So to catch up for last week I've come asking a question. If we have a beef with the scenic shot via google earth (my yard might have been a mess that day), the what do we do about it? The answers aren't clear and in the reading for last week, the solution seemed to be to disregard old tactics and play with some new ones, that really aren't that new.
In Kumar's "Global Media and Communication: Google Earth and the nation state", the answer to fighting off big transnationals is hardly hopeful. Actually, its exactly what I was wondering when I wrote my midterm. What does a nation do to limit the actions of a transnational?
Well from what Kumar is suggesting out of the example with India's beef with Google and its program Google earth is that all you can do is: plead (he calls it negotiation), ban the products (so no Google for you), develop a similar product (so anyone heard of dubai?) or take evasive measures(I'll throw a shoe at you? or shut down my satellite system). Ultimately your best hope is that the CEO of Google just happens to be in your homeland for a weekend and decides to play nice. That the old means set down in the Treaty of Westphalia don't apply.
The plead, ban, develop or evade methods are the only ones that nation-states can take against transnationals that unlike their predecessors are not restricted to the boundaries of the nation they were developed in, they can influence and penetrate into the homes and lives of other nations. That they are entities that are border-less and thus are exceedingly hard to deal with. There is something Kumar doesn't mention though and that is the fact that in all the issues with Google and its program that no state turns to the U.S. for action, they turn to the corporate branch of Google in the US but not the US government. Now the concept of turning to the U.S. might be futile in making Google change, but is worth noting that many influential people within Google are buddies with the government. Thus is it truly out of the question for a nation to request another nation to deal with its own entities? Or is Google a media unbound to its place of birth? Is it to be treated like another nation? From what Kurma suggests, that transnationals like Google are beyond the nation-state status and thus a nation-state must be on the defensive if it wish to limit the influence or effects on its own sovereignty.
Therefore, if I still have a grudge with my yard being seen by millions of potential viewers after hearing all of this. Well, I guess I better hope I have the physical power and influence to enforce my views. I must either simply shut the system that irritates me out or live without access to the system and hope it still needs me enough to work with me.