The politics of information technology<\/p>\n
Yanuar Nugroho, Researcher & General Secretary Uni Sosial Demokrat,
\nJakarta, yanuar-n@unisosdem.org<\/p>\n
Internet users throughout Indonesia must sense something was
\nwrong between May 5 and May 10, when it took longer than usual to
\nconnect to the Internet.<\/p>\n
Yes, the problem was not a common one. Domestic Internet
\ntraffic plunged, as it had to be re-routed via a foreign
\nbandwidth. And yet, non-domestic traffic went on with no problem
\nat all. Even sites owned by the central government (with the
\nsuffix go.id) were unable to be accessed. Why did this happen?<\/p>\n
The Indonesian Internet Exchange (IIX) -- managed by the
\nAssociation of Indonesian Internet Service Providers (APJII), had
\nbeen cut-off, and so all servers were shut down, causing routes
\nof data within the domestic network to be halted and the routing
\nprocess had to be performed through a foreign network thus
\nslowing Internet access.<\/p>\n
There was an angry response. APJII was blamed for taking
\nillegal action that adversely affected many parties like Internet
\nusers and the Directorate General of Post and Telecommunications
\n(Postel).<\/p>\n
What APJII performed was, in fact, a boycott represented by
\nthe Internet community here in response to careless action
\ncarried out by the police and Postel who seized communication
\nequipment operating on frequency 2.4 GHz. Wireless Internet
\nconnection technology is currently deployed on this bandwidth and
\nis much cheaper compared to the conventional connection via phone
\nlines.<\/p>\n
In fact, the telecommunication body of the United Nations, the
\nInternational Telecommunication Union (ITU), has allocated the
\nfrequency 2.4 GHz to be unlicensed and free to be used by anyone.<\/p>\n
By utilizing this allocation, alongside the developed wireless
\ntechnology, low-cost Internet services to the public were made
\npossible because Internet kiosks were no longer required to pay
\nthe ever-increasing day-to-day telephone rates.<\/p>\n
In addition, remote areas have noticeably benefited from the
\nexpansion of the Internet. When Coordinator Minister for the
\nEconomy Dorodjatun Kuntjoro Jakti and Coordinating Minister for
\nPeoples' Welfare Jusuf Kalla visited remote village of Nglilo on
\nthe slopes of Mt. Merbabu, Central Java, on May 4, they saw for
\nthemselves how local peasants were familiarized with
\nteleconferencing, carried out by wireless technology. It was
\nironic, therefore, that just one day before the ministers' visit,
\nthe reckless seizures of the same equipment took place in
\nJakarta.<\/p>\n
The whole trouble started when the monitoring body of Postel
\nwrote a letter to order users of 2.4 GHz band to halt their
\nactivities until an official permit was released. Anxiety emerged
\namong telecommunication and informatics (telematic) communities,
\nwhich have been developing wireless technology, because the
\nletter was interpreted as against the resolution made by the ITU.
\nIn fact, there had been efforts to request official permission to
\nPostel, organized collectively by the wireless users gathered in
\nIndo WLI. Nevertheless, up until recently, not a single permit
\nhas been issued thanks to the many unclear procedures, one of
\nwhich is related to fees and other financial matters.<\/p>\n
Therefore, once the unreasonable raids had been carried out by
\nJakarta's administration, hand-in-hand with Jakarta Police, who
\nseized wireless communication equipment, APJII -- fully supported
\nby its associations: the Association of Indonesian
\nTelecommunication Kiosks (APWI), the Association of Indonesian
\nInternet Kiosks (AWARI) and IndoWLI -- reacted and staged a
\nboycott, by shutting down all the machines serving the domestic
\nrouting for three straight days.<\/p>\n
One might recall a similar controversial case related to Voice
\nover Internet Protocol (VoIP) some time ago, which still remains
\nunsolved. VoIP, which enables low-priced audio communication
\nusing Internet networks and protocols, was considered a threat
\ninstead of an opportunity. There had been much criticism in
\nresponse to it. Yet, it is not difficult to wonder whether the
\nnational body of telecommunications, Telkom, had its own
\ninterests. Why? Because VoIP would reduce the income of Telkom
\ngenerated from international dialing. Also, some politicians and
\npolitical parties confused the VoIP issue with nationalism, which
\nwas just simply irrelevant.<\/p>\n
In so confusing a situation, it was very unfortunate the State
\nMinister of Communications and Information, representing the
\ngovernment as a public agency, had no clear stance at the time.<\/p>\n
When the developers of VoIP technology were arrested and their
\nequipment confiscated without permission, official authorization
\nwas given exclusively to certain business groups to purchase the
\nnecessary permits. So, where does this problem originate?<\/p>\n
It seems that any discourse on technology is a discourse on
\npower as well. It was the English philosopher, Francis Bacon
\n(1561-1626) who introduced the well-known phrase \"knowledge is
\npower\". The knowledge inherited from information technology (IT)
\ncould be used to organize the movement's network for a new
\nIndonesia with solidarity and a democratic ethos. But in the
\nhands of uncontrolled groups blindly seeking profit -- as we can
\noften see in global economic practices -- IT can also be captured
\nto control many aspects of our shared life. This depraved process
\nwas never its intention at all.<\/p>\n
Foucault, following Bacon, in his Strategies of Power,
\nL'Express (1988), emphasizes the development of all knowledge can
\nnever be detached from the exercise of power, for science itself
\nhas become a powerful institution in itself.<\/p>\n
Again, we are facing the ambivalent face of IT. It is not IT
\nalone that has become the problem, but in what kind of power it
\ncan be made to exercise. It is therefore clear the importance in
\ntechnology is not only related to technical proficiency, but also
\nto the sensitivity toward the exercise of power that brings
\nenormous consequences to society. Therefore, how can the exercise
\nof power be controlled?<\/p>\n
The fact that official permission to utilize VoIP technology
\ncan be purchased or the reality that financial payment is
\ninvolved in obtaining authorized use of 2.4 GHz band for wireless
\nInternet use, clearly shows there is another power, external to
\nthe legal and formal power belonging to the government as a
\npublic agency. Indeed, this suspicion is unavoidable: That there
\nis a hidden agenda among the legal authorities to impose control
\nover the telecommunications infrastructure and to withdraw it
\nfrom collective ownership.<\/p>\n
Yet, by following this line of logic the following statement
\nwill arise: If there is money available, surely the official
\nlicense can be purchased, can't it?<\/p>\n
Thus, it has become clear the process of gaining authorized
\npermission -- to apply any kind of technology or to operate on a
\ncertain frequency -- is not necessarily a democratic process. So,
\nwho is more powerful? The authorities or those who have the money
\nto buy the rules -- including buying the process that makes the
\nrules? This is a simple but very central question, yet we often
\nforget it.<\/p>\n
In such a process, a telematics community like APJII and its
\nassociations have lost out because they have to undergo the logic
\ncircle of capital and the production process, which relies solely
\non communication and information systems. Even so, the same
\nconsequences have also occurred within other professional groups.
\nThe fact the consequences are out of sight does not mean they are
\nabsent.<\/p>\n
The case of VoIP and bandwidth 2.4 GHz reflects the critical
\nmoment of a tension that comprises three aspects. Firstly, it
\nimplies the need for the protection of the telematics communities
\nas a whole. Secondly, it involves the problem for those
\n\"information workers\" engaged in Indonesia's political economy.
\nLastly, within the equilibrium of the \"three axes of power\"
\nconsisting of market systems, public agencies and the civic
\ncommunity, the solution of this case will be an important
\nindicator to highlight whether market systems have ruined or
\nimproved our shared life, or if it is possible to improve
\nconditions for at least one social group first: the telematics
\ncommunity.<\/p>\n
This reveals a convoluted interest structured within a huge
\nand sophisticated framework that echoes the issue of information
\ntechnology. It seems difficult to stand the inconsiderate
\nexercise of state power that wiped out the capacity of the
\ntelematics community recently: from the complicated and
\ndeliberately unclear process of obtaining an official permit, the
\nraids and seizure of equipment, to the fact that the license for
\nfrequency usage and technology utilization can be bought.<\/p>\n
The action of shutting down the IIX servers by APJII is a
\nconsiderable step for democratization. It has been made apparent
\nto all those who still believe democracy is only related to the
\ncontrol of state power democratization also involves the public
\naccountability of the stakeholders of technology -- including
\ninformation technology.<\/p>\n
When the technology developed for the advancement of communal
\nlife is being plundered by a collusion of interests between
\nbusinesses and the state, democracy needs to stand strong and
\nhold its ground. Our stance to fight for it will go down in
\nhistory as an honorable act.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-politics-of-information-technology-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}