Rights, gender, violence, Imbalance ...

I have been watching the trend of converging feminist and modernist movements. Equal status across genders and immunity to (or protection from) violence is called for in a nation wide movement.

A call for stopping violence (of any kind) - is what we need.

"The World did not see the deaths of civilians in Syria as victimization until the 'red line' of usage of conventional weapons deploying chemical weapons began." This has almost created a perception that conventional forms of violence are acceptable. Thereby the world has almost condoned, rather than condemned the violence in Syria.

In modern work environments, water-cooler/cafeteria conversations of women may center on multiple topics including men. Equally, men go about comments in their vocabulary on women who work with them. Yet, it is more frequently published that men 'talk dirty.' This is an observation (of published text) and never a generalization.

I have been in the company of colleagues who have seldom made comments on colleagues who are women or of the opposite gender (to theirs) in any form. Rewarding cultured behavior is seldom done. All focus of media is on abhorrent atrocity. Why?

The focus too, as someone pointed out is on the demographic that provides stronger readership or viewership (for Television).

Evolution has differentiated male and female genders, in physiology, neurology and every way over several billions of years. Is this so difficult to accept, that instincts and perceptions are different even amongst humans across genders?

UNHCR reports record sexual violence is inflicted in perhaps equal amounts on both men and women in interviews. (This includes several scenarios - police-states, civil-conflict, civil-war and inter-state warfare.)

What is this media-frenzy that focuses on making the streets safer for women? Are we preferential to violence that is equally mediated across genders or mediated exclusively on those who are not women?

We must work to cessation of violence and violent behavior. This is no small task for a species evolved originally as a predator. Solutions are never as simple as censorship and police-patrols which may be initial steps toward solutions.

Identity: Part 2

The first part (Identity - Part I) of this blog post discussed the parameters of our Identity that are either difficult or impossible to change. Exploring alternate parameters defining our Identity by our actions and behaviors can lend us more control in how we are perceived. A crisis is slowly creeping into such actively defined parameters of our Identity as political and social orders try to extend their control over people.

IDENTITY: Part 2

We can actively shape our behavioral traits, manners, body-language, spoken-language-accents, dress-sense, health-consciousness and intellectual-prowess. The economic wherewithal, geopolitical and social environment will help us achieve this at varying (personal) costs. This opportunity-cost makes it easier or less easier depending on parameters we do not control.

Read on for a deeper analysis and discussion of 'Identity' we can shape, for the most part ...

Identity: Part 1

Everyone living in this world in any time, has had to face their "Identity." This two-part blog post is an exploration of both physical and digital identities, and how they have come to drastically change the way we build our identity.

One part of our Identity is thrust upon us, leaving us with little or no choice. Another part of our identity is something we can build and increase our control over. Today, the societies permissivity to free ourselves from the 'identity' that was thrust upon us is (in the first part) is far greater, than several centuries ago. 

Several unchangeable parts will cling on to ourselves until we find ways to exercise change and control over it if necessary. 

The second part of our identity (covered in the follow-up to this) will be one that we can shape and control even today or perhaps at any point historically. It is that part that has to overshadow the former and help us define us far better by action rather than circumstance & causality.

What follows is an exploration of key parameters that differentiate us, with viewpoints borrowed from different sources to help us understand "identity" better ...

A Church, its Cemetery, its Flock ...

Dad used to take me, along with mom and my sis, to a Church in town every Sunday. He was brought up as a devout christian and wished the same for me. Once I reached adulthood, or was rather old enough to take a communion, he insisted that I attend a course in the same church to prepare myself for the communion. I attended this and received in whatever worthiness was expected the communion for my first time. He thereafter set me free to choose to attend or find faith in my own way as I saw fit and no longer bid me to accompany him, though he always wanted me by his side when he went to Church.

At the time of his passing, I attended the same Church. My paternal grandfather, among other late members of my family are buried in its cemetery. My opinion that this Church is broken, perhaps even beyond repair, is from previous conversations with Dad and specifically what I observed at this very occasion.

Expression on the Internet

The Internet today is a distributed medium enabling free expression worldwide. Freedom of Expression is under threat by measures of Censorship initiated across Nations.

Quoting William Blake, "Everything that lives, Lives not alone, nor for itself." Humans like to express opinions to others. If we observe or listen, we may respond at least in thought. Communication is also an essential means for survival. Hence, increasing the number of media of expression is to our advantage. Erroneous content and falsified content also exists within media.

Nothing we see, hear or experience is verified individually or by groups. Verification is the realm of "Scientific Method." Objectionable material, to individuals [breaching privacy] has existed for long. What is Gossip, if not privacy intrusion? Erroneous and Objectionable material is found in all media.

Creation of the free world began with tolerance and permissiveness of expression. The Renaissance was rebirth of freedom of expression. It spread across the world during an era of trade and colonialism. The Individual became more magnified in society than ever before after renaissance brought more freedom of expression. Freedom to elect governance, gender freedom, educational freedom followed and are still in a stage of growth.

Security: Strong Passwords

With Identity Theft and Information Security being compromised in several instances in the recent past, users of the Internet and Electronic Digital Services have a duty to improve the quality of the passwords, the keys to their Digital Real Estate. Here's a nice infographic (src: http://lifehacker.com/5876541/use-this-infographic-to-pick-a-good-strong-password ) which shows how to get it stronger, and why it isn't strong at the moment.

Click to View Full Image in Picasa

Let's at least keep our doors locked properly and not provide a walk-in to Internet thieves. We owe at least this much to our 'digital' selves.

Wikileaks, Censorship and Privacy

Until recently I was under the assumption that "the right to privacy" was granted as part of Constitutional rights to a citizen. On further reading, however, I have found that explicit references to "the right to privacy" of an individual (or an entity) do not exist [ ref: legalserviceindia ] in the Indian Constitution. Upon web-trotting, I also found that the constitution of the "United States of America" also has no explicit reference [ ref: usconstitution.net ] to "the right to privacy." Interpretations of the Constitution, and therefore in terms of law, "the right to live" is assumed to include "the right to privacy."

In the interest of good governance, the public have "the right to information." In India, this is empowered by an act ( official manuscript ) passed by the parliament (in 2005.) For USA, the "Freedom of Information Act" (FOIA) passed in 1966 provides access to privileged information. Such acts provide a legal, authoritative and official channel to citizens enabling them receive information on request. In sharp contrast, governments also have an Official Secrets Act ( references ) which aid in limited circulation and censorship of sensitive information, broadly in the interest of governance and security. Interestingly, the United States of America does not have an Official Secrets Act, though the Espionage Act (ref: cornell) intends to secure military and defense information.

The Freedom of Press (ref: commentary, India ) is also empowered by the first amendment in the USA, while it is an act in India. Simplifying, freedom of press in modern society is allowed so long as the interests of the government and public security in a broad sense remain unaffected. Freedom of Information ( reference, pdf ) is upheld as an Internationally protected Human Right by the United Nations. The objective behind freedom of information is to ensure good governance. The United Nations hopes that freedom of information will help curb oppressive regimes and ensure human rights to the people of the world.

People do not want governments to invade their privacy. People have asked for governments to reveal information that was deemed classified to further their rights to better governance. The right to information, concerning an individual, might amount to invasion of the right to privacy of another. The same right to information, concerning government, under circumstances violating national security, may amount to espionage. It is fair to conclude that the delineation between the right to privacy and the right to information is unclear and therefore open to interpretation (or re-interpretation) in each context.

The information released by WikiLeaks was not done in a manner consistent with governmental release of information in the interest of the public. Furthermore, the information leaked by WikiLeaks included information pertaining communication across countries. Information released by WikiLeaks was not done on request by the people of the world. It is still unclear as to how the people of the world were meant to benefit.

The last release of contents of cables by WikiLeaks showed lack of adequate security measures of Information that was deemed classified. By simple reasoning, the initial reaction was to tighten security measures and improve practices. In a certain sense, WikiLeaks as an entity has invaded the privacy of the nations (primarily the USA,) and therefore citizens of those nations whose communication has leaked. International relations have been affected. Nations have been forced to react to the content of the "leaks." It is only logical that Nations provide accessible means to experience the right to information without affecting the right to privacy of individuals.

When content is obtained through unofficial means, possibly outside the framework provided by law, it is likely that some (or all) of the information is either incomplete, incorrect or outside the correct frame of context. It is time to establish a global framework to deal with such unprecedented leaks. Release of information outside channels established by government must be discouraged. The privacy of the individual is as valuable as the privacy of a government. When established procedure exists to call for information, and acts are being passed in countries to facilitate the same, efforts must be invested to ensure de-classification and right to information within the framework of governance. Encouraging right to information and promoting official channels that facilitate it will be in the right spirit.

WikiLeaks, in 2010, stands out as one of the largest unprecedented disclosures of information in volume and content. We must take adequate action to ensure that the repetition of a similar leak in the future can be dealt with, without affecting international relationships or threatening global security and peace. In this age, information (or misinformation) in itself could be deployed as a weapon to disturb or confuse nations and individuals equally. Information released without context can easily lead to misinterpretation or misunderstanding. In an age where we respect Intellectual Property Rights, disclosure of information without consent from the entities is invasion of privacy at the very least. As much as an individual considers access of one's own information by another without consent - an invasion of privacy, Governments representing people they govern do have similar rights to privacy.

Let us use information responsibly, respect everyone's right to privacy, freedom of expression and right to information.