As high as ten percent of diamonds come from areas under rebel control. In the past, and currently, conflict diamonds have supported rebel leaders by enabling them to arm and equip their armies. The United Nations has stated that stones from rebel-held mines have raised billions of dollars on world markets to finance insurgencies in Angola, Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is very difficult to differentiate uncut diamonds, therefore illicit diamonds are conveniently mixed with legal diamonds. Stabs at trying to record and regulate diamonds from the mines to the store have had mixed results because uncut diamond markets such as Antwerp, has been noted for its relaxed attitude in enforcing regulations.

The South African diamond company De Beers on its own mines about half the world’s diamond output. It also controls around 80 per cent of diamond sales worldwide through its Central Selling Organization, which purchases and stockpiles diamonds from other suppliers to keep availability low and prices high (United Nations). De Beers has been a major purchaser of diamonds from Angola, Sierra Leone and other African conflict zones. When the pressure to monitor diamond mining rose to the surface in the 1970s and 80s, De Beers successfully resisted, and buried the issue. Once the pressures rose again in the 90s, De Beers began worrying about losing its reputation for having the “perfect diamond”. The United Nations stepped in with a plan for regulation and certification and noted that private sector action against the stones “can be made into a positive enhancement of the diamond industry without the necessity for negative imagery.”

South Africa, Botswana and Namibia, have held a series of conferences in recent months to develop a common regulatory framework for the proposed certification programme. Known as the Kimberley Process, after the South African diamond-mining centre, the meetings have examined both the technical and procedural aspects of an effective regulatory regime. The UN stated that enforcement of certification “will lower the price UNITA and the RUF get for their diamonds and increase the risk to dealers, who face confiscation on the spot of uncertified uncut stones and a lifetime ban on trading in all the major centres.” The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme was formally adopted in November 2002, and came into operation on January 1, 2003. Andrew Coxon, President of the De Beers Institute of Diamonds, spearheaded this initiative on behalf of the diamond industry(De Beers).

The industry’s proposed certification scheme would require:

– Exporting countries to establish diamond export agencies to accredit legal producers, register legal rough diamond exports in an international database and certify and seal parcels of stones for shipment.

– Importing countries to prohibit the entry of uncut stones arriving unsealed or without certification.

– Polished-diamond importing countries to prohibit entry of finished stones from processing countries without approved certification programmes.

– All countries involved in the world diamond trade, including rough and polished diamond exporting, processing and consumer countries to enact legislation criminalizing the trade in conflict diamonds, and to adopt an industry-wide code of conduct.

– Establishment of an International Diamond Council, comprised of government, industry and intergovernmental representatives, to monitor compliance with the certification programme.

The limits of the Kimberley Process became evident soon after its implication. For example, the certification only covers rough, uncut diamonds, which meant that industry needed to ensure oversight of the entire diamond supply chain, including the trade in polished diamonds. Global witness states that “twelve years after the blood diamond issue came to international attention, the industry has failed to meaningfully change its practices”. Henceforth, because of the weaknesses in the Kimberley Process, and the lack of self-regulation by the diamond industry, it is still very difficult for consumers to know if they are buying a ‘clean’ diamond (Global witness). It still is not possible to guarantee to consumers that the diamonds they purchase are free from conflict and human rights violations.

Economy:

UK Foreign Office Minister Peter Hain had said “We want to ensure that if somebody goes to buy a diamond from a jeweller’s shop, they know that when they put it on the finger of their loved one, they are not pledging a diamond that has cut off the finger of a child in Sierra Leone or Angola,”

In defence of the diamond industry’s shady ways, De Beers spokesman Andrew Lamont told CNN, “There is a great danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” De Beers voiced the fears of legitimate diamond-producing nations such as Botswana, South Africa and Namibia about the campaign against conflict diamonds. They said consumer confidence would be ruined and could lead to a consumer boycott which would ruin the economies of Botswana and Namibia. Lamont was quoted as saying “diamonds don’t kill people, people with guns kill people, and these guns are supplied from the West”

The trade in conflict diamonds is prolonging wars in parts of Africa, ceasing efforts towards development and is causing an unnecessary amount of suffering. Yet major diamond-producing countries remain worried about the impact of the conflict diamond campaign on the legitimate trade. Regardless of the conflict diamond problem the legitimate diamond trade is key in the many African countries’ economies, the UN states “the legitimate diamond trade makes a critical contribution to economic development worldwide.” (UN)

Marketing/ Brand

“The establishment of the ‘Kimberley Process’ is the result of Oppenheimer/De Beers years of refined manipulative and intimidating stratagem” says Now public. The process has been seen to give more control of diamonds worldwide to Oppenhaimer/De Beers, and allowing the diamond barons to evade criminal charges related to illegal diamond trading, theft and fraud and get out of the “blood diamond stigma”. It can be argued that De Beers adopted the process out of self-interest and protection against prosecution by claiming to police itself on an international level. Now Public calls this move “a corporate achievement after 100 years of world dominance in the exploitation of Namibian and South African diamonds and precious minerals now incorporates the UN (United Nations) in the greatest price-fixing cartel ever”.

It would make sense for De Beers to adopt the seemingly ethical and more importantly, very popular idea of regulation and certification after spending hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising its product. “De Beers is deeply concerned about anything that could damage the image of diamonds as a symbol of love, beauty and purity.” (CNN)

Country made

“The forcible and illegal removal of Bushmen from their homelands is conflict in anybody’s language, but under the Kimberly Process, these diamonds are clean” states Suite 101. In the Central Kalahari, there is a place called Ghagho, this is also known as Gope. The three groups living there are called the Tsila, Gana and Gwi. The 200 person Tsila tribe were evicted from their traditional homelands in 2002(suite 101).

Unfortunately for the Tsila, their lands are situated on a large diamond deposit that was discovered by De Beers in the 1980′s. Ghagho is an ancestral orchard of monkey oranges and other fruits, as well it is also the site of an ancestral burial grounds and a precious source of water, some of which has been poisoned by diamond miners. The mine has been temporarily closed down, but De Beers has the mining license and “asserts that it will resume mining when the economic conditions are right.”(suite 101)

The Kimberly Process guarantees that their diamonds are not “conflict diamonds,” however conflict free can mean many things, in this case it means diamonds they are not associated with civil wars and conflict. This definition does not include human rights abuses or stealing land from traditional landowners. The Bushmen is one example of people who have been evicted illegally and forcibly from their land to make room for mining. This is “conflict”, and despite the assurances of the Kimberly Process, these are in fact conflict diamonds.

In case you were wondering, moves to protect the rights of the Bushmen have been dismissed by De Beers on the grounds that such laws “lead to apartheid” according to Suite 101.

References

UN http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/subjindx/144diam.htm.

Material from this article may be freely reproduced, with attribution to “Africa Recovery, United Nations..

CNN http://www.cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/africa/01/18/diamonds.debeers/index.html

Global Witness http://www.globalwitness.org/campaigns/conflict/post-conflict

Now Public http://www.nowpublic.com/crime/de-beers-crime-and-kimberley-process

Suite 101 http://www.suite101.com/content/conflict-diamonds-and-bushmen-a31668

http://www.allaboutgemstones.com/diamond_pipeline.html

So I discovered quite a few good outlets for information on internet surveillance…some of the people I am following on Twitter that were not included in this draft are [@smith] and @michaelgeist, even though I didnt’t use them, it was handy to have a look through some of their ideas and opinions which often led to other relevant articles for my essay. As well, David Lyon‘s surveillance project was an overall helpful source, even though I put this reference in my actual draft, I wanted to emphasize how much relevant information I was able to find through his work.

And it begins…

What was once thought of as the exception has become the rule when it comes to surveillance and collecting personal data as a way of monitoring societies. Director of the Queen’s Surveillance Project, David Lyon (1994) has stated that just participating in modern society, one is forced to be under electronic surveillance.

Advancing surveillance is a crucial part of totalitarian societies, citizens must question the role of these new and constantly changing government technologies. Zygmunt Bauman (As cited in Lyon 1994), from the University of Leeds pointed out in his works that moral standards are often forgotten or simply seen as “irrelevant” as the success of bureaucratic operations are far more important.

Of course, there is a growing concern about computers and privacy issues, which was the reason Privacy International was founded in 1992, which functioned by drawing together data on surveillance data protection in various countries throughout the world (Lyon 1994). The long term impacts of this project, whether good or bad have yet to be seen. The Canadian Information Commission functions as a “watchdog” for privacy legislation and data protection, though even so the rate at which technology is changing, this commission along with other similar commissions in given countries lack behind (Lyon 1994). Also, Lyon (1994) states that another problem here is the disagreement as to what exactly the issue is, the term “privacy” might be too broad an issue to work within.

As for countries that are perhaps not as fortunate as Canada when it comes to privacy protection (which is subjective), surveillance could be life threatening. The political tensions in Iran have been in constant flux, especially since the questionable election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Various citizens of the country began using contemporary communication systems to coordinate protests, broadcast information restricted by the government, and exercise freedom of speech. Christopher Parsons (2010) has researched this topic thoroughly and states that through scanning these online social networks, government has realized the power of the medium for coordinating protests, and began to cut off various links to potentially troublesome networking sites, as well as proceeding to close off the country’s internet faucet so information could not be easily transmitted and received (Parsons 2010).

It was speculated by the Wall Street Journal that Iranian officials have been using Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) equipment in order to censor online content. The Wall Street Journal claimed that every piece of online information is deconstructed in order to search for keywords, then reconstructed in the matter of seconds (Parsons 2010). As well, there is evidence to state that information that is intended for the “global internet” is passed through proxy servers, where it is monitored for certain keywords, this includes IM, email, and search. Parsons (2010) points out that Iranians who store their email messages on Iranian ISP servers are not as safe as one would think, as citizens make a large effort to protect their data in transit, it is not enough because the country’s ISPs are in on the whole deal.

Social networking is seen by some as a means to a revolution, such as the ever popular deemed “twitter revolution”of Iran. Foreign Policy Magazine Editor, Evengy Morozov (2009) argues that we cannot yet say whether or not, and to what extent networks such as Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube have truly assisted the demonstrations taking place. Morozov (2009) admits that videos streamed over Youtube, and publicized via Facebook and Twitter have had a large part in proving the brutality of authorities, but goes on to state that these citizen journalists are putting themselves in great danger by taking part in this reverse surveillance, or “sousveillance”. As well, another issue with sousveillance is the fact that fake videos are becoming very common in order to create conflict amongst the opposition. Morozov (2009) goes on to state that aside from fake videos appearing on Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube, making these sites increasingly unreliable sources, the government has begun using these networks for their own benefit, as a “brainwashing tool” of sorts. The amount of pro government messages on Twitter has risen substantially since the election.

The key point here being, the untrustworthy propaganda via fake videos and messages is an even more effective way of controlling the masses than is censorship. The government is beginning to realize that going the distance to block these social networking sites is unnecessary when they are one of the most convenient locations to retrieve the private information of citizens.

Another interesting way to look at online surveillance via social networking is through the eyes of the common users. Anders Albrechslund (2008) argues that surveillance cannot be solely viewed through hierarchical structures, and states that online social networking introduces a participatory type of surveillance, which rather that violating actually empowers the user. The online global village enables anyone and everyone to participate in their own surveillance. This “top-down monitoring” as Albrechslund (2008) refers to it, which is created by peer to peer social networking opens up the doors to law enforcement technologies. Put simply “lateral surveillance makes us spies in a disciplinary society” (Albrechslund, 2008). However the idea of user empowerment, and working with social networking as a sharing practice instead of information trade must be stated. The constant idea that online surveillance is harmful may not be true for all cases. This is once again what Albrechslund terms “participatory surveillance”, which he argues can build subjectivity and make better sense of the world around us. This process of participatory surveillance allows the user, who was once passive to become active, to seek information, communicate and act. This perspective provides us with a different way of viewing online surveillance.

Works Cited

Albrechslund A. (2008). Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance. First Monday 13(3) Retrieved February 8, 2010 from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2142/1949

Lyon D. (1994). The electronic eye: the rise of surveillance society. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, USA.

Morozov E. (2009). Iran’s propaganda hits the ‘Spinternet’. Daily EM. Retrieved February 5, 2010 from http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/29/morozov.dicatorships.internet/

Parsons C. (2010). Dispelling FUD: Iran and ISP Surveillance. Technology, Thoughts and Trinkets. Retrieved February 3, 2010 from http://www.christopher-parsons.com/blog/isps/dispelling-fud-iran-and-isp-surveillance/

My name on twitter is @flamingopartee, i tried flamingoparty it was taken…can you believe it? I guess thats what late users get!

@michaelgeist and @caparsons are the two professionals on Twitter I am currently following, the other guy I found helpful for research was not on Twitter, so I picked up Michael Geist!

I didnt quite understand what lists did, but I created one anyways and I have added my two professionals. Not quite sure where to go from here with that, besides adding more people? http://twitter.com/#/list/flamingopartee/cmns240-project

when i typed in “surveillance” and “internet” I got quite a few results talking about pornograhy, which I wasnt really looking for. But I typed in political surveillance and Internet and that turned up fewer results but more relevant.

I didn’t really feel very confident about replying to tweets, I don’t know I guess I have to get over that, but I just retweeted instead on one about how terrorism is used to justify surveillance and one on transparency. I thought they were interesting and relevant, but I couldn’t think of something to say in response besides: I liked this, or good job which sounded stupid in my head. I want to try to be more critical though, that’s my goal!

I downloaded twitteriffic, so now when I’m not even on Twitter, things pop up on my screen if someone I am following tweets, its okay, but a little annoying. I thought the Google one sounded interesting, but it had bad ratings.

I tweeted about a sign involving Twitter that I saw at a church because it made me think of how much online social networking has replaced reality and become the most preferred medium for communication. And it was funny to see that, I think the church might be feeling frustrated with people becoming distracted away from religion.

I think that’s all…bye for now!

http://www.stumbleupon.com/favorites/

And here is the direct link to the article by Christopher Parsons:

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/7AWP3m/www.christopher-parsons.com/blog/isps/dispelling-fud-iran-and-isp-surveillance/

And here are the links to the blogs of Christopher Parsons, a PHd student in the department of political science at University of Victoria, he writes alot about privacy issues involving digital surveillance, I found him through the article I posted above on Digg and… Evengy Morozov who is an editor of the magazine “foreign policy” and writes alot about the political implications of the internet…I discovered him through the article I found earlier in the course and visited his blog recently and discovered that he had written alot of interesting articles relevant to my research.

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2TXuFl/www.christopher-parsons.com/blog/

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/215mfK/evgenymorozov.com/blog/

I’m sorry I didnt have much time to research the authors…I just found that they have both written for various academic jounals related to media content and some related to media content and children.

Livingstone S. and David B. (2010) On the rapid rise of Social Netoworking Sites: New Findings andPolicy implications.

             Children and Society 24(1) page 75-83. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier.   

             10.1111/j.1099-0860.2009.00243.x

The author is Evgeny Morozov, and he is a major thinker and commentator about the political implications of the Internet. He is editor of Foreign Policy and runs the magazine’s influential and widely-quoted “Net Effect” blog about the Internet’s impact on global politics (About page).

I want to find more articles like this one that discuss the impact of online social networking and privacy issues especially during political distress. I think this article has set me on the right track and helped me to focus my research and make it more manageable.

Morozov E. (2009). Iran: Downside to the “Twitter Revolution”                              

         Dissent 56(4). Retrieved from Acdemic Search Elite Database

Morozov’s about page: http://www.evgenymorozov.com/about.html

Hi I’m Caitlyn…my user name is Caitshiv because my middle name is Shivonne. I’m a 3rd year communications major…I’m a little behind to tell you the truth because I dont believe in going to school during the summer! I have used all of my summers to do some farout travelling I think that is a necessary part of learning. I’ve gotten to know myself and what environments I flourish in better by traveling, even if it means spending an extra year in school, so be it!

I like meeting and interacting with people from all over the place, I think everyone has an interesting quality we can learn from!  I try to practice my spanish with strangers whenever I get the chance, I wanted to get a minor in Spanish but it isnt offered at SFU…que loco!

Hmm what else? In my spare time I read and write, and also volunteer quite alot and generally try to have a good time, for work I teach english and i love it!

I hope we all get to know eachother better in the next few months! It should be a good time, and I’m looking forward to the video project…oh the possibilities!

Bye for now!