclomedia, that technology is used only for a company (the company Microsoft, which happens to be a company that while it did from very important donation of some private institutions, including the founding of the wife of the President). This is not part of a national policy, but an enrichment program and more successful on some individuals.
A national policy could be like Brazil, where eight years ago the government called many different sectors to create a council of Internet in Brazil, consisting of about 100 people secondments political, technological and civil varied. That is a national policy; the other, not yet.
AR: There are other elements that you also consider necessary for integration into the information society. You mention that there is information, but we must strive to become knowledge: we can discern the information they give us points, but having some experience and some intellectual preparation. On the education, what must be done to fully exploit the Internet?
RTD: I think the internet deserves a specific education, first to master the technical basics, not a thing of another world, but we need to know, that people like you or like me nobody taught us, and that almost all have had to learn on the fly by means of trial and error. Why not spare the students entering high school today or emerging from the Primary, the hardships they have endured some of us?
should have introductory courses in using these rudiments of information, as well as a literacy course, as we are taught to read and write, would enseñársenos to surf the internet. This is difficult but not impossible, even today in many elementary teachers are asking students to research online because they know that anyway they will do, and it is better to anticipate that possibility.
should also be part of our civic education to learn to distinguish between useful information and not to learn to deliberate on the Internet. All this is going to be achieved by way of the inertia to which this compels us to use there anyway. But it would be worth then that was not the inertia of events but the result of an education policy specifically planned for it to be used online.
In other countries, regardless of any computer in the classroom (about this there is an interesting discussion in the United States, for example) to children and the children are led to use the internet. In Mexico, many of the boys use the Internet for chatting and downloading music (which is not bad), but are taught to use creative, cultural, educational, more specific information. That's what we still lack, and has been very difficult, among other things, because children have the internet as part of their school education is needed The teachers know, do a course to know to use. Here in Mexico the teachers would not arrive in time ten years ago to use the Internet.
AR: The use of internet and computer resources have expressed the inequality in the world, but there are (as you stated in the book) an aspiration that can help build a fairer, more equitable. After 13 years of open and wider use of internet, has been used to increase that to reduce this inequality to date?
RTD: I think the two things every new technological resources becomes an additional factor to inequality already exist in contemporary societies. When you see the plasma TV (which is in any way and is very expensive) then suddenly we do not have money or do not want to spend on it we become unequal, we become marginalized in terms of those who do choose to keep the money.
The same applies to internet, but in the case of the network of networks, this factor is intrinsic inequality by lowering the passing years: today, buy a computer much less difficult than it was 10 or 15 years, because it has become cheaper. The fact is that anyone who is connected, which has passed the barrier of disengagement, or anyone with your computer with its connection and can place the content you want, you can recover and take over the content you want from those in the network, just as in Manhattan Oaxaca, Chiapas than in Paris. The fact that the Internet can access the same information, although some do better computers and faster speeds than others, involves a factor of democratization not only in gathering information but the ability of expression.
If you ask me to choose, I would say that in these years have been many more, without doubt, the advantages that the Internet has imposed disparities.
AR: In this sense, does the digital divide you mention, and not just adheres to most have the technological resources, has been closing in 13 years to popularize the Internet?
RTD: It has been closing because 12 years ago in Mexico had almost 200 thousand Internet users, and now we are almost 20 million. In the world there were 25 million, and today is passing, perhaps, the barrier of one million. Obviously more people have access to these resources, and this recognition should not lead us to say that all is well. I think (that's what I tried in this type of work) you need to have a vision or integrated, which is the one that says that all is well, or apocalyptic, which is the one that says that everything is wrong, citing Umberto Eco
AR: You mentioned as one of the characteristics of the information society area of \u200b\u200bfreedom, but also mentions that it is necessary to protect individual rights and social networking. Both can get hit. Today was how these rights are protected?
RTD: There are many lawyers and jurists who say that much to regulate the Internet. I personally think that no, what to do (and already has in many cases, even in Mexico) some adjustments to the legal codes that already exist to criminalize those abuses committed in the network and that would be crimes in the offline world. If I were assaulted in person when I take money from a teller at the bank, is a crime, as it must be absolutely no doubt that if I take money from my bank account via the Internet, it is criminal conduct. If someone corrupts a child and forces him to have sex, it is a crime, and the most terrible, "and must be punished with the utmost severity, and if anyone takes advantage of the internet to do the same, to make an appointment with a minor and abuse it, because obviously it is a crime with or without the internet.
Otherwise, I think a great virtue of the Net lies in that there is great freedom for expression. On the Internet can spread thoughts, concepts and data noble, virtuous and uplifting, but too many lies, full content of hatred and animosity. I think it should be free to say whatever, the biggest nonsense, but also to rectify should have resources to amend the libel and to prevent fraud. But beyond that, I think people have the right to enter content sites of any kind. Putting aside the issue of children (who must be protected), I think the most outrageous sexual content, if he wants to place and some people want to watch or consume, in the case of adults, should be in the right order do so. Parents will need to have resources to prevent your children to content that pop out they do not want to contemplate. Here the only prescription, in addition to using software to block certain pages, is to assist children and young people when surfing the Internet. There's no way.
AR: You say that the information society is the most watched in history. There also might be some dangerous connotations for freedom. What could be the role of Internet on social control, taking into account the issue of cookies or projects like Echelon-I do not know if it's true or not?
RTD: Not true. I think there are two risks limiting the freedoms on the Internet: first-ignorant belief but became very entrenched, that the Internet was a nest of criminals and therefore had to suppress and censor, that ranged from 2001 but since 1996 there were projects of censure part of the United States government, which were stopped by groups of civil rights on the Internet. Here is a task of explanation and pedagogy that interested in defending these freedoms have to do to convince the judges and rulers that Internet is everything, and as in reality, on any street in our societies, There are good people and bad, there are people who help others, which is very supportive, and offenders and bandits, as there are on the Internet. This, I said later, is a sort of collection of mirrors of reality: if in reality there is evil and solidarity, as will the network.
The other issue to be taken into account is the fact that, being available for all, which put on the Internet or whatever it is recorded there may be accessed by all. If someone opens a blog and has their own life very private matters, it should not be surprised by the fact that someone, anyone who has access to the network, you can read that content. If someone sends an email with a personal matter that did not want it to be known, is wrong: need to recognize and remember that all Internet content browsing is likely to be known by others. Though I send a personal email to you, it's easy for someone interested in interfering with my mail or you do it, or I can be wrong and itching to another recipient. Well, if you have secrets you want to remain as such, do not air them on the Internet, or convert them to digital format, which is very likely to be reproduced and returned easily.
Sometimes we forget these things, we forget that there are resources online that could cause others to know what we do on the network, such as cookies, which are files that track our online activities. I insist: if someone do not want something known, do not do it on the internet because this is a public place first.
What is missing is more information and obligations of business in an ethical manner to warn us that when, for example, bought a book on Amazon, our preferences as consumers of books are recorded and may be known and shared by others.
The use of digital devices opens our personal affairs to the scrutiny of others. That is a reality. Should be regulated, and it is, but inadequately, traffic should be prohibited personal data (unless authorized people). It is part of the new rules put in place, and by Mexican consumers do not always care. Admittedly often neglected to look at the small print of contracts, which tell us that our data can be used to sell our homes or electronic data.
AR: In the book are shocking figures about the information flowing, the existing number of pages exceeds the amazing thing. Making a comparison, Ortega y Gasset said that should have librarians that will guide readers through the books that really are worth it. In several parts of the book do you pronounce "charts" so that the Internet may not go lost. Already have made these "letters" that allow us to reach the information that is worth, or how would you do?
RTD: Yes On one hand there are people with some expertise in any field who knows him, knows what is on the Internet, and there are specialized sites for those who want to access a specific field of knowledge.
other hand, more and more a feeling of mutual support that is maintained on the internet and is spreading the tendency to label the contents, place the tags that users or visitors of a site lists a few favorite sites people, and are useful for those who share the tastes and interests of that person knows that there is something interesting.
are guides initial, but have the risk that can popularize the culture more commercial or more linked to what is popular at the time, to the detriment of other content. But this is part of the opening of internet to the society, like books and movies.
AR: On the speed with which changes the page, in the amount of lies that circulate in Internet, is, to some extent, also an obstacle to knowledge?
RTD: I see that on one hand the proliferation of quackery, lies and intolerance is not the fault of the Internet, which is an instrument. The deception and ignorance and there, and inevitably find a mechanism natural spread via the Internet, especially if there are intolerant and ignorant to those who like to spread their prejudice and ignorance.
When people believe that there is information of any kind, which by virtue of being online is true, it is wrong. It is as if we believe it's true what they say in the magazines sold at newsstands, or what we hear in a conversation in a cafe or subway. People say the same rumor from person to person online.
Then you have to do is learn to distinguish the real from what is not, like the Internet than life offline. The big advantage is that online occurs as in the case of Wikipedia: an encyclopedia created by people who are on the internet and he wants to contribute, because it has the desire to put a definition here. You can brew many lies and mistakes, but there is a mechanism for the same people, when you find a mistake, we can amend.
Did I believe the data that is in the Wikipedia? Well, you have to compare it with another source, online or at the nearest library. But in general is a formidable tool, never before has there been as many definitions of the most varied in any encyclopedia in the history of the world.
AR: In Internet also noteworthy that facilitated the interaction. "This has increased the political and social participation of citizens in real life, which has more voters and more associations, for example? RTD
I have no data to say if more people in the parties or the NGOs. What I can say without doubt is that society organizations and policies that already existed on the Internet have a space to spread, to link its members with an efficiency not previously had, and is also a space for link between them. The international presence of Ong's now has a resource not previously available.
The possibility that people know what they say these groups today is higher. In fact, sites of political parties rather than to convince someone to vote for a candidate, is for those who want information (journalists, for example) have it easily.
There may be forms of participation that did not exist, and are a kind of substitute (not always full) of old forms of participation. Before-and my own touch me, "when you sympathize with a political party and wanted to support, doing graffiti on a wall, handing out leaflets in the street, and sometimes the police chasing us. Today there are who resign themselves to their form of activism is the reproduction of emails, or the hacking of a page we do not like. Sometimes some people get to have forms of participation as bounded to the Internet, and especially so limited to speak in front of and become aware that forms very cathartic and perhaps politically ineffective.
AR: The book also speaks of democratic political use of the network, there are projects in Europe that could become a transnational democracy. In this direction there are also people who think that people can vote on all matters, so that representative democracy would be dissolved. Is it possible to make this happen with the Internet?, Is that it seems desirable? RTD
I do not know if desirable, is possible, yes, but not today. Is it useful? Partly yes, mostly because the internet can serve to distance people from voting at some distant time. But I must say that so far there is no secure mechanism for voting electronically, there are many companies, in the U.S. and Britain, especially that are committed to it as a paradigm of participation. But today there is no single system to ensure full reliability.
There are two: one through the Internet, which are more vulnerable to interference, and other electronic devices that are linked to networks that have nothing to do with internet, but even in them there is no full mechanism of verification of the identity of the voter. The most advanced being investigated is the identification through the eye iris, this will soon prosper not because of anything related to elections, but by the need to identify people and monitor their activities to the spread of terrorism. Just a European Union program to facilitate the investigation and identification through the iris of eye-and fingerprints, but they are falsifiable, and security when it prospers will link to vote.
Internet not only serves to distance express an opinion on anything; also serves to discuss. The big risk is that we make Internet a place where only express our feelings or our aversion to any issue. Online and in real life there is a huge amount of nuances between the Yes and No, and just the discussion of these nuances is what can lead to the recognition that society is a very rich, very versatile and not plural is only those who are white or black. For that would have to serve, but we run the risk that the information society through the internet is a concise message environment, elaborate opinions, popular or unpopular characters, from people who say Yes or No. It depends on us , users of the information society make it a very rich environment, able to rescue that is really colorful and off-line.
AR: You talk about the citizenship of the information society. Citizenship implies rights and duties, what are the citizens of the network?
RTD: First and foremost the right to fully utilize the resources. For example, if your connection is only directly, we have a very poor connection, if you have a broadband connection, then we have ability to go fast music, watch movies with higher quality. This is an initial right that we are not recognized; Mexico today in the quality of internet connection is much more expensive than in European countries, Japan, the United States or Canada. We are at a disadvantage. People who want to have a quality connection to us is very expensive in a country where wages are much lower.
Secondly, the rights have to do with the possibility to express themselves whether the right to expression as I have vetoed, for example if I lived in China, could not put everything online that I can freely put in Mexico Argentina or Brazil.
A third duty is to interact with others and have access to all sites.
About obligations: more beyond what the laws say, my obligation is the recognition of others, and respect for the contents, ideas, points of view of others, with no possibility of intolerance that allows us to disagree when we lie or data that we believe we can compare or verify.
rights standards and the Internet finally reduced to the same society that is in offline.
AR: In conclusion, I ask you this: what are the two great opportunities that lie ahead to open the information society and its backbone-internet-and what are the two main risks also bring with them?
RTD: Two great opportunities: knowledge and interaction. On the Internet we can find a lot of information that only going to count for something when we know appropriate it and produce it as well as a foundation to design a new mathematical paradigm for knowing how to prepare a good coffee. We can appropriate it in our context, our needs and our capabilities.
The other big advantage is the possibility of recognizing a meeting internet. Like you and I are talking here, we can do in a chat, email or by phone, we are the same as talking in person, but it is a useful substitute in many cases. The
two disadvantages: the possibility of getting lost in the vast ocean of information, and believe that all information is useful to us, or not knowing what to choose, not having an orientation to discriminate within it, to saturate both information that we believe animosity towards it. Is to draw.
The other risk is the reproduction of digital exclusion, as we do not have this resource available to everyone or to most people, and privileged that we can navigate at high speeds more easily appropriated this content and creating own, and being marginalized many of them have the opportunities and inequalities already suffering, increase that results from this technological exclusion.
