Like the governance in England where the government decides what you should be watching? Perhaps they'll uses the French model and make it illegal to say anything critical about the French government. Or perhaps they'll adopt the Turkish attitude of jail time for those who speak the truth (if Turkey gets into the EU). How are they better than the American model of Uncle Sam lurking in the background of everyone's lives waiting for the wrong words to be written so the entrapment teams can be sent.
Government control of the internet, by any government, will inevitably lead to censorship.
There is an ongoing program to introduce a broad system of default blocking of certain types of content to all Internet users in the UK. New customers have their Internet access filtered at the ISP level so that certain web sites are blocked
'Kroes said: “Some are calling for the International Telecommunications Union to take control of key Internet functions. I agree that governments have a crucial role to play, but top-down approaches are not the right answer. We must strengthen the multi-stakeholder model to preserve the Internet as a fast engine for innovation.”'
And the concrete actions they propose have more to do with 'Establishment of a clear timeline for the globalisation of ICANN and the “IANA functions”' and finding ways to resolve conflicts between the laws of different countries.
This does not look like government control, just change over the ICANN (a private US non-profit) and the formation of a global advisory group. Can it deviate into government control? Sure. But that doesn't seem to be what is being proposed.
Slightly tinfoil hat rant there. The UK government does not decide what you watch, what they have done is pressure ISPs to provide optional filtering (set up by the ISP), with the default set to on. I don't like this and argue against it. It doesn't help my case when bullshit like this gets thrown about.
Still the wrong wording. ISPs can optionally provide filtering to their users, which is on by default and opt-out. Only the large ISPs have implemented the filtering, and only for new customers. Existing customers have no filtering.
"Government control of the internet, by any government, will inevitably lead to censorship."
You may be right about that specific point. So what's the alternative? Corporate control? UN?
If the net is governed by some form of institution, then that institution will need widespread legitimacy. I'm not saying that the current controllers have that, but a transfer of governance won't happen without it.
The UN is the last organization on earth to be given control or dominion over the net just based on the results of the Human Rights Council.
Its fine where it is, at least the US leadership can be picked on with near impunity if not vilified by the press to get a reaction, other countries less so
The UN in even worse, Russia, China, and Brazil are lobbying to get control over the Internet via ITU.
Current multi-stakeholder model has functioned diligently since the beginning, all these attempts to control the Internet by governments are politically motivated and with the aim of protecting legacy businesses and business models.
I agree with you on the UN in this instance. But if the current system of governance is so great, how did the net come to be so massively infiltrated by NSA/GCHQ?
The problem is that the internet has come to be seen as a political problem by an increasing number of governments, and the current institutions that provide governance (ICANN, ISOC, IANA, IETF, etc) have no political power with which to push back.
NSA/GCHQ 'infiltrations' had little to do with TLDs and IP block allocations.
Spy agencies did what they did with the help of over-broad court orders and legal justifications, non of the institutions you've listed had anything to do with it, either technically nor administratively (prove me wrong!).
These are just red-herring arguments by parties who want to take advantage of this moral panic and claim the they should control more of the Internet so as to protect it, it's opportunism and grandstanding, it has nothing to do with NSA.
"non of the institutions you've listed had anything to do with it". I agree, and I didn't say they did. What I did say is that they failed to stop it.
Look, the net has become a platform for large-scale trade, creation of news and social movements, dissent (e.g. occupy, arab spring), jihad (war on terror). These are all things that are of great interest to politicians, because they are either opportunities or threats to their power. Thats why so many of them (US/UK/FR/RU/TC/CN) have been attacking the net with censorship and surveillance. The Snowden revelations have brought this into the open and forced the issue of what to do. It seems to me that thats the context for this EU announcement.
Yes, the EU proposal is almost certainly an attempt at a power-grab, partly because thats what politicians do, but also because they fear some other group grabbing it first.
And the net has little power to resist any of this - because its governing institutions were not designed/evolved with that in mind. SOPA etc was only defeated because corporations with financial power [1] opposed it, not because the net somehow "defended itself". I worry that we might have reached a tipping-point where there net can't stay the same because the political pressure is too great, and all the feasible alternatives (such as UN control or full-on commercial control) are terrible.
In case its not totally clear, I'm not in favour of governments/EU/UN running the internet. I'd like to see a highly decentralised net, but I can't see how we get there from here.
Isn't that kind of a strawman, though? I'm fairly convinced that of the organizations you listed, very few people (if any) were aware of the breadth of the NSA's information gathering.
I fail to see how placing control of IP and TLD assignments under the EU or UN would have done anything to stop the NSA/GCHQ, which was the crux of your initial argument. If anything, it might have made it worse, because lawmakers could have been frightened into far more material support of extensive surveillance under the guise of "we don't control that."
You are right on the specifics, SOAP and similar actions (lots of what really go on, under the US supervision) are what is related to TLDs.
Nobody managed to create a problem with IP block allocations yet, mainly because IPv4 is about dead, and IPv6 is plenty enough. There is no way that can change in the UN hands.
Anyway, the US has almost total control of the UN, what are you really complaining about?
I'm French and I agree with him. There's no freedom of speech in France or at least it's seriously limited. It's easy to accuse anyone of hate speech for example and get him banned and fined. There's also offenses against the president and not to forget journalists getting mysteriously fired all the time because they were a bit too critical of the government.
> It's easy to accuse anyone of hate speech for example and get him banned and fined.
Are you trying to say that laws against hate speech are a bad thing, or that they are abused in France? If they are abused in France, I'd appreciate relevant examples. Not Dieudonné, as this unfortunate character has made his bread and butter of antisemitism the last few years.
> There's also offenses against the president
Fair enough. I'd like to point out, though, that the last person to be condemned for "offense to the head of state" had to pay 30 euros after insulting Nicolas Sarkozy. That's not exactly financial ruin, but I'd like this law to go away entirely.
> journalists getting mysteriously fired all the time because they were a bit too critical of the government.
> Are you trying to say that laws against hate speech are a bad thing, or that they are abused in France?
I may regret this, but I'll step out on a limb and say yes. I know nothing of French politics, but I think hate speech laws are counter to the notion of free speech. Either you allow all speech or you allow none. Obviously, France may lack the protections citizens of other countries enjoy, and perhaps supporting such limits on free speech then becomes a matter of personal pride, making it a rather contentious issue.
Hate speech laws are almost Orwellian in a sense: Free speech is good, but some speech is baaaaaaad. In my opinion, free speech is lost the instant you start eroding it with heinous laws that limit it. Here in the US at least, anti-hate speech proponents tend to use the "fire in a crowded theater" argument time and again as proof of limits on free speech rights, in spite that it's out of context and incorrect [1]. The other problem is that everyone generally agrees that free speech is fine, but there's a certain disagreement on what parts of speech should be considered taboo or outright illegal.
The question then, in my mind, isn't whether or not governments should ban certain types of speech. I don't think they should, because it's counter to free speech protections. However, the messier question is whether social sanctions should be imposed upon citizens by non-government actors whenever hateful or potentially offensive speech is used. For instance, should an employer be allowed to fire someone because of public racist remarks? What if that employer is the government? What if the remarks were offensive to the government (think anti-war)?
The point to free speech (generally, at least in the US) is that it enables one to say what they wish without government intervention. It doesn't, however, protect them from consequences of their speech imposed against them by other citizens (boycotts, firing, etc.).
> In my opinion, free speech is lost the instant you start eroding it with heinous laws that limit it.
I don't know about heinous, but, say, incitation to murder shouldn't be protected free speech (see, eg, Rwanda). So you have to live with limitations in a civilized society, the debate is only on where to set these limits.
> However, the messier question is whether social sanctions should be imposed upon citizens by non-government actors whenever hateful or potentially offensive speech is used. For instance, should an employer be allowed to fire someone because of public racist remarks?
In my mind, employers should abide by the law. Otherwise, it's just as easy to fire somebody for expressing political opinions you disagree with. This shouldn't be a ground for termination.
> What if that employer is the government? What if the remarks were offensive to the government (think anti-war)?
French civil servants are supposed to be neutral in terms of politics, just like soldiers give up a number of rights during their time of service.
> I don't know about heinous, but, say, incitation to murder shouldn't be protected free speech (see, eg, Rwanda). So you have to live with limitations in a civilized society, the debate is only on where to set these limits.
I think you're moving the goal post a bit. In the post I was responding to, you were specifically calling out hate speech. Inciting murder and using hateful, racist language are often separate. Yes, I realize the two can be conflated (e.g. racist language inciting violence), but generally, hate speech laws attempt to limit speech that is construed as hateful, typically against a specific racial, ethnic, or other minority. Of course, I suppose I have libertarian leanings that wire me in a manner that make it very difficult to understand why government intervention is seen as a panacea
That said, I'm not precisely sure your example is quite as clear cut in terms of free speech as there are other laws which deal with matters of public safety, premeditation and the sorts, and calling for someone's murder could easily fit into categories outside free speech, depending largely on the circumstances. But, that's a matter for the courts and has been debated ad nauseum for centuries.
> I think you're moving the goal post a bit. In the post I was responding to, you were specifically calling out hate speech.
Sure. But in your response, you expressed the following:
> In my opinion, free speech is lost the instant you start eroding it with heinous laws that limit it.
That's much stronger than a disagreement about hate speech.
> That said, I'm not precisely sure your example is quite as clear cut in terms of free speech as there are other laws which deal with matters of public safety, premeditation and the sorts, and calling for someone's murder could easily fit into categories outside free speech, depending largely on the circumstances.
I'm no lawyer, but if you don't yourself act on it or participate in planning murder, it sounds like very shaky grounds to send someone to jail.
> That's much stronger than a disagreement about hate speech.
I'll grant you that, but you have to admit: The more laws you draft limiting the definition of what construes free speech, the more you're eroding it. Hate speech laws are an example of such.
> I'm no lawyer, but if you don't yourself act on it or participate in planning murder, it sounds like very shaky grounds to send someone to jail.
Well, I'm glad that we're reaching common ground (that actually excites me--please don't take my arguments against your points negatively!). I do agree that sending someone to jail for making questionable threats makes very little sense, but it has been used to some success the world over. In particular, abuse of tactics like that is at least partially to blame for the US jail population being so high. Perhaps not literally, but if you're the wrong color or in the wrong neighborhood, it doesn't take much convincing to be sent away for a few months...
> I'll grant you that, but you have to admit: The more laws you draft limiting the definition of what construes free speech, the more you're eroding it. Hate speech laws are an example of such.
To be sure, they have to be finely drafted.
> Well, I'm glad that we're reaching common ground (that actually excites me--please don't take my arguments against your points negatively!).
Ah. I'm afraid this is solely a consequence of a lack of clarity on my part. I did not mean "shaky" as in "it would be morally dubious to convict a person", I meant "shaky" as in "it would legally difficult to convict a person". I absolutely think that publicly calling for somebody's murder should be punished, especially if it is part of a sustained campaign, or targets a large group (hence my bringing the Rwanda example earlier - I was thinking about Radio Mille Collines in particular [1]). Please note that in this example, there is nothing vague about the threats.
> In particular, abuse of tactics like that is at least partially to blame for the US jail population being so high.
I'm afraid my expertise is once lacking, but my understanding was that the most common motive for enjoying such comforts as provided by the US taxpayer is a conviction for drug possession.
> please don't take my arguments against your points negatively!
While we disagree, I have been known to enjoy a good discussion, especially if thought-provoking points are raised. Even if we should not reach an agreement, agreeing to disagree is not necessarily a bad conclusion, as long as each party has made a reasonable effort to understand the other's point of view.
A thought recently crossed my mind. We are able to hold a pleasantly well-mannered exchange of view, in part due to the limitation on freedom of speech enforced both by moderation and downvoting. I'd argue that these limits make Hacker News a much more pleasant forum than, say, Youtube.
> Ah. I'm afraid this is solely a consequence of a lack of clarity on my part. I did not mean "shaky" as in "it would be morally dubious to convict a person", I meant "shaky" as in "it would legally difficult to convict a person".
I don't think so. I took your point to mean precisely what you intended, that is to say that it's of questionable legality to arrest someone simply because of an opinion not immediately exercised as a threat. Morality hadn't entered my mind.
Although now that you mention it, the morality of arresting someone for committing no more harmful an act than simply opening their mouth is another point of interest, but somewhat unrelated to this discussion. The state of affairs abroad in non-Western parts of the world is generally such that arrests made against such horrid perpetrators of free speech are commonplace. It gives me pause for thought to be thankful that we can have this conversation without immediate fear for our lives.
> I'm afraid my expertise is once lacking, but my understanding was that the most common motive for enjoying such comforts as provided by the US taxpayer is a conviction for drug possession.
While that is certainly true, in cases where a suspect is not found with such paraphernalia and they're especially noisome or talkative, you have other amusing tools at your disposal such as "resisting arrest." A skilled DA could contort those into drug charges, I'm sure, but my point was that it can take very little to wind up behind bars if you're in the wrong neighborhood, the wrong color, dressed the wrong way, or simply seen as a belligerent public nuisance.
I count my lucky stars that I live in a predominantly redneck area in the country where law enforcement generally knows all the townsfolk and is quite friendly and helpful.
> We are able to hold a pleasantly well-mannered exchange of view, in part due to the limitation on freedom of speech enforced both by moderation and downvoting. I'd argue that these limits make Hacker News a much more pleasant forum than, say, Youtube.
The hilarious part about this is that I don't completely agree, because we're 1) exercising our freedom of speech and 2) are sufficiently well-disciplined to hold a mutually respectful discourse (therefore, such limitations on speech are not in danger of being invoked). I suspect that if the HN audience were as broad and numerous as Youtube, we'd have the same problem here, so I'd argue that it's not so much limited free speech (or limitations placed thereon) as much as it is the advantage of a niche community that grant us such fortune. Someone on HN made a comment yesterday or the day before relating trends of the sort to the transformation of Reddit from a reasonable place to hold programming-related discussions to one of the biggest sources of cat pictures and memes on the Internet.
Though I do get the point you're raising, and I understand the use of it as an example, even if I am in disagreement. ;)
> The state of affairs abroad in non-Western parts of the world is generally such that arrests made against such horrid perpetrators of free speech are commonplace. It gives me pause for thought to be thankful that we can have this conversation without immediate fear for our lives.
Certainly, but in many of these countries, there is no need of a legal framework to disappear people, should they prove too troublesome. Laws are more guidelines than a strictly enforced system.
> While that is certainly true, in cases where a suspect is not found with such paraphernalia and they're especially noisome or talkative, you have other amusing tools at your disposal such as "resisting arrest." A skilled DA could contort those into drug charges, I'm sure, but my point was that it can take very little to wind up behind bars if you're in the wrong neighborhood, the wrong color, dressed the wrong way, or simply seen as a belligerent public nuisance.
I am fortunate to live in a place (Denmark) where the justice system does not take the punitive approach I regularly read about in the US. Though I haven't had interaction with the justice and law enforcement apparatus here, I do think it's a lot harder to end up in jail.
> I suspect that if the HN audience were as broad and numerous as Youtube, we'd have the same problem here, so I'd argue that it's not so much limited free speech (or limitations placed thereon) as much as it is the advantage of a niche community that grant us such fortune.
On the other hand, one of the reason the level of conversation has remained at this level is, I believe, by the enforcement of community standards, whereby newcomers are educated via downvotes, and abusers are hellbanned (though I think hellbanning is used too liberally - one lapse in judgment should not result in hellbanning). I agree that these limitations, being primarily enforced via community standards, are a more gentle way of handling the issue than a legal solution. As for reddit, you can still have good programming-related discussions in specific languages sub-reddits, but I don't know if r/programming has ever been good. But once again, if things have drifted the wrong way, it would be due to a lack of enforcement of standards of behaviour.
Your argument seems to suggest that you think that speech should be entirely unrestricted. I don't know of any country in the world that has ever had such a policy. Even though it may be one of the countries in which speech is most protected, there are still a fair few limitations in the US [1].
So I'm not clear whether you're arguing for a radical position of no limits at all to speech, or if you're trying to put forward your own particular view of which parts of speech should be considered legal and which illegal (which as you rightly point out is problematic unless the distinctions and reasons for them are made very clear, which you don't seem to do).
I'm using the extremist position as illustrative rather than prescriptive, because my personal conviction is that hate speech legislation can ultimately be more harmful toward public dialog, particularly if it is abused. That's not to say hate speech isn't without its consequences. I suspect you understood that given the remainder of your comment.
What ultimately bothers me most is the knee-jerk "ban all hate speech" approach as a solution for deeper societal problems that aren't simply going to be fixed by censoring words, which is what started this thread.
Interestingly, the Wikipedia link you shared addresses points I didn't have in mind when I posted my comment (namely obscenities, child porn, etc. that have all be attempted in some form or other to be protected under "free speech"). Specifically, I had in mind the written or spoken word rather than necessarily depictions or offense (but then that leads us to the debate of what is "art" and whether or not specific artwork could be construed as free speech or otherwise--it's a broad topic).
The curious thing with regards to obscenity is that cultural restrictions on it have loosened over time. Larry Flint's success before SCOTUS in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell [1] comes to mind as an example. This is why "free speech" is a contentious issue, because it seems that no one can generally agree on what should or shouldn't be protected and what should or shouldn't be censored by the government or by governmental agencies.
The French Government had videos of Police officers mocking minorities removed from various news organizations.
Law for Trust in the Digital Economy (LCEN) Article 18 grants the French Government the ability to remove any content that may destabilize the public, hurt nation defense, or physically harm persons.
That being said currently France is ranked #6 out of all nations in terms of Internet Freedom, due to internet policing while being possible rarely exercised.
>> The French Government had videos of Police officers mocking minorities removed from various news organizations.
Well, in almost every country, police force recruit among the least brilliant. Hatred of differences is what stupid people do. Violence is what stupid people do when given power to do so (intelligent people handed power preferring control over violence). So no big surprise here when it come to police.
The government point is more worrying, but I don't remember any incident of that kind under current government.
You can read (in french: http://hollande-demission.fr/) how the government BURNT protesters' banner... and other similar illegal actions, like taking "stealing" their car with no legal ground (they pretend "Hollande démission" is an ad)
This group calls for the dismissal (démission) of president Hollande.
That's how you can tell if newspapers are objective or not: you don't hear much about him in "balanced sources of information"... and you definitely don't hear about his banner or car.
He has complained in court against these actions... We'll see how it goes.
In the meantime, you can watch his videos, and see the cops take his car (quite objective and balanced source of information :-)
> That's how you can tell if newspapers are objective or not: you don't hear much about him in "balanced sources of information"... and you definitely don't hear about his banner or car.
I don't have French TV here (or French newspapers) but judging from the little I can find on the Internet about this character, I'm not convinced much of his activities is particularly newsworthy.
What about that French comedian that has your government exploring ways to ban his act? his material maybe reprehensible but in the US he'd have first amendment protection. Your country also has draconian and stringent liable laws, and I don't want it to have anything to do with Internet governance.
> What about that French comedian that has your government exploring ways to ban his act?
Well, what about him? France is not the US, you have hate laws here. Nobody is trying to ban him because he is criticizing the government.
That's not parent is saying anyway: Perhaps they'll uses the French model and make it illegal to say anything critical about the French government. Last time I checked, the Figaro and le Point (conservative newspapers) were alive and well.
Exactly right, the problem is that you're not the US.
"Hate laws" are censorship. "Hateful" speech is equally protected under the US constitution, and any political movements it might inspire will not be infringed upon by the government.
The fundamental problem with "hate laws" in the context of speech is the definition of "hate", totalitarian governments tend to widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries, this might be theoretical in your case but it's still an attack victor.
The Internet must be built on the example of the "freest" framework available and that is the US's.
> Exactly right, the problem is that you're not the US.
Exactly right about what? The original claim is that the French government is trying to muzzle criticism. You then bring up the case of a humorist condemned for his antisemitic views as a supporting example. This doesn't make any sense, unless you're going for some weird conspiracy theory - in which case, I'll believe any conspiracy theory as long as comes with convincing evidence, of which there doesn't seem to be any.
> The fundamental problem with "hate laws" in the context of speech is the definition of "hate", totalitarian governments tend to widen that definitions in order to suppress adversaries, this might be theoretical in your case but it's still an attack victor.
> The Internet must be built on the example of the "freest" framework available and that is the US's.
I'm on the fence about it. Besides, even in the US there are limits on freedom of speech.
Don't mind this story. It is 10% social pacification[1] and 90% hopeless PR stunt conflating many issues into one for they're barely capable of managing anything else. If they ever spend time on low-hanging things like this they will create more pain for themselves.
[1] there were many people diverting his 'jokes' into offensive acts, not by his call but he kept the heater on when asked to tame it down.
You don't have a free speech clause in your constitutions that is above all else (neither does the UK). You ban or at least attempt to ban questionable comedy/satire. You have ridiculous liable laws (so does the UK). You're government mustn't be allowed within a mile (1.60934 km) of an Internet governing body.
First it's not "above all else" seeing that it's "Article 10".
Second, the second clause basically negates the first one in its entirety:
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
The USA's first amendment of the constitutions includes no such concession nor limitations.
> The USA's first amendment of the constitutions includes no such concession nor limitations
As a Brit, my knowledge of US law is limited, but that seems pretty clearly false. The exceptions and limitations are set out in case law rather than in the text of the amendment (as they are in A.10), but that doesn't mean they don't exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_excep... lists the main ones (Miller v. California, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, etc.). The areas covered seem at a glance to be broadly similar to those in A.10(2).
I think it's probably true that exceptions to the US 1st amendment are narrower than those to A.10 -- the US does indeed have fairly strong free speech protection -- but that's a long way from saying there aren't any!
(I don't think I'd want free speech to be an unqualified right, either. Many of the limitations in the US and EU seem broadly sensible - obvious example: there are good consequentialist reasons for restricting the distribution of child pornography).
* They aren't like Asmiov laws. The order doesn't matter. In either the Articles or the order of the Constitution. They are numbered more for convenience than anything else.
* There are similar restrictions on the US 1st Amendment. Crying "fire" in a theater is the common example. I note that the 1st Amendment didn't protect Manning for very similar reasons. The EU law is just being more explicit.
To be fair, the GCHQ mass surveillance in the UK arguably contravenes the European Commission charter on human rights, it's just that the UK gov/GCHQ aren't being held accountable.
The EU commission has several directives MANDATING member states implement internet surveillance. If you think "human rights" means no surveillance ... Where do you even get that idea ?
The EU commission mandates that any ISP and/or Telco stores for 6-24 months the full list of everyone you've contacted, on phone, on the internet.
They are proposing, right fucking now, that that information is mandated to include all searches done one the internet (that such is technically not possible - currently - does not bother lawyers, and I think you'll find all EU commissars are lawyers. They'll just force search engines to give them their ssl root keys).
Note that they also had a court case against Ireland when it refused to order it's ISPs to spy on everyone, and won. In other words they forced internet surveillance on the one country that wasn't already doing this.
Likewise this proposal would enable them to force this on non-member states and you can bet that's exactly what they're looking to do.
Article 8 & 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
Well aware that they are proposing stupid stuff, but surely that's unenforceable? In any case, it's one of those where I'd argue the problem is therefore up to them to reconcile the stupid surveillance laws with their more fundamental principles.
> in England where the government decides what you should be watching
ISPs voluntarily (yes, voluntarily) agreed to ask new customers if they want to block certain categories of content (gambling, violence, adult material, etc.).
This is not censorship. At first I could understand some people being ignorant of the situation and assuming it was some Firewall of China for porn, but now it's taking the piss.
That's true, so I think the "omg big brother" people should calm down a bit. That having been said, this is the first step to softening people up so they'll accept more stringent/imposed censorship down the line, so it's still something we should argue against (but misrepresenting the issue does us no favors, I agree).
Nobody is seriously saying that this is censorship. The main worry is that it's a slippery slope that promotes, technically and culturally, censorship in the future.
Maybe not here, and I suppose my comment was more of a reaction to the people who are completely ignorant of the "porn block", but I've heard people go as far as making comparisons to dictatorial countries.
I agree it's a slippery slope and I do oppose it, but the hyperbole and sensationalism from "our" side of the debate does nobody any good.
> Perhaps they'll uses the French model and make it illegal to say anything critical about the French government
Source needed. I live in France and you can say whatever you want about the french, but being silent (online or not) about their government is not one of their sins.
"Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather."
no matter what the intentions, this sort of notion that we have to formalize the governance of the internet seems like just the sort of thing to bring about a "death by committee" when it comes to internet freedom.
Personally, I don't understand how the current governance of the internet is an issue. The only thing that enables stuff like all the NSA spying is that American companies are by and large the major providers of services. No amount of governance will fix that problem.
On the other hand, many European countries do have some pretty heavy-handed approaches to information regulation, which I definitely would not want to affect the status quo.
Some here are quick to dismiss it as another attempt at "evil government seizing the control over oh-so-free Internet", whereas if you actually read what's there it's more about taking the governance over Internet out of American hands (basically what ICANN wants anyway) + doing something (not sure what exactly) to ensure the freedom in the Internet.
Not bad ideas in themselves, dunno about the execution. Personally I think it wouldn't be that bad to have some governmental control over some of the Internet functions.
Prefer this instead of leaving it at hands of corporations that only care about money (even if I agree that it's all a muddy area that can lead to some bad stuff too).
Let's face it, the internet is centralized (hierarchical), not distributed. ICANN has taken giant steps to being a "global" organization, but in the end it's still a californian non-profit.
These reforms seem to just aim to make ICANN a more globally managed organization, and increase transparency in top-level decisionmaking. I can't see anywhere where it says it wants to increase governments' ability to block cat videos.
Shame Neelie Kroes will be gone soon. She's been pushing some pretty good digital agendas with her position in the EU Commission. Hopefully her work won't be undone by whoever replaces her after the EU elections.
Let's hope that at least this part of her work referenced in this article dies the quick death it deserves.
She basically wants the global ability to impose EU laws, like worse copyright than the US, outlawing certain political views, and so on. And she wants to do this through technical means.
"globalise key decision-making (for example the coordination of domain names and IP addresses) to safeguard the stability, security and resilience of the Internet"
Sounds like they want to make the internet a more centrally-controlled thing "to protect you better". Internet does not need any central oversight and regulation. People just need freedom to move their bytes around as cheap as possible. We are capable to figure out how to build secure schemes, encrypted channels etc on our own, completely voluntarily. Everyone is able to choose tools and protocols that suit them best.
Isn't the "management" of the internet already kind of off-hands by the US gov and somewhat open (I'm not talking about the spying stuff). Especially with regards to the draconian ways other countries treat it (China, Iran, etc).
So what the EU really is saying is that they want to lock things down a bit further.
The want more domain-name control, more gov level blocking and filtering, more surveillance, more data retention, and all kinds of new laws.
The sad part of all this is the naive crowd here is probably thinking - finally, let them stick it to the US!
Or they don't want the domain root in the hands of a private company that keeps selling ever-crappier TLDs to make money, making the net worse for everyone? Just a thought.
I don't know whether to agree with this or not. On one hand, a control point can easily be exploited by governments to censor and control users. On other, uncontrolled internet tends to form around where money is. And money is again in the governments that have enough to turn internet to their advantage. EC would be better after all, because that way we have to fight not with multibillion dollars of investments from large governments, but with votes while electing commission members.
"while electing commission members". Minor point, but EU Commissioners are not elected. They are appointed by national governments, 1 per state. MEPs are elected, but have significantly less power than EU Commissioners.
Governments have some control over the 'managing' and 'running' of the Internet, via TLD control, blocking, filtering, surveillance and legislation (e.g. the cookie law in EU), but even with all these in place, they're not really 'running' the Internet. If they did, there'd be no newsgroups, no torrents and no porn. They're seizing more control as time goes on, however: See the death of Net Neutrality in the US.
I'd like to see governments pledge to back off from the Internet. Unfortunately I can't see that ever happening. Forever pushing for more governance means that the non-government-approved portion will get bigger and erect more walls around it. If governments want to govern, they need to be more accepting of the 'net in its natural state and deal with it on those terms, rather than forcing citizens to choose to be on the 'light side' or 'dark side' (choose for yourself which term applies to which).
"Net neutrality" is the government "seizing more control". And not in some abstract way either, that is literally the goal. If it had actually "died" then that would have been a good thing, for those opposed to government control.
> "Net neutrality" is the government "seizing more control"
Good point. Telling infrastructure providers they must treat all traffic the same and telling them they must prioritize certain traffic is the same thing from a government power perspective.
Being for "net neutrality" is one thing. However, being for net neutrality and being for less government control of the internet makes no sense.
The root problem is the load of nonsense that was peddled about the net being resilient to nuclear war etc. When really it's too centralized. The killer transition that needs to occur is to move DNS from being authoritative to being a matter of opinion. (Rather like having multiple got repos instead of a central SVN server). This would solve a lot of problems, but prevent the US from projecting a lot of soft power around.
Yeah, I think namecoin is likely to be closer to the future, however, I still think the whole system would be more robust if it acknowledged that, for example, China and the US could run conflicting DNS systems and that this is perfectly OK, largely because this way we'd be forced to accept the reality of the situation instead of living in the silly illusion we have today.
The whole PKI setup needs to be rebooted as well, and I really can't believe anyone that understands how that works considers it to be a good idea.
> The whole PKI setup needs to be rebooted as well, and I really can't believe anyone that understands how that works considers it to be a good idea.
I still never met a PKI alternative that was a good idea. Of course, I didn't look at all candidates, but one'd expect that if something was ready to replace it, everybody would be talking about it.
They'll put more and harsher regulations on American companies until they say yes. So I'm fine with whatever decision US makes, because I wouldn't mind if US companies (and the US government by proxy) wouldn't have a monopoly on EU users's data anymore.
You want governments to decide market winners and losers?! the fact that US companies are successful in Europe and Europeans are less so is partly due to the fact that they don't suffer from the backwards economic views you're currently displaying.
> the fact that US companies are successful in Europe and Europeans are less so is partly due to the fact that they don't suffer from the backwards economic views you're currently displaying.
That's kinda harsh, there might be other reasons too[1].
It's European companies that get interfered with by their governments and that is a big part of the problem. There is no such thing as "secret assistance" in the US, and "level playing field" is another bullshit buzzword which means governments get to device about the companies they like best.
Your economic woes are all your fault, own up to them and start changing things, ignorantly blaming others won't get you anywhere.
> There is no such thing as "secret assistance" in the US
US spy agencies assisting Boeing with their bid against Airbus may not be secret anymore, but it was certainly intended as such.
The US government negotiating in Russia on behalf of Visa and MasterCard may not be secret, but it's certainly not the kind of assistance smaller companies can count on.
Face it, the US government and US corporations are in bed together. They represent each other's interests. This happens on a scale you don't see in the EU, or probably anywhere else.
I don't know what economic woes you are referring to, but I don't thing selling your government to the corporations is healthy for your economy.
It's not a secret that the US spys help US corporations, and it would be incredibly naive to think that the european equivalent didn't happen. But the US spying apparatus is much bigger than what any european country has, givin it an upper hand.
Also, european countries mess more with its market. From highter taxes to strict rulebooks categorizing products and amounts to be produced, the EU goes over all possibilities for creating a big government. The US interferes much less, and has an upper hand because of it.
Exactly what they have been doing all along : complain about NSA spying. Wasn't that obvious from the press release ?
> In the wake of large-scale Internet surveillance and reduced trust in the internet, the European Commission today proposes a key reform to the way the Internet is managed and run. The proposal calls for more transparent, accountable and inclusive governance.
This is the justification. What do they want :
a) Control over IP address assignment and root DNS zones.
In other words the power to force anyone off the internet, and the power to revoke and/or change any domain name. They have long attempted, futile, to force thepiratebay off the internet, they even managed to force on of their hosters to kick them out once.
b) A strengthening of the global Internet Governance Forum
I read this as that they are aware that ICANN and IANA have no real power. The real power is in the hands of "tier 1" ISPs and they are locked into an open internet because there is no monopoly.
In other words : they want to eliminate the historical accident that lead to the current level of internet freedom.
c) "A review of conflicts between national laws or jurisdictions that will suggest possible remedies"
Now this one is REALLY important. I read this to mean they want to know how they can impose European law globally through technical means.
Now of course the EU commission itself does large-scale internet surveillance like the US does. With 3 important differences :
1) the cost is borne by the companies, not the EU. Everything is purely based on legal threats, and everybody is everybody's adversary. Meaning for actual crimes, (e.g. missing child) it's effectiveness is pretty much zero.
2) The US has a minimal level of legal oversight. Yes, we're talking secret courts, and top-secret subpaenas. I don't claim it's ideal, but it's better than the EU. Here's how it works in the EU. Firstly any of the executives of the member nations can decide to get information, plus a set of "blessed" EU agencies, like interpol.
Second as opposed to the US where at that point an order is delivered to the intercepting party, where it is evaluated by legal (hopefully, and usually), and then complied with, in the US an ISP is forced to provide interception capabilities on a government VLAN, where they enter the IP(s) they want intercepted and get a live traffic dump. It is actually a crime to check what the government is spying on.
3) Unlike in the US, this data has actually been used for large scale copyright blocking (google "French 3 strikes law" without legal recourse. Yes that's what they used their spying powers for.
Their objective is NOT to eliminate American spying on Europeans, but rather to "harmonize the regulations". In other words, they essentially want access to the NSA data about Americans without oversight. They want to make sure Americans can get disconnected when the MPAA claims 3 times they've downloaded an mp3. They want the ability to disconnect sites that violate EU expression laws (e.g. criticism of some royalty, various outlawed political factions like nazism and marxism, European libel law, trademark protection, ...), they want companies to have to ask them (meaning: pay them) for permission before offering something like Uber anywhere in Europe. They want tax income for international purchases.
Please keep what the UN and the EU are trying to do in mind next time you hear Europeans complain about NSA spying. The only thing the commission is upset about is that they can't spy on Americans the way (they think) Americans can spy on the EU. I'm saying "They think" because while the NSA does appear to have invasive spying, it seems extremely unlikely to me that it has anywhere near the claimed breath.
Please do NOT make the mistake to think this criticism anything but a concerted effort to kill the Internet. It is no different from the UN efforts to do the same [1]. This is the government that didn't so much as voice concern about the protest killings in Turkey.
Ok, you notice that it's about putting numbers and names at the UN, not the EU, right? Also:
> In other words the power to force anyone off the internet
Yes, they want to take that power away from the US government, and give it to a UN forum. Don't pretend that power does not exist today, or that it isn't used.
> I read this as that they are aware that ICANN and IANA have no real power.
I read this as a bunch of gliberish that politicians use to make their documents look good. But if it is related to peering agreements, like you said, yep, there is a history of trying to break the current peering agreement, and break the current US monopoly on tier 1 ISPs.
> Now this one is REALLY important. I read this to mean they want to know how they can impose European law globally through technical means.
I read this to mean they want to make an agreement on a minimum of things that must be allowed on every country, like the one on aviation. Currently there are countries where you don't even need to go there to be sentenced to jail, for example. And there is a huge number of issues with taxation.
Neelie Kroes is pretty much the only notable politician I'd trust to get this right. She's generally on the side of openness, transparency, competition, etc. You might have heard of her before in the base of the EU vs. Microsoft at the height of their monopoly.
I'd like to see a system based on the bitcoin protocol handling the TLD (namecoin?): You can't block it, you have public access to the registration data and with US, China, Russia and the EU involved, it's hard to achieve a 51%-attack.
I think a 51% attack would be really scary in this case, and quite realistic. If the US and the rest of the EU all decided they wanted some domain off the internet, combined they'd probably have enough power to fork the blockchain.
The biggest threat to internet is from governments. Time to think of an independent, autonomous internet that is dynamically formed and cannot be controlled or monitored by design
...and in that new, great Internet you will get the natural monopolies, same as we have them today (Google, Facebook), only this time they won't be under supervision of any democratic government.
Government control of the internet, by any government, will inevitably lead to censorship.
Edit: to address comments
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Unit...
There is an ongoing program to introduce a broad system of default blocking of certain types of content to all Internet users in the UK. New customers have their Internet access filtered at the ISP level so that certain web sites are blocked