Blog Page 270

Internet: from digital diplomacy to cyber warfare

Gennady Yevstafiev, Retired Lieutenant General of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, talks on the evolution of the Internet from a social networking platform to an international cyber-battlefield

It is not already a fancy chiller but it something of a practical nature. And we are more and more getting involved into the wars of the 21st century, and those wars slowly but surely are moving to outer space and cyber space. Of course Internet is still operating and it has not been broken but there is already a danger, numerous dangers I would say. Of course most of the people think these are the dangers of economic crimes. That’s true, it is very important but it is nothing new. The danger lays more and more in the field of protection of the users of personal data and this protection is inefficient still. And I would say that people in Russia are yet to understand that many people using American network sites are at very big risk because through these network sites a lot of information is leaked out of Russia and not only to the US but also to the data processing centers in developing countries.

We are witnessing very complicated viral attacks. Such viruses are the Flame which were mostly aimed at collecting secret data and information, and scanning and monitoring the social networks are complemented by extremely dangerous viruses like the Stuxnet and Duqu which are aggressive viruses, which destroy certain governmental, but not only governmental but also private information systems and put the operation of certain entities into a complete chaos. And so we are facing a very dangerous situation.

Photo: EPA

Download audio file

But the Americans are saying – no, we are not going to excuse for using the cyber space for international politics. They say that we want to make the diplomacy digital, and that means it should be digital and contemporary, and effective. And it is one of the greatest tasks of American diplomacy – we are fighting the censorship, we are not trying to achieve hidden purposes and we want to allow people around the world freely communicate with each other. So, that’s what we have and they consider that digital diplomacy is one of the major and the most effective instrument of American foreign policy. And in Russian foreign affairs they call this digital diplomacy the new method of colonial activity.

So, you see the real extremely serious differences around the whole thing. And of course some naïve people who are using the social networks, they believe that everything is ok, very good and safe. But I would like to mention the American reports that in the CIA there is a special unit which every day monitors up to 5 million settings in Twitter, and then on Facebook and other social networks. They analyze them and they are considered to be a very important source of information for the American state institutions, and especially for the military units of the American Army which are collecting information about possible rivals about the real state of affairs in particular countries. And I would say what you’ve mentioned is nothing new because it appeared last year.

And I think 2011 was a crucial year because the American Government has undertaken a new doctrine of cyber information security and it was adopted by the Obama Government. And this Obama Government immediately developed it into a very sophisticated and broad system of approaches because this Mr. Howard Schmidt – the assistant of Obama Government on cyber security – insisted that it is extremely important for the American Government to sophisticate and develop and to be an undisputed leader in the field of controlling the cyber space. It was in July last year, and I think in August last year Pentagon immediately produced its own doctrine of controlling cyber space and it has been a really very sophisticated idea because it is called the Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) and it is at the moment the governing doctrine of the Pentagon in the cyber space. You know, the focuses are made exclusively on the control and monitoring of social services.

On the other hand it is funny when some other countries are trying to buy some technological gadgets for the same purpose, they are trying to really prosecute them. For example there is an investigation case of the so called Bluetooth systems Sunnyvale of California which was trying, and I think sold some equipment to Syria. And it has been prosecuted because it was found that they worked against the interests of the state. So, the idea is to control the cyber space. And I think the further development is clearly underlined by a creation in Germany of the center to fight the cyber threats which is aimed at exposing, monitoring and taking measures against the threats in the field of cyber security.

The problem here is very serious because in 2001 American Administration under Mr. Bush has confirmed the previous decision of Mr. Nixon about War Powers Resolution, after 911, and they are now operating on the basis of this War Powers Resolution, Obama has accepted the idea. And the idea is that any attack on the US by whatever groups – governmental or private terrorist group – in the cyber field, any attack on the American military installations and Pentagon or governmental installations is considered to be an attack on the security of the US and could be responded with all the might of the US including the weapons of mass destruction, including the nuclear arms.

So, having said that they really don’t care about the way they are performing. And the problem is – in the field of cyber space it is very difficult to identify the source of attack. And as it stands now, maybe in the future it will be a different thing, but as it stands now they are trying to cover themselves with the idea that nobody will find the source of the state attack which Americans are trying to perform because everybody is really sure that attacks on Iran, Stuxnet, Duqu and Flame are originating from the efforts of American-Israeli state sources.

So, in this sense we are facing a tremendously dangerous situation which is quickly arriving to the international arena and we should be trying to stop it because it could become too late. And when people claim that they would fight for freedom and security of the United States including Internet with the means which go beyond the framework of Internet, that is something which is getting very dangerous. And for example the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Chertoff, he said that though the definition of the source of a cyber attack is an extremely difficult issue, nevertheless they are going to respond to this cyber attack with any possible means.

And of course we understand the Americans because people say that for example hacker attacks on the American military Pentagon institutions led to the leakage of 24 000 important from the military point of view files and what is happening is exposing the American foreign policy. And we know, even the WikiLeaks is something which is extremely devastating to some of the American claims about the purposes and aims of their foreign policy.

You know, the Deputy Foreign Minister of the US, there is some Mr. William III, he is really handling the issue, he said that the US would consider the cyber space as a potential battlefield. This comes from the American defense strategy for operating in the cyber space which I’ve mentioned before, it is really absolutely the same idea of considering the cyber space as the battlefield in the field of international affairs. The Americans being in the lead on the technological side are trying to use Internet to their own interests. The worry of the people in the field of Internet being used for political purposes and military purposes by the American side is in the minds of very important countries. For example China, Russia and some others have proposed international code of conduct for information security.

[Today in PD] How A Colombian Internet Address Became The Online Home For Startups

This item has been corrected.

In less than four years, more than 1.6 million individuals and businesses, mostly start-ups, have created a website with an address ending with .co. That is a staggering number for a new top-level domain (the last bit of a web address). Contrast that with .biz, which was introduced in 2000 and by April last year had chalked up just 2.4 million registrations.

People went to .co because, on .com, with over 111 million registrations, the short, simple names are mostly taken. They went also because .co is one letter shorter than .com, which matters in the age of Twitter. But most of all, they went because some very canny marketing convinced them that it’s where sexy, innovative start-ups go.

Of course, .co is not a new top-level domain like the 1,000 or more being introduced this year; it’s the one that was assigned in 1991 to Colombia. Juan Diego Calle, a Colombian-American entrepreneur, won the contract to run it in 2009, after years of effort and a 1,165-page bid. In exchange for exclusive rights to market .co, Calle pays a fee to the Colombian government that goes towards improving the country’s internet infrastructure.

How to market a two-letter product

But Calle then had to convince the world that .co was worth buying. A .com address is recognizable; it has some degree of legitimacy. Newer entrants such as .name, .jobs, and .travel have steadfastly refused to take off. To gain traction, Calle decided to target the ample supply of tech start-ups.

Two factors made .co successful. One was what Calle calls “brand protection.” When new domains launch, professional domain-buyers pick up hundreds of common nouns. Less scrupulous ones also buy trademarked names to try to sell to the trademarks’ owners. Calle wanted big companies to be sure that .co was professionally managed, so he reserved and gave away for free domain names to tech companies and to businesses like American Express. “That generated a lot of goodwill,” says Calle. Big brands have since adopted .co with gusto: Twitter’s Biz Stone used it for his new service Jelly; Jelly.com belongs to a food company.

The second factor was getting the tech industry on board. Calle gave away domains to big firms such as Twitter, which now uses t.co as a URL shortener. AngelList, a website where start-ups meet investors, also picked up a .co domain, giving it legitimacy in the eyes of the start-ups that frequent it. Calle says the fact that .co was a start-up itself lent credence to the notion that it understood other startups. To add to that credence, he started the “.co membership program,” which gives its customers free passes to conferences and connections to other start-ups and investors.

Calle’s success with .co holds a lesson for other companies entering the domain-name business this year. Web addresses ending in everything from .ninja and .guru to .web and .xyz will soon be available. If Calle’s experience is anything to go by, extra services and fancy packaging will be just as important to customers as a snazzy name. These services could include web hosting, email, and help with building webpages, as well as building and nurturing a community of like-minded companies. On its own, a domain name is just an empty piece of land. But build an office block with an efficient mailroom, support staff, and a program of business services, and the value shoots up.

Correction (Sept. 15, 2013): An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that Google received g.co for free. In fact, Google paid for it.

Reset in digital format *text from 2011*

Alec Ross, the Senior Adviser for Innovation to the US State Secretary Hillary Clinton, is due on an official visit to Moscow later this week to put the dialogue with Moscow back on track. Experts believe that the seemingly peaceful State Department methods violate the principles of other countries’ national security.

Alec Ross, the Senior Adviser for Innovation to the US State Secretary Hillary Clinton, is due on an official visit to Moscow later this week to put the dialogue with Moscow back on track. Experts believe that the seemingly peaceful State Department methods violate the principles of other countries’ national security.

The main innovation that Ross is in charge of is the so-called digital or Internet diplomacy. Today, it is almost exclusively via the Internet that propaganda is being made as against via traditional mass media in the past. The State Department alone boasts more than 200 Facebook pages and almost 100 Twitter microblogs. Alec Ross is, besides, responsible for the introduction of new technologies into US embassy performance abroad. It is on his suggestion that new posts have been ushered in, in the US embassies, says an expert in competitive intelligence Andrei Mosalovich in an interview with the Voice of Russia, and elaborates.

“Many embassies, Andrei Mosalovich says, have now got the new post of a digital diplomacy counselor. Alec Ross’s visit is not just a one-off trip, but a component of a US targeted strategy that can’t help but cause apprehension. All this amounts to improving the developed countries’ instruments of interference in the affairs of developing nations.”

Alec Ross said earlier that he was going to Moscow to meet Russian officials, diplomats and University students (he is due to deliver a number of public lectures), in other words, he is going to Moscow not to offer excuses, but to explain. But it is precisely the freedom of expression that played the key role in the course of what came to be known as the ‘Arab Spring’. The Deputy Assistant to the NATO Secretary-General, Stephanie Babst, said recently that Facebook boasting 2 million subscribers who communicate in 70 languages worldwide, as well as other social networks are a convenient instrument in addition to the traditional methods of informing and mobilizing the public. In this context Anton Korobkov-Zemliansky, a member of the Russian Public Chamber, says that the concept of digital diplomacy may pose a direct threat to national sovereignty. Here’s more from Anton Korobkov-Zemliansky.

“The promotion of democracy via the Internet is something relative, Anton Korobkov-Zemliansky said. We have only recently borne witness to what was happening in Egypt and other countries when provocateurs used social networks and blogs to foment internal conflicts.”

Notably, the United States is preaching democracy on the web, while often using non-democratic methods to limit it at home, Anton Korobkov-Zemliansky says, and elaborates.

“The WikiLeaks story is quite indicative in that context, Anton Korobkov-Zemliansky says. On the one hand, the freedom of speech and universal openness are proclaimed, while on the other, WikiLeaks comes under attack, Julian Assange’s bank accounts have been blocked, efforts are being made to block the website, Assange’s private correspondence has been cracked etc.”

Another digital brainchild of the US State Department is the so-called shadow Internet. The system that the Pentagon has helped to create makes it possible for dissenters in different countries to exchange information in circumvention of the local censure mechanisms. Experts admit that the Alec Ross mission to Moscow is important as a “reset” element, whatever the apprehensions. One visit may prove insufficient to change the positions of Russia and the United States. But it was only recently that the two countries chose to avoid discussions completely.

The Voice of Russia on Hillary Clinton’s Senior Adviser for Innovation Alec Ross’s forthcoming visit to Moscow.

‘Ping-pong diplomacy’ pioneer Zhuang Zedong dies

Table tennis legend Zhuang Zedong, a key figure in 1971’s ‘ping-pong’ diplomacy that helped foster relations between communist China and the US during heightened Cold War tensions, has died.

Zhuang passed away Sunday at the age of 72, the Xinhua news agency reported. He had been battling cancer since 2008.

The three-time world table tennis champion was famous for presenting a painting of the Huangshang Mountains to American player Glen Cowan in 1971. His gift led to a US tour of China later that year, and preceded the historic visit of President Richard Nixon to communist China in 1972.

Bildnummer: 12767194 Datum: 10.02.2013 Copyright: imago/Xinhua
(130210) -- BEIJING, Feb. 10, 2013 (Xinhua) -- In this file photo taken on April 9, 1961, Zhuang Zedong (R) competes in the men s team finals of the 26th World Table Tennis Championship in Beijing, capital of China. Zhuang Zedong, a former Chinese table tennis player known for his participation in Sino-U.S. Ping-Pong Diplomacy in the 1970s, died at the age of 73 in Beijing on Feb. 10, 2013. (Xinhua/Zhang Hesong) (lmm) CHINA-BEIJING-TABLE TENNIS-PING-PONG DIPLOMACY-ZHUANG ZEDONG-DEATH (CN) PUBLICATIONxNOTxINxCHN ; Tischtennis x2x xmb 2013 quer 
Image number 12767194 date 10 02 2013 Copyright imago Xinhua Beijing Feb 10 2013 Xinhua in This file Photo ON April 9 1961 Zhuang Zedong r Compet in The Men s team Finals of The 26th World Table Tennis Championship in Beijing Capital of China Zhuang Zedong A Former Chinese Table Tennis Player for His participation in Sino u s Ping Pong Diplomacy in The 1970s died AT The Age of 73 in Beijing ON Feb 10 2013 Xinhua Zhang lmm China Beijing Table Tennis Ping Pong Diplomacy Zhuang Zedong Death CN PUBLICATIONxNOTxINxCHN Table Tennis x2x xmb 2013 horizontal

The event, which created an international sensation at the time, coined the phrase “ping-pong diplomacy.”

Cowan and Zhuang’s inadvertent role in global affairs occurred when the American was given a ride on the Chinese team’s bus after missing his lift while competing in Nogoya, Japan.

After the two were photographed together, Chinese leader Mao Zedong invited the US team to his country. The next year, Nixon became the first American president to visit the People’s Republic of China. The breakthrough led to improved relations between the US and China, which had been rocky since 1949, and eventually led to the establishment of diplomatic ties in 1979.

Zhuang, a national hero with millions of fans, was world champion in 1961, 1963 and 1965.

He was a favorite of Mao’s wife, Jiang Qing, a member of the Gang of Four, a political faction that rose to prominence during the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution. Jiang appointed Zhuang to a number of political posts in the sports ministry.

After the Gang was deposed and Mao died in 1976, Zhuang was imprisoned before being released and going on to coach provincial table tennis. He returned to Beijing in 1985 and coached youth players for several years.

Zhuang was married twice and had one daughter.

dr/hc (AFP, AP, dpa)

http://www.dw.de/ping-pong-diplomacy-pioneer-zhuang-zedong-dies/a-16589574

GORAN TEŠIĆ: JAVNA DIPLOMATIJA, MEKA SILA I BIG DATA

četvrtak, 21 novembar 2013 13:38

Javna i digitalna diplomatija i korišćenje Big data u funkciji meke sile predstavljaju danas važne instrumente u borbi za uticaj u svetu
U poslednje vreme u javnom društveno-političkom životu pojavljuju se termini kao što su javna diplomatija i meka sila. Da vidimo šta se krije iza njih.

JAVNA DIPLOMATIJA I MEKA SILA Javna diplomatija se razlikuje od tradicionalne po tome što se tradicionalna diplomatija sprovodi posredstvom ljudi koji imaju profesiju kao što su diplomate, političari i obaveštajci, dok u slučaju javne diplomatije jedna država utiče na drugu preko pojedinih instrumenata društva te druge države da vodi politiku u željenom pravcu, pri čemu ljudi koji se bave tim poslovima ne pripadaju obavezno pomenutom krugu profesionalnih diplomata, političara ili obaveštajaca. U te instrumente, uopšteno govoreći, spadaju elementi nevladinog sektora, kao što su registrovane i neregistrovane nevladine organizacije, udruženja građana i pojedinci.

Sam termin „javna diplomatija“ predložio je 1965. godine američki diplomata Edmund Galion, dekan Flečerove škole prava i diplomatije pri Taft Univerzitetu. On je javnu diplomatiju smatrao eufemizmom za propagandu. U ruskom jeziku termin propaganda nema negativno značenje, dok u engleskom ima, i podrazumeva laž i nepoštenu komunikaciju. Javna diplomatija se kao termin odnosi prema propagandi kao što se termin obaveštajac odnosi prema špijunu – to jest naši su obaveštajci, a strani su špijuni.

Termin javna diplomatija se najviše koristio za vreme hladnog rata, da bi po njegovom završetku više počeo da se koristi termin – meka sila (soft power). Autor termina meka sila je Džozef Naj sa Harvardskog univerziteta, koji je bio i član administracije Bila Klintona. Neki svrstavaju Naja u najuticajniju petorku politikologa 20. veka. Prema Naju, meka sila je sposobnost dostizanja svojih ciljeva uz pomoć privlačnosti, a ne putem prinude, tojest da drugi rade kako ti hoćeš, a ti ih ne prinuđuješ na to (vojno, ekonomski). Ali to ne znači da ta strategija nije povezana sa novcem. Bogatije zemlje raspolažu većom mekom silom. Iz ovoga je očigledno da su javna diplomatija i meka sila komplementarne.

Danas se govori o „novoj javnoj diplomatiji“, koja uzima u obzir sve promene koje su se desile krajem 20. i početkom 21. veka, a tu spadaju:

1) Promene u globalnom komunikacionom kontekstu – pojava satelitske televizije, kanala Al Džazira, interneta. Proizvodnja informacija je praktično postala svima dostupna, a ne samo specijalizovanim informativnim kućama. Tako se, na primer, za vreme rata u Iraku, u trenucima napada na Bagdad, u gradu nalazio bloger koji je širio vesti o tome šta se dešava na licu mesta. Pratilo ga je oko hiljadu čitalaca, a on je posle svega postao kolumnista lista Gardijan. Iz toga vidimo da se sve više gubi razlika između profesionalnih novinara i blogera. To je sve išlo u korist promena u globalnim međunarodnim komunikacijama. Šta je to značilo za javnu diplomatiju? Devedesetih godina prošlog veka bilo je neophodno da se bude velika država da bi se širile informacije – da bi se povećavao tiraž štampanog materijala, da bi se jačali signali radio i televizijskih stanica. Danas to nije potrebno. Dovoljno je imati računar sa osnovnom pratećom opremom i možete postavljati video snimke na Jutjub. U tom horu narodnih glasova države moraju da se bore da budu u prvom informativnom planu;

2) Promene u svetskom političkom kontekstu – pojava raznih NVO, alternativnih pokreta i terorističkih grupa koje su i ranije postojale, ali sada ih ima neuporedivo više i imaju nove komunikacione kanale za izražavanje svojih stavova, što dovodi do toga da oni koji su do sada imali monopol nad proizvodnjom informacija ne samo da treba da se staraju kako će da ih publikuju već treba i da slušaju odgovor onih kojima su ih uputili i da posmatraju šta oni konkretno rade;

3) Uloga nevladinih organizacija i orijentacija na meku silu – ciljevi javne diplomatije su se izmenili tako da pored ideološke komponente, koja je dominirala u ranijem hladnoratovskom periodu, pojavili su se i drugi parametri. Prema Džozefu Naju, meku silu čine tri glavne komponente: politička dejstva, kultura i vrednosti. Efekti koji se postižu dejstvom po ovim komponentama sa razlikuju po vremenu. Posmatrajući politička dejstva, uzmimo na primer spoljnu politiku. Ona može da se izmeni za nekoliko godina. Kultura može da se promeni za nekoliko decenija, a vrednosti mogu da se promene na rasponu života nekoliko generacija. Kada se drugim državama i društvima govori o nečijim vrednostima, to ne može da bude kratkoročni projekat. Nije dovoljno prikazivanje jednog filma da bi se drugima predstavio nečiji sistem vrednosti. Radi se o dugoročnom projektu koji treba da se odvija u fazama, gde treba da postoje konkretni zadaci na kojima rade timovi specijalista. Ako je reč o kulturi, neophodno je organizovati izložbe, koncerte i slično;

4) Brendiranje država – radi se o koncepciji koja dolazi iz sfere marketinga prema kojoj je država „brend“. Ovde postaju važne stvari poput popularnosti turizma, investiciona privlačnost i slično, a veliku ulogu igraju biznis i poslovni kontakti.

Na osnovu svega ovoga možemo zaključiti da javna diplomatija nije samo propaganda već mnogo više od toga i da njen značaj sve više raste.

KO SE BAVI JAVNOM DIPLOMATIJOM? Javnom dimplomatijom se praktično bave svi oni koji učestvuju u međunarodnoj komunikaciji. Pre svih tu je, naravno, sama država koja se bavi spoljnom politikom. Pored države, javnom diplomatijom se bavi i biznis. Pri tome spoljna politika jedne države može da utiče na poslovne rezultate kompanija. Kao primer možemo da uzmemo promene u stavu Amerikanaca prema Francuzima. Od 2003. godine primećena je tendencija značajnog pada pozitivnog stava, koja je 2008. došla do maksimuma koji se čak mogao okvalifikovati kao mržnja. To je bilo povezano sa ratom u Iraku, gde Francuska nije podržala poziciju SAD. Amerikanci su bili uvređeni i smatrali su Francuze izdajnicima, što je dovelo do toga da su u Americi bili učestali pozivi da se ne kupuje francuska roba. Usled toga Francuzi su registrovali pad prodaje svojih proizvoda u SAD za 13 odsto tokom pola godine.

Ovde treba reći da, iako su danas mnoge kompanije multinacionalne, one se često asociraju na neku nacionalnost. Tako na primer u video reklami automobilske kompanije Volkswagen Das Auto rečca Das pokazuje da se radi o nemačkom proizvodu.

Pored čisto ekonomskih razloga, sprega politike i biznisa ima i drugu dimenziju koja se naziva – korporativna društvena odgovornost. U tom segmentu države se trude da rad njihovih kompanija van svojih granica ima i komponentu javne diplomatije, to jest da kompanije ne predstavljju samo sebe, već i državu iz koje dolaze. Tako se na primer 2009. godine Hilari Klinton sastala sa čelnicima američkog biznisa i razmotrila sa njima pitanje uticaja biznisa na imidž zemlje u inostranstvu. Pri tome se u poslovnu agendu kompanija ugrađuju pozitivne vrednosti kao što su demokratičnost, ekologija, sponzorstvo i drugo.

Još jedna značajna pojava u sferi korporativne društvene odgovornosti je lobiranje. Uzmimo primer organizacije Foreign Investment Advisory Council (FIAC), koja postoji od 1996. godine. U sastav ove organizacije ulaze inostrane kompanije koje rade na ruskom tržištu. Predstavnici FIAC se sreću sa predsednikom, predsednikom vlade, pomažu rusku nauku i obrazovanje. Tako je na primer FIAC podržao rusku Višu školu ekonomije kroz finansiranje istraživanja pojave koja se naziva paralelni uvoz. O čemu se radi? Primećeno je da se neki predstavnici ruske države vraćaju sa poslovnih sastanaka iz Londona sa laptop računarima marke Sony, što jeste bio paralelni uvoz, a što je suprotno pravilima, to jest kompanija Sony nije imala zvaničan ugovor sa vladom Rusije. Isti slučaj je bio i sa i-fon uređajima, pri čemu su zvanični dileri bili ti koji su bili pogođeni, pa su tražili da se takve pojave zabrane. Zato je Viša škola ekonomije finansirana od FIAC uradila istraživanje kao podršku ideji zabrane paralelnog uvoza u Rusiju. A to upravo jeste lobiranje.

Javnom diplomatijom se bave i univerziteti koji su u principu registrovani kao neprofitne organizacije, ali koji imaju svoje fondove iz kojih se deo sredstava koristi za privlačenje stranih studenata. Privlačnost univerziteta za studiranje, tojest uslovi i nivo obrazovanja koji se na njima stiče takođe govore o zemlji u kojoj se nalaze. Kao dokaz uspešnosti univerziteta prave se liste najboljih po određenim kriterijumima i, iako te liste nisu zvanične, one u moru informacija ostavljaju određeni utisak.

Postoje i takve pojave kao što su privatne ambasade. Tu se može uzeti primer Republike Srpske, koja nije međunarodno priznata nezavisna država, već deo Bosne i Hercegovine, ali koja propagira svoje političke i druge interese kroz privatnu kompaniju koja je postala njeno nezvanično predstavništvo.

Naravno, u sferu javne diplomatije spadaju i svima dobro poznate fondacije i organizacije kao što su Britanski savet, fondovi Fridrih Ebert i Konrad Adenauer, USAID, Rossotrudničestvo, Institut Konfučija i drugi.

DIGITALNA DIPLOMATIJA I „BIG DATA“ Svet se radikalno promenio pod uticajem tehnologije, digitalizovao se. Silicijumska budućnost je počela. U skladu sa ovim promenama, menja se i oblik diplomatije. U junu 2012. godine na savetovanju ambasadora predsednik Rusije je okarakterisao digitalnu diplomatiju kao jedan od najefektivnijih instrumenata spoljne politike, pa je u tom smislu pozvao ambasadore da više koriste nove tehnologije u promovisanju državnih interesa.

Pored očiglednih mogućnosti za direktnom komunikacijom sa auditorijumom korišćenjem raznih internet kanala poput blogova, diskusionih grupa, Fejsbuka ili Tvitera, važan segment digitalne diplomatije predstavlja i analiza dostupnih podataka. Tu dolazimo do pojma Big data. Big data je termin koji se koristi za veliki i složen skup podataka koji je teško procesirati korišćenjem klasičnih baza podataka zasnovanih na SQL jeziku ili tradicionalnim aplikacijama. Najveći izvor tih masivnih nestrukturiranih podataka je upravo internet. Izazovi obrade Big data uključuju njihovo dobijanje, smeštanje, pretragu, deljenje, analizu i vizuelizaciju. Na internetu se danas dešava kolosalno vrenje iz koga treba izvući korisne informacije pomoću kojih bi mogli da se predvide događaji. Tako na primer, ako bi na osnovu jedne takve složene analize bilo moguće predvideti kada i gde će doći do terorističkog napada, to bi bio veliki pomak za bezbednost u svetu. To za sada ipak nije moguće. Ali na procesiranju Big data nastavlja intenzivno da se radi. Godine 2001. Gartner grupa (tada META grupa) sastavila je izveštaj u kome je analitičar Dag Lejni definisao porast količine podataka kao trodimenzionalan, pa je tako nastala shema 3Vs kao opis Big dataVolume, Variety and Velocity, to jest – obim, raznovrsnost i brzina.

Naravno Big data je moguće koristiti u raznim oblastima kao što su nauka, biznis, medicina, politika i drugo. Tako je na primer 2012. godine Obamina administracija u Americi je predstavila Big Data Research and Development Initiative, koja je trebala da istraži kako bi Big data mogli da budu iskorišćeni za rešavanje važnih problema sa kojima se suočava vlada. Ta inicijativa je dala dobre rezultate u kampanji za reizbor Baraka Obame za predsednika SAD iste godine. Takođe, u američkoj saveznoj državi Juta je od strane National Security Agency (NSA) formiran centar za obradu podataka koji će, kada bude završen, imati mogućnost da obradi ogromnu količinu informacija sakupljenu od strane NSA preko interneta.

ZAKLJUČAK Javna i digitalna diplomatija i korišćenje Big data u funkciji meke sile predstavljaju danas važne instrumente u borbi za društveno-politički uticaj u svetu. Svako ko želi da ostane u igri mora da razume značaj pomenutih kategorija i da ih koristi.

Evroazijska Srbija

http://www.standard.rs/goran-tesic-javna-diplomatija-meka-sila-i-big-data.html

Review – The Comparative International Politics of Democracy Promotion

The Comparative International Politics of Democracy Promotion
Edited by Jonas Wolff, Hans-Joachim Spänger, and Hans-Juergen Puhle
London: Routledge, 2014.

Despite more than two decades of extensive policies and scholarly research, democracy promotion still remains a field with a number of unanswered questions. On an empirical level, still little is known about which democracy promotion strategies may result in the democratization of target countries. While not so much interested in the strategies, Wolff, Spänger, and Puhle aim to understand the beginnings of democracy promotion by looking into the process and rationale behind elevating democracy promotion into a foreign policy priority. While democracy promotion rhetoric has been present in foreign policies of many democratic states, it has often yielded to more strategic objectives. Understanding the factors prevalent in developing democracy promotion and balancing out of “material incentives, on the one hand, and normative dispositions, on the other” (p. 3) is the main objective of this edited volume. By means of 12 case studies and systematic comparison, the book analyzes “conflicting objectives” within the policies of democracy promoters and factors that may encourage or hinder democracy promotion.

Asking “how democracy promoters deal with conflicting objectives” (p.3), the book focuses on democracy promotion by the United States and Germany. The book obviously contributes to comparative democracy promotion studies, which would still greatly benefit from insightful contributions. By focusing on the United States and Germany the book adopts a state-centric approach. Although Germany may not cover the same ground with its democracy promotion programs as the United States, these two cases are argued to be comparable and represent two divergent sides of the democracy promotion spectrum: while Germany is argued to be an example of a civilian power, the United States is argued to embody a freedom fighter approach. It also goes beyond existing comparative literature on democracy promotion and avoids the lightly beaten track of comparing the United States to the other most visible democracy promoter—the European Union. A sui generis organization (p. 18), the European Union may match the breadth and depth of United States programs by the plethora of its own policies. However, at the same time, it can influence the outcome of democracy promotion by offering the membership perspective, thus rendering the comparison largely invalid. Nevertheless, to some extent the conclusions on Germany may also be applied to the European Union, which has also repeatedly been called a civilian power.

The choice of the research issue, the democracy promoters, and the six recipient countries as targets of democracy promotion also dictate the structural division of the book. The first three chapters are combined in Part I and present the research agenda (Wolff and Spanger), introduce two democracy promoters (Poppe, Woitschach and Wolff), and outline the determining factors in the choice of democracy promotion strategies on the norms-interests divide (Schewe and Wolff). Paving the way to the empirical chapters, the authors outline 12 pairs of states and configurations of the determinants of democracy promotion: relative power, security interests, economic interests, special interests, political culture, and international norms. Depending on promoter-recipient configuration, the determinants of democracy promotion are also expected to diverge. Part II consists of country chapters, which analyze democracy promotion by two promoters in Bolivia (Wolff), Ecuador (Wolff), Turkey (Karakas), Pakistan (Graf and Wurm), Belarus (Babayev), and Russia (Spanger). Each empirical chapter contrasts the determinants of the democracy promoters and juxtaposes those with the behavior of recipient countries. Part III concludes the book, presenting theoretical and practical implications.

Wolff, who contributed to most of the chapters of the book, concludes that “democracy promotion is a complicated business” (p. 253). One of the important contributions of the book, and the conclusion written by Wolff, is the acknowledgement that instead of straightforward questions and answers, democracy promotion research needs “a broad overview” (p. 253). This argument demonstrates that democracy promotion is a nuanced endeavour with complex patterns of strategies and actions. While the book mainly analyzes the development of democracy promotion by focusing on conflicting objectives of the democracy promoters, it prepares a fertile ground for understanding the whole process of democracy promotion, especially its implementation. The book makes a timely contribution of connecting the developmental and implementation parts of democracy promotion, which may potentially lead to understanding specific strategies and their outcomes. The analysis of specific case studies and the introduction of an analytical framework should be of interests to scholars and students of democracy promotion and foreign policy and can rightly find their spot in relevant graduate and post-graduate curricula.

Dr. Nelli Babayan is a researcher at the Freie Universität Berlin.

The power of ideas vs the limits of innovation: Andreas Sandre at TEDxStockholmSalon 2014

Published on Jan 22, 2014

Andreas Sandre is a Press and Public Affairs Officer at the Embassy of Italy in Washington DC. He is the author of “Twitter for Diplomats” (February 2013) and he has contributed articles on foreign policy, innovation, and digital diplomacy to numerous publications, including the Huffington Post, the Global Policy Journal, and BigThink.

In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)

 

Activism in the Internet Era: Russia, China and Cuba

Scheduled for Feb 27, 2014

Engaging in activism online has become standard practice around the world, even in countries where repressive regimes try to clamp down on these digital voices. Sites such as Facebook and Twitter have created new online communities and play a critical role in modern activism, perhaps most clearly seen in the Arab Spring uprisings. How do individuals make use of these tools in countries that seek to control online content and often punish those that speak out against their government? Authoritarian governments still try to control what information their citizens have access to and isolate individuals from one another to prevent popular uprisings, even as social media makes this task next to impossible. China offers a clear example of this struggle, with bloggers often censored or jailed. New rules to prevent online rumors or slander could land convicted offenders behind bars for up to three years. In Russia, censorship is less prevalent, but anti-government comments can lead to harsh punishment and Cuba’s internet remains one of the most restricted in the world. However, in each of these countries, dissidents remain active, finding and creating communities online and speaking out against injustices. Emily Parker will share stories of online activists in Russia, China and Cuba and discuss how social media remains a powerful tool in the fight against repressive regimes.

Emily Parker is a Digital Diplomacy Advisor and Future Tense Fellow at the New America Foundation.

For more information about this event please visit: http://www.worldaffairs.org/events/ev…

 

Facebook introduces autoplay for videos

After testing the system for a while, Facebook has begun to introduce autoplay videos for mobile and desktop. Earlier in the week, most users on iPhone and Android received the system, which works as follows: as you scroll past a video, a preview begins to play without sound. If you don’t want to watch it, just scroll past. If you do, you can click for the full viewing experience, including audio. Later in the week, desktop users began to notice the same feature, which Facebook will be continuing to roll out to more users.

Facebook release tool for gauging sales
Facebook’s new tool for advertisers, allows them to track users who saw a promoted post and ascertain which of these then went on to make a purchase either online or in a physical store. Retailers can offer Facebook the information they have on customers, including email addresses and phone numbers, and find out which of these have seen a promoted post.

Instagram introduces direct messages
Instagram has added the ability for users to send direct messages. A user can send photos or videos to anyone who follows them, with the two then able to converse underneath the message. If you don’t follow someone, you’ll get a notification to a ‘pending requests’ centre. Instagram announced the changes in a blog post, which included the below video.

Brands have already started using the system too. Fashion brand Gap sent direct messages to the first 15 people to reply to a message; from these, winners were selected to receive a denim tablet case.

Hyatt Hotels have been sending messages to their fans, wishing them a Merry Christmas.

Twitter users can send images in direct messages
Twitter has introduced a few updates to its apps for iPhone and Android, including the ability to send images in direct messages. Messages are also easier to access through a tab at the bottom of the screen, while users can swipe to switch between the ‘Home’, ‘Discover’ and ‘Activity’ sections of the app. For Android only, there is now a star button next to the ‘Follow’ tab, allowing users to receive notifications for whomever they choose, whether it be a celebrity or one of their friends.

Twitter adds ‘Broad Match’ to keyword targeting
A few months ago, Twitter introduced keyword targeting, allowing advertisers to target an audience based on specific words in their tweets, or those with which they engage. Now, the network has added ‘Broad Match’, allowing them to automatically include related terms in the search. Those related words can include synonyms and alternative spellings, as shown in the below image.

 

Twitter reverses ‘block’ button change
Twitter has reversed the changes it made to the ‘block’ button very shortly after their introduction. The new system, which allowed users to RT, follow or reply to those who had blocked them, was met with widespread public disapproval, which Twitter rapidly took on board.

Google+ to serve social ads across the web
Google+ has introduced a new type of ad, called a +Post ad, which will allow brands to promote G+ updates across the ‘Google Display Network’. The ads, which will comprise the ability to +1, comment or share, should serve to greatly extend the reach of branded content on the network, as well as of the network itself.

Live streaming on YouTube
YouTube has announced the ability to live stream, which will be available to verified accounts that are in ‘good standing’. Video manager will contain a button from which account holders can begin a live stream, as well as the ability to launch a Google+ Hangout directly from YouTube.

Kik reaches 100 million registered users
Messaging app Kik has reached 100 million registered users, and is reportedly adding 250,000 every day. The success comes partly due through its anonymity – users go by a username rather than providing their phone number – as well as ‘Kik Cards’, which are basically mobile web applications.

Samsung makes mistake in trying to hush YouTuber