Borders and Beyond Boundaries

Someone such as myself, a person who sees the world not as a collection of hemmed in territories so much as vast expanses to explore – full of diverse cultures and history, may find themselves stymied by the growing protectionism of some countries over their lands.

Such an attitude really makes this traveler wonder: why are they so protective? It’s not like their occupying that land is by manifest destiny; it is only ‘theirs’ by an accident of birth and a few bloody wars.

Likewise cyberspace: ostensibly, it is there for everyone to use, to whichever degree they wish, provided that malfeasance is not their agenda.

Of course, plenty of people who use the Internet have just such an agenda. It’s just that someone without a criminal bone in her body could not imagine the appeal of ruining for everyone a tool meant to unite people.

In order to protect netizens from such miscreants, every legitimate Internet service provides layers of security so that, should cyberpunks attempt to corrupt one’s account or to hack a system, such suspicious activity would be flagged and additional verification of identity would be required.

Naturally, it is incumbent upon the legitimate account holder to suffer the inconvenience and provide the proof; seldom do service providers trace the evildoers to ask them what they’re doing, messing about with accounts that aren’t theirs. 

Isn’t there such a thing as Internet Police to tackle that?

By and large, though, for travelers as well as freelancers who gig online; for coders and multinational corporations... in this day and age, the Internet offers possibilities and opportunities for borderless interaction.

As a traveler (and a freelancer), I cherish this borderless realm.

Imagine living the life of a vagabond a century ago: disconnected from the people who enrich your life, longing for the occasional letter through the post... Indeed, vagabonding in the days of yore would have been a lonely proposition indeed!

~~~~~

The Szczecin English Language Club Meetup, a group with a presence of 50 people online, has unfortunately shrunk down to just two active participants: myself and the group leader, Jerzy. 

It could be because he announces meetings only two days before they happen. Or because he plans no activities, nor does he set any agenda.

I can see why people would not be keen to drop whatever they had planned in order to attend a meeting with no set topics or activities.

Nevertheless, we two active members do manage to get into some lively discussion.

Jerzy has some decidedly strange ideas, in my opinion, and a certain amount of gall – the kind of chutzpah that permits him to openly declare that women and men could never be on par with one another intellectually, physically or in any other realm... in the presence of women!

Naturally, he is entitled to his ideas and they make for a vigorous debate, especially seeing as my worldview is diametrically opposite of his.

Thus, last week’s Meetup included a discussion of social reform in which I contended that, throughout history, social movements have brought about the greatest changes.

He contended that that wasn’t so. 

My jaw dropped. My eyes went wide. I could not believe that this man, who was an adolescent when the people of this country rose up to form their first independent trade union and ultimately went on to defeat communism, thought that social movements have no power.

“Communism was going to end anyway”, he countered. “It is not a sustainable model; Solidarity only brought its end about more swiftly.”

Change is inevitable... Benjamin Disraeli, British Statesman

If we accept the above quote by the former British prime minister as truth, then Jerzy’s statement is a non sequitur. Furthermore, it overlooks the fact that the Solidarity movement was the catalyst that precipitated the end of communism.

Had it not been for the Solidarity Movemement, who knows how long people in the east-bloc countries would have continued to suffer before their central government threw in the towel?

There are times that I suffer from L’esprit de l’escalier, what the French call ‘the spirit of the staircase’.

That means that the perfect comeback, argument or reply comes to you hours, days... even weeks after the instance you should have used it.

That sense bedeviled me when Jerzy averred that social movements mean nothing.

The Equal Rights Amendment, the Civil Rights movement, deposing the Russian tsar...

Of all of the social movements throughout history, the only one I could think of at the time of my dumbfoundedness was the French Revolution, when starving citizens stormed the Bastille and overthrew the monarchy.

He conceded my point in that instance but maintained that, in general, social movements have no clout. The meeting soon broke up; it was going on 10:00pm.

We parted as friends... or, at least, worthy opponents.

Still, I wish I hadn’t been possessed of the ‘spirit of the staircase’; I might have rattled off several other impactful social movements; effectively burying his argument under a ton of facts! 

~~~~~~

While attempting to send an email from the account I use for my business transactions the next morning, I received a message: suspicious activity has been detected; my account has been blocked. To unblock it, I need to verify my identity.

Wondering what suspicious activity could have originated from my account and, more importantly, who might have hacked my account to conduct said activity – because I certainly hadn’t, I clicked the ‘next’ button.

The prompt: enter my phone number to receive a text message that will provide me with an ‘unlock’ code.

I live abroad but I don’t live under a rock.

I am well-aware of the concerns and issues surrounding data privacy, how citizens’ personal information is sold to the highest bidder and how various governments collect and categorize said data.

Needless to say, I am reluctant to part with any more information than I already have, especially when confronted with a vague allegation that there has been suspicious activity from my account and no proof provided of what that activity might have been.

Doesn’t it seem like a security risk to give out your phone number rather than using the alternate email address I had provided when I opened that account?

After all, a miscreant would certainly have a phone number s/he could enter but probably wouldn’t know my alternate email address.

In an attempt to circumvent the phone number mandate, I changed my account password. That service provider sent a password change code to my alternate email without my having to input said address.

With a new password – and thus, my identity presumably verified... the prompt to input my phone number reappeared.

Maybe there has been an update to their service agreement I am unaware of that states that account holders must now also provide phone numbers?

That company’s terms of service mentions the word ‘phone’ 14 times (Ctrl+F reveals them all) but does not state that one must provide a phone number as a condition to having an account. 

There is apparently no way around having to surrender my phone number if I want access to that account.

Contacting customer support and emailing that entity brought no solutions; every link on every page dealing with locked accounts led me straight back to the window demanding my phone number.

The email I wrote them was swiftly returned because I am apparently not on their list of approved mailers. Their chatbot insisted I needed to provide my phone number and there were no customer service reps to talk the issue over with.

~~~~~~

Recently, Tim Berners-Lee expressed concern for the direction his creation is taking, specifically the mining and use of personal data, the rise of misinformation and the concentrations of its power in only a few hands.

Like him, millions of people, myself included, envisioned cyberspace as a vast expanse of possibilities.

All said, we were only wrong in assuming the possibilities would be beneficial – as opposed to causing mistrust, fear and outright deception.

Sadly, the very people who should be safeguarding citizens against data mining do not enforce the few laws in place – let alone enact stricter laws for consumer protection. 

We can’t look to corporations ensuring our data is safe; their motive for collecting it is profit for themselves. Profit generated in part by the sale of consumers’ data.

That is why advocates of Internet ‘freedom’, Sir Berners-Lee among them, emphasize that individuals must take control of their data and guard it jealously. I happen to agree. Thus, in the interest of security, I shall not divulge my phone number.

I will sacrifice that account; it was seldom used anyway. As long as that is the extent of this service’s attempts to glean more of my personal information, I can live with it.

But I wonder...

People all over the world slander China for its alleged intrusion on its citizens’ digital lives and Russia’s desire to insulate their country’s Internet, presumably so that they too can monitor their citizens’ online presence ...

Why aren’t netizens in the ‘free’ world over concerned over seemingly innocuous attempts to glean ever more data?

Time might be right for a social movement to limit access to personal data or even impose stiff penalties for capitalizing off of it and becoming a tool of social control.

I wonder if Jerzy, a freelance coder, would consider that movement worthwhile...

Note: this blog does not aspire to be political in any way.