Strictly confidential

The recent mind-bending film, Inception, drives home a compelling point at a time when the thought police seem to be on high alert. With a storyline hinging on the power of ideas - their origin, manifestation and protection - the film finds disturbing parallels in the real world, where a battle is being waged in the online, digital and media realms for that most powerful of assets - information.

Data is the currency of the new world and the issue of information, or rather, access to it, has become a tech hot potato in recent months. While Research in Motion (RIM) fights government demands to gain access to users' encrypted messages, the proposed Protection of Information Bill and Media Appeals Tribunal have raised concerns about the freedom of information locally.

Add the recent net neutrality and Wikileaks sagas to the mix, and you have a nice explosive recipe for public, government and industry uproar.

The efforts by governments in Saudi Arabia, India and other countries to clamp down on BlackBerry's encrypted traffic, as a potential vehicle for terrorist plots, are both short-sighted and ill-informed. The truth is, with the plethora of digital devices accessing the Web and other networks - social, corporate or criminal - trying to end attacks this way is an exercise in futility.

Attempts to stop the flow of information is like trying to plug a net - if you seal off one hole, there are a dozen more that already exist or can be created. It's unlikely the kind of individual set on blowing up Parliament or plotting a coup will be deterred by greater scrutiny of their smartphone account. Those really wanting to keep information secure will quickly find another, more subversive channel, driving these elements further underground.

Ultimately, the only thing the compromise between RIM and Indian authorities has achieved is potentially alienating thousands of smartphone users whose right to retain the confidentiality of their messages is now pretty much shot to pieces. But then, at least the state will be aware of all those sinister lunch dates and menacing bedtime chats; order is restored.

While these moves may be ineffective, the mere fact that governments seek increasing control over what and how people communicate is enough to mark a disturbing turn in overall access freedoms. This slippery slide towards greater restriction of information is a major cause for alarm.

Attempts to stop the flow of information is like trying to plug a net - which hole do you seal up first?

Lezette Engelbrecht, copy editor and journalist, ITWeb

It boils down to what's more important - state security or individual privacy - and who decides? What starts today as closer inspection of mobile device data, could quickly spread to tracking people via location-based services, or controlling public Web searches and online behaviour.

India, for example, has already started hammering companies like Google and Skype to open access to their services and host servers inside the country's borders. All in the interest of national security, of course. Knowledge is power, after all, and we can't have too much of it going around undetected, can we?

With this move, we're starting down a dark path that gets narrower and narrower until there's only a handful of personal information we still have control over. And the question is: who are governments as self-appointed keepers of the crypt?

This past weekend, demonstrators in Berlin protested against state data collection, under the banner “freedom instead of fear”. Of particular contention was the state database of income information, which many citizens considered an invasion of privacy. Governments like getting all fired up about access to potentially harmful information, but what about their own hoarding of people's most sensitive details?

While turning the screw tighter on public communication, it seems governments are also exerting stricter control over coverage of their own activities. Locally, the issue has reared its head in proposals to introduce the ironically named Protection of Information Bill, and a Media Appeals Tribunal.

Broken down, the Bill would essentially hide any information the state doesn't want to draw public attention to, allowing government officials to slap a “national interest” label on documents, as they see fit. Similarly, the Media Appeals Tribunal aims to regulate printed and electronic media, with arguments of “accountability” flying thick and fast.

Granted, the media needs to exercise judgment in its coverage, but accountability also applies to those who have placed themselves in positions of public trust. How do we hold leaders accountable when we don't know what they're doing? Sure, the media doesn't always fight fair, but I'd rather step on a few bureaucratic toes in the process of uncovering gross misappropriation than whitewashing everything for the sake of image and stability.

As Lucy Dalglish, head of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, points out: ”No one has demonstrated that an ignorant society is a safe society."

The increasing scope of communication has made information exchange easier than ever, and the ability to access it is fundamental to a transparent, open society. But herein lies a dual requirement: the need for freedom of access while respecting individual privacy. It's a balance communities have struggled for ages to keep in check, and will continue to grapple with.

The various efforts by governments to curtail the control we have over our communication and personal information serves as an affront to the very basics of individual liberty, to our sense of self.

Our identities, whether it be the series of numbers allocated for official purposes, or the collection of unique traits, experiences and thoughts that shape an individual, are enormously precious.

Stripped of possessions and status, or even physical attributes, all we unquestionably own is our distinctive human identity. As such, it being mined and scrutinised at the whim and will of the state is just as big a risk to societal security as the acts of outright violence it is so worried about.