E-democracy perspective in Lithuania

Perhaps soon we will not need to wait in long queues to be almost dribbling through the entire municipality or other similar body corridors and expect to get one or more piece of paper with a stamp and signature made by our hand. Also will not need to go Election Day into polling station to vote, or go to a meeting with a politician, to whom we prepared the entire tirade your questions and observations. All this and much more, it should gradually change until 2020, the year in which Lithuania hopes to have fulfilled all the requirements for the introduction of e-democracy and engage in a joint project of the European Union countries – “e-Europe”.

According to e-democracy expert Steven L. Clift,” E-democracy is one of the essential conditions to help citizens to actively participate in the daily life of society and in the government”. Therefore, the development of e-democracy, is supposed to change the current situation where the voters have become particularly inactive, disillusioned political order, distrustful of government, which is increasingly composed of representatives of the populist parties. E-democracy can help develop communication between the state-citizen-state, through virtual communication. After all, our society today is the knowledge society, from the old industrial has long been turned into a post-industrial, which live in the age of information technology and already cannot imagine life without information for technological. Therefore, it was important to change the current situation into one that is more favorable in the future and will use a great tool - the Internet and new technologies.

However, the process of e-democracy development involves many steps, which are necessary for the project. First of all, it is important to ensure that every state resident access to the latest information for technological, using an internet connection, which should be available in all rural areas. Of course, it is important to ensure a relatively high level of computer literacy of citizens, because only in this case we can think about the people that will be no problem to get involved in e-democracy. The online voting referendums, elections and general population surveys - this is one of the goals of e-democracy. A well-organized system not only facilitates the part of voters, but also would help save a lot of money. 

It is also important to distinguish e-signature, as a very important tool for the direct communication with the government. The system is already operating in Lithuania and includes a number of different companies and institutions that use this system, including the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. How the e-signature to be useful to us? We could communicate with the authorities to provide a range of applications and receive answers using the e-signature, and thus confirm the authenticity of your personal data. But along with the e-signature will be available at the e-passport. The electronic ID card or other e-passport ensures citizen participation in all state matters in the virtual level. This card with the names of all human identifying the most important data: the public health and social insurance, bank cards, demonstrating aspects of education.  This is a very safe way of signing documents. The service is already available online and orders it. I think this is a very convenient method, which saves a lot of time. And when we have an e-passport and e-signature authorities can use electronic services provided. It would be possible to comment on legislation, enforcement, obtain the necessary information, even documents and forms sent to them by filling in the appropriate body. A number of those functions already carried out by our country's municipalities, 30 of which are already fully engaged in e-democracy.

Another tool that I want to discuss is very important for politicians and voters mutual communication and understanding. It is noted that the elections in Lithuania is more going on than propaganda public relations campaign, politicians often do not have their serious political programs ignore ideologies, resulting in declining voter wheel and the country's political alienation. It is estimated that electronic communication can help to identify voters and politicians the way for mutual understanding and the reduction of electoral passivity. It was decided to create an online program, which for years have been successfully operating in Switzerland. This program would help voters according to certain criteria to determine their political views and select candidates that their views are consistent; it would help to decide the election. 

All the above-mentioned measures for the implementation of e-democracy in the country, of course, require a lot of reflection, opinions and some major changes. Sometimes certain adaptation measures are very complex and lengthy process. It is very important that more developing information technologies and procedures for the transfer of the most important on the Internet, it is necessary to ensure the safety and reliability of it. Technologically, probably it will not be possible to protect databases, to avoid manipulation of e-democracy system. Resulting in more and more will return to their old methods. So it is very important to keep Lithuania educated and highly skilled information technology, as well as other specialists of related fields.  Rural districts problem today is also increasingly considered as yet surveys show that most of the population do not use ICT, it is too expensive for them or they do not indicate any desire to acquire the necessary knowledge. It is therefore a high probability that in the future they cannot be claimed to use the developed e-democracy development necessary information technology infrastructure.

The project of e-democracy is implemented in Lithuania in 2010-2020, but it is stated that if not be achieved the objectives Lithuania may remain retarded part of the e-Europe. This means that the majority of the society will remain passive and still uses the traditional democratic forms of government. This would mean an even stronger gap in the single European countries view. However, it is expected that by 2020 Lithuania will be able to engage in collaborative e-Europe project, which aims to build closer ties between countries using electronic communications. 

German TV in front of a revolution?

German TV in front of a revolution?

The start of Netflix in Germany could change the whole TV Culture / Big TV-Stations aren’t scared

Since the last September the American on-demand-service Netflix is available in Germany. Netflix could be the first on-demand-service with success in the Central-European country. Competitors like Watchever, Maxdome or Sky Snap couldn’t succeed till now.  The old German regular TV-Stations don’t fear the new service, because they don’t see an issue in the on-demand-function of the new competitor. The only strength of Netflix which fears the old German TV-Stations is the quality of the program. After seven months with the service you can already see that Netflix has influenced the German TV. The deciding role how the German TV will develop is played by the youth.

Television has once altered our world. It is a part of the everyday life. In Germany the TV-set even schedules a big time of the everyday life. The most favorite TV crime series “Tatort”, watched every Sunday by over three million people, is not only a TV-series, it also a sign for the end of the weekend. The same phenomenon you can watch at the German public newscast “Tagessschau.” It is the most watched newscast whole over Europe. It is shown every day at 8pm, the perfect time between a regular German family-dinner and the start of the night.  Because of this big amount of audiences the traditional German private and public TV-stations don’t fear the new competitor. 

“We don’t fear in front of Netflix”, says ARD-chairman Lutz Marmor to focus-online. Against the strengths of his TV-channel, regionality and comprehensive foreign reporting, the new American on-demand-service couldn’t be successful, so Marmor further. The same opinion shares his colleague Guillaume de Posch, chairman of the biggest private German TV-station RTL.  “We don’t see a big influence in our work”, is Posch cited in the Austrian newspaper kurier.at. The RTL-chairman only sees an influence for the German Pay-TV-Sector. “I expect a prize-war in this market sector”, describes Posch his expectations. The RTL-chairman is right. With the establishment of Netflix the prizes for exclusive rights for movies in Germany grows. “With the success in the whole world Netflix has a big amount of money”, says the Nico Jurran an author of the computer-newspapper c´t. But the financial strength of Netflix isn’t the only issue. The american streaming-service is able to produce his own TV-shows. The series “Orange is the new black” and “House of Cards” had success all around the world. The streaming-service got 31 Emmy-Nominees in the last year. “That’s impossible for every german TV-Company”, says Jurran. And this fact is the biggest issue for the german TV-Landscape and his especially his culture: The quality of Netflix. 

With his high-quality TV-Shows no TV-Channel will match this quality in the next years. So is it possible that the most germans will decide to watch their series with this streaming-service? In my eyes the deciding role will be played by the youth. Already more than a quarter of the German 14-29 year-old is using a streaming-service in the internet and more than the half of the respondents of the biggest German Online-Study said that they already use the media libraries of the german TV-Channel. It is a clear fact the most of the TV in the future will be seen in the internet. Here you can decide when, what and how you want to see your favorite series. You can watch that every big german TV-stations reacts to this trend. Next to the public stations like ARD and ZDF also the private channels like ProSieben and RTL made big investments into their online media libraries.

But only with investments into their online-offer the traditional TV won´t win the challenge against Netflix. They real thing they need to deal with is the quality. If they don’t succeed, they German TV-Culture could change complete. Of course the channels are over years influenced by American series. Series like Baywatch, How I met your Mother and movies like Titanic or James Bond had they success especially in the private sector. But the big german movies always succeed in the public channels with the old generation. ARD and ZDF, the biggest german public channels, need to focus on the youth, if they want to pass against competitors like Netflix. The reaction of the ARD-chairman Marmor is a bad sign. He just trusts in his regionality and comprehensive foreign reporting, but not in the quality of his own productions. But if the german doesn’t want to get conquered by american ideas, they need to trust in their own.  The first reactions of the new competitor are obvious. The ARD made a first series, which will first be shown in the Internet and afterword in the TV with famous german actors like Moritz Bleibtreu. 

The establishment of the Netflix isn’t something the german should fear. It is the biggest chance for innovations and new ideas. They need to succeed, because the youth puts the stations under pressure. If they loose more than six century of german TV-Culture are maybe blown away.

Media allows witness bring U.S police officer to justice?

Over the past number of years we've seen occurrences of police brutality across the world. In the media I'm guessing that 90% of the  cases that we see broadcasted on the news are from the United States as the vast majority of "shootings" or "murders" by police officers in the United States of America have been committed by white police officers against African American citizens. This of course has sparked controversy all over the globe and many are accusing the American police system to be corrupt and racist. Protests against police brutality and racism are continually rising across the states because of these recent happenings. When the officers have been interviewed or have released statements on the incidents they have pleaded innocence and claimed that they are "just doing their job" and often felt that they feared for their lives in the situations which called for them to use their weapons as a matter of reasoning. Often in these cases it's a matter of my word against yours between a witness and the police officer. Many claim that had the victim been white the police officer wouldn't have taken such a hard line in terms of resolving the situation. The power of the media has allowed for theses stories to be heard worldwide but in my opinion this can cause bias based on the way the story is told or portrayed by the news. However, just last week in the town of Charleston, South Carolina another incident involving a white police officer and an African American citizen took place. Like incidents before, the  African American man was shot dead by the police officer once again sparking rage around the United States and indeed the world . However this time the story is different, a witness caught the entire incident on video using his cell phone and posted it on the internet allowing people to see what happened. Before I had seen this video I wasn't hugely influenced by the aspect of police officers being racist against African Americans, after all there is some 40 million African Americans in the United States  so there would always be crime committed in towns and cities who are dominantly populated by African Americans. I've often thought if it had been a black police officer, would it be causing outrage in the media? I don't think so. Maybe it's because of the history of the country in terms of the oppression of black people. But having seen this video online I agree that police brutality does exist. I think for once the public can have their own view on the situation as they can watch this video and make their own opinion uninterrupted by the opinion of others in the media. From what I gathered from watching the video is that the reaction of the police officer was far too severe. You can see that the man in question attempts to run away from the officer and instead of the officer opting to run after the man he chooses to draw upon his gun and shoot a number of times, essentially killing the man. Like before the officer claimed that he feared for his life in the situation, but I see nothing life threatening here especially when the man in question chooses to flee the situation. What also happens in the video is the police officer drops an object near the wounded man. This appears to be a weapon but cannot be clearly identified in the video. Maybe the officer was unaware of there being a bystander recording the incident and attempted to plant a weapon beside the victim giving him a justification for shooting. There is tonnes of material out there written about this incident, headlines from the police officer having been too forceful in cases prior to this incident to the witness being too scared of what might happen him for posting the video online. Why I chose to write about this incident is because in the last couple of years before I have even had a chance to study the events between the officers and victims the media had already planted ideas in my mind. Before I'd read anything I had been hearing that the police officers were corrupt and racist and too severe. I don't believe this to be true in every instance as with gun laws in the United States the police officer can be hugely at risk, but I do believe this video has allowed people to form their own opinion on this particular situation as they are seeing the incident as a primary source of information.

The new Itunes for Journalism

Everybody is conscious about the fact that journalism is moving from the real printed newspapers toward the online network. Many people check out the news online instead of actually buying a newspaper. Probably everybody notices this shift, but have you ever heard of the website Blendle.com? It is a small start-up of redefining how people are paying for journalism. It is a new phenomenon that started in The Netherlands, where folks can read all their newspapers and magazines online and where they only pay for articles that the actually read. I will explain how it works, blendle.com offers all kind of different newspapers and magazines and instead of buying the whole paper, they made it possible to only buy a particularly article that you are interested in. In short, they present to you all different kinds of magazines and newspaper online where you can browse through the papers. If you see an article that you would love to read you just press on the article and there you go. So actually you only pay for the actual reading on the website where most articles are priced between  €0,10 and €0,89 and the payment is completed with one click on the button. If you did not liked the article you just paid for you can easily press on a bottom, which refund you payment. You only need to choose from a list of reasons why you did not like the article, and the money will be transformed back on your account. Blendle.com is doing a good job, the websites has already more than 220.000 users in The Netherlands and they are planning to launch soon in other countries as well. You can not only choose your own articles to read but there’s more, you can also follow your friends and famous stars to check out what they think is interesting. It’s a new way for the next generation to discover and read the greatest articles from all kinds of newspapers and magazines. Thus, read and share your preferred journalism on Blendle.com

Below, you can watch a short video of how the website works, unfortunately it is in Dutch.

It all sounds as the solution for the chancing shift in journalism, making journalism still profitable and give the folks the opportunity to read what they would like to know. But then the question that arrives in my head is about the point that Cass Sustein (2001) made in his article, “The Daily we, Is the Internet really a blessing for democracy?” about the risk of personalization and individual control, which can reduce the importance of the “public sphere”.  It is about the point that Sunstein made, “My only claim is that a common set of frameworks and experiences is valuable for a heterogeneous society and that a system with limitless options, making for diverse choices could compromise the underlying values (Sunstein, 2001).” (http://bostonreview.net/cass-sunstein-internet-democracy-daily-we)

Sunstein’s article in a nutshell, he sees the growing power of consumers filtering what they want to see as something that can be a danger for the public sphere. He is talking about personalization, limits their exposure to topics and points of view of their own choosing. If people only can choose what they would prefer to see, read, and listen to, groups who share the same point of view can get more extreme and could establish group polarization. Which concretely means that group discussions with like minded people and lack of alternative views breeds increasing extremism. Furthermore, Sunstein claims that it is important to have a “public sphere” where people will be confronted with different views and opinions so that people will understand each other better and relativize more instead of being more extreme. Does the new phenomenon Blendle.com creates a bigger individual control and reduces the public sphere? 

This is just a brief introduction for a discussion about a new way of journalism and if Internet is really a blessing for democracy?

Net neutrality and future of the internet?

World Wide Web has rather short but quite turbulent history. Throughout three decades of development it has changed rapidly and affected lifestyle of most us like none other media.

Firstly, there was a non-interactive webpage that users could only visit but there was no chance for them to actively participate on the content of the website. First breakthrough came with the web 2.0, where both the website and the user could communicate and interact to create new content. User based content also stands behind what we now call social media. That means Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and many, many more. Those media enabled users to communicate and interact with each other and thus create content. Those websites work as some sort of platform for the users who are main creators of content, not the website in question.

But internet changed not just the way we communicate with our friends and family, but also way we do shopping, watch movies or TV series and get information. But now, as some argues, we are facing an issue that could affect the very basis on which is the internet built. It concerns the principle of the net neutrality. Maybe you have already heard about this topic since it was popularized by comedian John Oliver (you can see his video below). Term Net Neutrality basically means that internet providers treat all the data on the internet equally, not discriminating or charging differently based on user, content and so on.

In recent months this topic become widely discussed in political circles both in Europe and United States due to a proposal to change some of aspects of neutrality principle. If this proposal would be accepted and implemented, it would be advantageous especially for Internet providers and also for big internet corporations. It would enable providers to charge extra money for faster internet broadband. For example Netflix could pay providers to have faster video streaming than they have now, so that they would get advantage over their competitor.

At first sight, it seems like this issue is not a real concern for future of the internet, just implementation of market logic to web environment. But experts argues that it would have some serious consequences because the amount transferred data will define future of internet services. Now Internet represents an equal playing field for all, but this proposal would give much more power to big companies. That means, Start-up companies would have it much more difficult to compete with big companies like Twitter, Facebook or Google that would be able to pay for better internet services (It is worth writing, that all of these companies openly support Net neutrality, but since the proposal is in their own interest their stance is not completely trustworthy). Let’s not forget that all the named companies started as small businesses and would have it much more difficult to succeed. Without Net neutrality there might not be Facebook, Twitter, Netflix or even Google.   

All in all, that there are basically two ideologies standing against each other. The first one can be called “Freedom of the Internet” and against it ideology of “Free Market”. Supporters of the first ideology says, that internet should put everyone (users, websites, providers and governments) on the same starting point, while supporters of the second one emphasize logic of trade market that should be implemented to the very core of the internet.

This issue was already discussed in Federal Communication Commission in the United States and in European Commission in European Union. They both made a statement concerning this issue. Bit surprisingly those statements were quite different from each other, FCC agreed that Net neutrality should be sustained, European Commission opened possibility for “two-speed” internet. Both of decisions were severely criticized and FCC is already taken to the court by lawyers of several companies.

Future of the internet is in doubt and as it seems it will not be decided online, but rather the old-fashioned way in courts.   

Zunzuneo: the American social network to overthrow the Cuban government

Times have changed. Wars and Imperialism are no longer a matter of tanks, guns and mined borders. New media and social networks have emerged and become the new banners of a revolutionized new world. Such media hasn’t just served to give a voice to the oppressed in movements like the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street and the 15M in Spain. They have also become a key weapon in foreign policy for Western governments.

Pro-western propaganda is not only now spread through traditional media, but is also spread through social networks that help to rapidly circulate messages, whether true or not. As explained by the scholar Howard Rheingold, social networks have the power to create "smart mobs" able to self-organize and generate massive protest movements, and western governments have now implemented this technology as a means of influencing other societies. It is therefore no surprise that many accuse the U.S. of trying to overthrow hostile governments, or at least trying to influence political situations in countries like Egypt, Venezuela and Ukraine through social networks.

A few days ago, Associated Press revealed the tactics used by the U.S. government to influence hostile countries in this new interconnected world that we live in. ZunZuneo was a social network conceived, created and financed in secret by the U.S. in 2009 with the aim of modifying the political situation in Cuba. With the guise of being the Cuban alternative to Twitter, the real purpose was to destabilize the government through the publication of political messages targeted towards the younger citizens of Cuba.

ZunZuneo was forced to use SMS technology because of Cuba’s strict control over informative content (especially on the Internet). To do this, the USAID (United States Agency for International Development) unlawfully created a database of more than half a million Cuban phone numbers. At the beginning, to avoid suspicion, the network was filled with banal posts on topics such as sport, entertainment and weather forecasts. They used this content to generate a good base of users who relied on the network before sending ideologically loaded political messages with the aim of promoting the Cuban Spring, which consequently would make the government fall.

The Cuban government is aware that in order to maintain its hegemony and prevent riots, it must provide progress for its citizens. They promised to continue their programs of implementing Internet and landlines in Cuban homes, despite of the American initiative to destabilize Cuban government through ZunZuneo, and other technologies like Piramideo, Martí Noticias, Diario de Cuba and Cubasincensura. Despite the well-meant words of Cuban government, Internet on the island is restricted, although it is true that 500 public navigation facilities have been installed in Cuba.

At its peak ZunZuneo reached more than 40,000 users throughout Cuba. For them, this network became a sort of window to the world. It was really useful for them to receive free information daily on their mobile phones, in a country where access to the Internet is very limited and where the citizens were not allowed to have mobile phones until 2008. The citizens of Cuba, not knowing that the U.S. was behind this new social network, shared not only their opinions but also their private data. As a result, the U.S. government collected demographic information without consent. They then analyzed the collected data to uncover tastes, ideas and preferences that could be used to push young people to dissent.

Collecting such data without consent was not only illegal, but also created a potential risk to the Cuban users of this service. Zeynep Tufekci, a sociologist from Princeton University who researches the social impact of technology, criticizes ZunZuneo because nobody foresaw that it could lead to the government taking reprisals against those that promote or share dissent actions across the network.

Since Associated Press made this information public, Washington has been quick to deny that this project was an undercover operation. However, following the revelations of AP, it is obvious that the USAID did everything possible to hide U.S. involvement in the project. Shell corporations were established in third countries such as Spain and Ireland, and all banking operations were conducted through accounts in the Cayman Islands.

U.S. involvement in this project is clear, as The State Department has now issued a statement defending the operation, arguing that it was not disguised and that its objectives were “to promote democracy in Cuba, guaranteeing freedom of information and strengthening civil society”. In my opinion, a social network based on forcing the audience to receive unsolicited messages is not exactly like building a free communication platform to promote democracy and exchange of information. Nevertheless, the tight control that the U.S. government has on the communications of its own citizens and the recurrent espionage scandals of world’s political leaders make these explanations sound hypocritical.

This big-hearted idea of promoting unfettered information through citizen communication platforms could hide much darker intentions behind. AP provides an internal document of the U.S. Armed Forces from which they explain that the first phase of an unconventional war is the “psychological preparation to unite the population against the government in power” and “prepare the population also issued to accept U.S. support”.

Finally in mid-2012, ZunZuneo disappeared after the several attempts to lock the network were made by the Cuban government. In June of that year, users stopped receiving messages on their phones. According to AP, the service ended not because it was censored by Cuban government, but because of the expiration of a grant that funded the program after having spent more than $1.5 million. For Cuban users, the network disappeared as mysteriously as it appeared.

This new Imperialism is of course cheaper, less noisy, more politically correct and less bloody. The tension between the United States and Cuba comes is long-standing, after many decades of violence and blockage. However, events like the one revealed by AP demonstrate how American methods have evolved to promote the desired regime change in Cuba. The U.S. knows that the ones to destabilize the regime are the younger ones. Even though we are not yet aware of this, our participation in the trivial matters of social networks makes us part of a group which links us to people that we do not know. Indirectly, this makes us able to mobilize ourselves in the future. If the revolution will be, it will be tweeted.

Twitter and politics : just a new medium ?

      Twitter entered the world of French politics mostly during the presidential and legislative elections of Spring 2012. When Valerie Trierweiler, Hollande's wife in those times, expressed her support to one socialist dissident via Twitter, French political world understood that it was entering suddenly a phase of accelerated twitterisation. If Twitter seems to be a fashionable, individualized and direct way of communication, it is far from being perfect. In my opinion, it is deteriorating politics and politicians even if they are more and more present on the social network.

Twitter, the new tool of political communication.

      In only a few months, Twitter imposed itself as an essential medium in the field of political communication. Twitter is no more only used to distribute press releases, links towards documents, or to support the institutional action of any elected representative. Twitter has now become a space for official announcements – the place where action is taking place, where talk is acting. With the twitterisation of politics, each actor is playing its own score, rôle, without any process of complex validation and with the feeling of a relative transparency. It is like every secrete meeting was happening in public, as if we were taking part in it directly. Hence, Twitter is seen as a promoter of direct democracy, connecting more and more people with politicians, and protecting citizens from secrete skulduggery. However, we should look at the other side of the coin.

The convergence culture of the « little sentence ».

      The micro-blogging social network, pushed politicians to favour this way of a very short, striking communication ; mixing in-depth thoughts (sometimes), sarcastic commentaries (often) and simple anecdotes. Twitter is not the only responsible for this. 24/7 news channels also furthered the use of the « little sentences », mostly because of the news' banners in the bottom of your screen. Instead of focusing on real political issues, the majority of media are now concentrating on every cutting remark. A majority of political observers, journalists and others, are bound with any little sentence they can find. It is almost for this that people are going on Twitter today. They are looking more for the good word than for ideas of general policy. Then, Twitter, as other instruments of social networking, would be a veritable accelerator of blunders and bum notes of ministers and others.

Twitter or the negation of politics.

        It is quite difficult to weigh the impact on public opinion of the permanent show given by Twitter and politicians. However, it is legitimate to ask, in those times of distrust towards politics, if the space given to those modes of expression short and superficial is not actually an exacerbating factor. People have the right to ask for a higher debate on complex societal questions. According to some scholars, the shortness (140 characters maximum) of the tweet is a form of « negation of politics ». If it is true, that the followers of political tweets are already politicized, but it certainly contributes to the desecretion of politicians supposed to be in a constant reflection. There is, because of this, a weakening of the political speech and quite a loosing of respect in general.

Moreover, Twitter is forcing politicians to be in instantaneousness and immediacy. This is provoking a « symbolical discredit ». Citizens want to be carried and enlightened by politics in a certain direction, focusing more on the future than on the present. We are now losing little by little our perspectives and projections. If Twitter is not the only responsible for French's loveless in politics, it is at least one of the accelerator of this trend.