Bill Thompson's article in the Register 2

[petermeachem]

I wonder if anyone has read this

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/26612.html

and if they have any thoughts. Comments on the article are at

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/26685.html

Hopefully I won't get flagged for this. I'm generally interested in views. Bill seems to have stirred up quite a furore. Peter Meachem
peter @ accuflight.com

 

[sleipnir214]

He rants well. Too bad he doesn't also have some kind of idea what he is talking about.

Here's this quote:
I believe that the time has come to speak out in favour of a regulated network; an Internet where each country can set its own rules for how its citizens, companies, courts and government work with and manage those parts of the network that fall within its jurisdiction; an Internet that reflects the diversity of the world's legal, moral and cultural choices instead of simply propagating US hegemony; an Internet that is subject to political control instead of being an uncontrolled experiment in radical capitalism. It is time to reclaim the net from the Americans.

Didn't Australia, for example, just pass pretty restrictive laws governing content?

Second quote:
If I phone someone in Nigeria and suggest a money-laundering fraud then it is obvious to all that I am breaking the law in two countries

Since when was it ever 'obvious'? Remember all the jurisdictional problems when attempting to hold trials for the Libyan terrorists who put the bomb aboard Pan Am flight 103? (For those who can't keep them straight, that's the one that blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland)

Third quote:
Europe is the birthplace of the Web, with a wealthy, technically literate population, a network infrastructure that rivals that of the US

I've used the residential phone service provided by the Deutches Bundespost, and I know of villages in Germany to this day which only have one phone -- a public pay phone. There used to be a running joke in France that there are two types of people: those who are waiting for a phone to be installed, and those who are waiting for a dial tone. (I don't know if the French joke is still true or not.)

And I think his analysis of the U. S. Constitution is merely a case of document envy. I'd rather worry about how many Founding Fathers can stand on the head of a pin than worry about what impact the 500-year-old legal decision of an illiterate Norman duke will have on my case. ______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!

 

[AIXSPadmin]

The internet is an evolution of the network started by the US government (DARPA) during the sixties used by researchers.

Go ahead and create your own "internet", nothing is stopping any country from doing it. There is work going on in the US to create a second internet.

 

[petermeachem]

I didn't know about the Australian laws, so I just looked it up.

http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/cens3.html

shows attempts (abortive) by US central government and states as well as a lot of other states to try to block porn. I think his point is that why should the rest of the world accept predominance of the US on the Internet. I'm sure the Saudis for instance dislike a US Internet just as much as the US would dislike a Saudi one.

The fact that a law is broken is obvious. I believe the problem with the Lockerbie bomb was in getting the accused out of Libya. Quite a different matter.

I'm surprised by what you say about german phones, possibly remote places in ex-east germany. At any rate, I'm sue that searching would find places in the US without phones. Wasn't aware of any problems in France. I have French relatives, they've never mentioned any. No exceptional problems in UK, apart from rural adsl anyway.

I don't think envy of the US constitution is particularly widespread. I didn't understand the norman duke sentence. That is not my understanding of the UK legal system anyway.

The point of the article surely is that if the US choose to be ruled by a written constitution and we choose to be ruled by what a duke said 500 years ago, then we should both be free to abide by our legal system and not be forced to accept someones elses. Peter Meachem
peter @ accuflight.com

 

[tomed]

The point of the article surely is that if the US choose to be ruled by a written constitution and we choose to be ruled by what a duke said 500 years ago, then we should both be free to abide by our legal system and not be forced to accept someones elses.

I think that was supposed to be the point of the article, but he ends up simply making fun of US government.

What if, by creating internet laws, the US is trying to do exactly what he's suggesting. What if all the lawmakers are trying to do is protect US citizens from the exact things that he wants Europeans protected from? Is it the US government's fault that the internet is a multi-national entity? Maybe the US is simply one step ahead of Europe in trying to govern US content on the web.

 

[MasterRacker]

As AIXSPadmin said: there is nothing stopping any country from cutting themselves off from the Internet and putting up their own private network. You have two kinds of networks: commercialized and tax burden. Someone has to pay for it all one way or another. Let everyone go for it and create their own networks. A complete free for all. Let the best network win. Sounds like fun. It'll be just like the good old days when you had to dial one number to get to Compuserve and another number to get to AOL and another number to get to MSN, etc. (And if you were a Compuserver member you could only e-mail other Compuserve members....)

Yup, if free competition and free speech is too hot for 'em then cut the land lines, scramble the satellite signals and buidl their own private little network. More power to them.
Jeff
No matter how bad it is, it can always get worse ....

 

[petermeachem]

According to the efa site

The USA Government has enacted two Federal laws intended to censor offensive online content. Neither of these laws are in force as at March 2002. The first law (the CDA) was struck down by the USA Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. The second law (the COPA), which is more narrowly focussed and covers only communications that are made for commercial purposes on the World Wide Web, is the subject of a Court injunction (also on First Amendment grounds) preventing its enforcement pending a decision of the Supreme Court. The Court decision is expected to be handed down in the latter part of 2002.

Since 1996, four U.S. states, New York, New Mexico, Michigan and Virginia have passed Internet censorship legislation restricting/banning online distribution of material deemed "harmful to minors". These laws have been struck down on Constitutional grounds.

the US government is trying to regulate the Internet, but the First Amendment (is that freedom of speech?) is stopping it. Is that the point Thompson is making?

And will regulation have a good or bad effect. Peter Meachem
peter @ accuflight.com

 

[sleipnir214]

tomed, my point exactly, though you brought home the point more clearly than I.

petermeachem, As I recall, there was intense debate among various nations as to where the trial of the Libyans would be held. In any regard, the rant doesn't cover the matter of my calling a cohort in Nairobi to set up a scam to rip off a company in Belgium. Now I'm suddenly breaking three country's laws, or only if I don't get caught before I act?

As to my comment about the illiterate Norman, isn't U.K. legal precendent and it's unwritten constitution based on about 700 years of law and tradition? And wasn't it common for nobles to be illiterate 500 years ago? (Although it may have been an illiterate Saxon duke, not an illiterate Norman duke.)

Thompson somehow attempts to simultaneously argue that U.S. law serves to extend some kind of digital empire over the internet, yet that at any time another country can pass laws which seem to have just as much power over the internet as the U.S. laws. Which is it? An indefatigable empire encroaching on every other country's way of life, or something which can be countered as easily as passing a law forbidding jay-walking?

Not, of course, that passing a European-wide law is that easy. EU regs can't even get greengrocers to all agree to use the metric system. (

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1269000/1269043.stm

,

http://www.footrule.org/Seeing Sense.htm

______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!

 

[MasterRacker]

Pretty much all regulation is bad. A free market system works, it just takes time. People use courts to try and force quick resolution. Anything people dislike enough to quit buying will eventually go under as the producers run out of money. It may take ten years, but it will happen.

(Until you can push beer through wires, all networks are semi-useless crap. I want my own Internet that does nothing but stream beer and 24/7 Pro Wrestling....)
Jeff
No matter how bad it is, it can always get worse ....

 

[tomed]

the US government is trying to regulate the Internet, but the First Amendment (is that freedom of speech?) is stopping it.

Which is exactly what the US government is designed to do - checks and balances. The legislative branch (congress) creates laws - the judicial branch (supreme court) makes the decision as to whether or not those laws are fair.

I don't know about you but it looks like to me the "250 year old piece of paper" that we govern our country by, seems to be serving it's purpose quite well in this example.

 

[petermeachem]

Uk law is based on case law and parliamentary law. Implying that we are controlled by 14th century law is somewhat absurd.

And that is one solitary completely daft greengrocer.

Does the first amendment stop any law that could in any way be construed as some sort of loss of freedom of communication?

I'm not sure that all regulation is bad. Was Enron at least partially due to lack of regulation, or could regulation have prevented the problem.

I think Thompson was saying that there is a perception that
"The other thing we need to lose is the ridiculous belief that when we are online we are somehow in 'another place' outside the real world."
and that this prevents national control.

The problem from his perspective is that the US law doesn't have any effective control over the Internet. US business does and as soon as your government tries to formulate what seems to me to be a perfectly sensible law to reduce porn, they get told it is against the constitution.
Peter Meachem
peter @ accuflight.com

 

[sleipnir214]

Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's pretty clear-cut. All it takes is for someone to successfully argue that porn is free speech (which has been done before. Rent the movie The People vs Larry Flint to see a fictional account of such an event), then any law which abridges that freedom of speech is in violation of the constitution.

I agree that sometimes the current canonical interpretation of the U.S. Constitution nullifies some good-intentioned laws. But if I am going to reserve the right to say that something you've said is crap, I must reserve the right for you to say the crap in the first place.

Previous interpretations of the Constitution allowed government more leeway to censor. One example is the way it was interpreted in the 1950s and 1960s. But that interpretation also allowed McCarthyism and civil rights violations.


petermeachem, I never said that the UK was controlled by 14th century law any more than I said that the US was controlled by the number of Founding Fathers who could dance on the head of a pin. I implied nothing -- you misinferred.

By the way, what is the limit (in years) in the UK on how old an example of parliamentary or case law must be before it would no longer be applied to my own legal wranglings?
______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!

 

[AIXSPadmin]

"US law has no effective control over the internet?" Well, it seems to me that the FDA has some control, Bristol-Meyers Squibb cannot just setup a web site and let anyone order any medication they make. That is just one example, there would be many others, too. As stated by MasterRacker, if they don't buy it, then it goes away. It costs money to operate a commercial website, any private business won't spend money on anything that is continually in the red.

Regulation does not breed competition, but it controls and stifles competition, and as a side-effect prices increase, though of course, some regulation is needed, but not in every case and every time.

"Does the first amendment stop any law that could in any way be construed as some sort of loss of freedom of communication? " No. One cannot say whatever they want to get the results they demand. There was a case of someone using the interent to post fraudulent information to cause the prices of stocks to go up/down, generating a profit for that individual. That is first ammendment speech; saying anything he wanted to, but of course the First Ammendment does not protect unlawful crimes.

 

[sleipnir214]

I actually have a couple of questions I'd like to ask Mr. Thompson:

1. How come when another country passes a law controlling internet content, it's good, but when the US does it, it's bad?

2. Who does he know of who's been tried by a military tribunal and executed in secret? (I'm really curious about this one.)


I'd love to see him read it out loud. I can almost see the froth dripping from his lips. ______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!

 

[petermeachem]

I don't think there is a fixed limit. It's not like a patent. If you wish to read about UK law see

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/toc.htm

petermeachem, I never said that the UK was controlled by 14th century law any more than I said that the US was controlled by the number of Founding Fathers who could dance on the head of a pin. I implied nothing -- you misinferred.

As to my comment about the illiterate Norman, isn't U.K. legal precendent and it's unwritten constitution based on about 700 years of law and tradition?

Doesn't that imply that 700 year old laws could still apply? I haven't seen anyone in the stocks for ages. I assume that for instance the burning witches one has been superceded by a later ruling. I know there was a bit of a clear out a few years back and all sorts of weird old laws were rescinded. Not that anyone would have been prosecuted for leading a sheep into the city of london (that's just a guess, but there was a lot of stuff like that).

Regulation does not breed competition, but it controls and stifles competition, and as a side-effect prices increase, though of course, some regulation is needed, but not in every case and every time.

I think Thompson and yourself disagree where the 'some' line should be.

Also regulation can be used to encourage competition. Isn't that what the restrictive Microsoft legal case was about?

Peter Meachem
peter @ accuflight.com

 

[sleipnir214]

I agree that regulation can in limited cases foster competition. That's why antimonopoly laws exist. But those laws are stronger in the US than in Europe. DeBeers doesn't have assets in the US -- their monopoly on diamonds puts them in violation of US law. But the UK and the Netherlands obviously tolerate their monopoly and control of prices, as evidenced by DeBeers' offices in London and Antwerp.


Okay, I admit that the "14th-century illiterate Norman duke" comment was sarcasm. I can only assume that Mr. Thompson's "Founding Fathers can stand on the head of a pin" comment was, too. But I look at legal systems as I do any system. And one of the first questions I ask is, "From where does the system derive its authority over its domain?"

I can answer that for the US Constitution: it's in the preamble, which begins "We the People of the United States". The US Constitution derives its authority from the will of the people -- it even says we have "ordained" the Constitution. Yeah, there are abuses of that system in the form of lobbyists and special interest groups with deep pockets. But it doesn't seem to bother enough Americans enough to do something about it. All I can do is point out the problems and suggest solutions and action.

And I'm asking this honestly, not facetiously: From where does the British constitution derive it's authority? I see where part of it is the will of the people as embodied in the House of Commons, but then there's the matter of the House of Lords and the Crown. And, yeah, all government is based on the Single Axiom of Leadership: "You can only lead if someone agrees to follow you." But I don't see how to apply this to nobles and royals.

And the strength of the constitution is that since it exists in discrete form, it can be changed. That's not to say that the British constitution can't change. But how can you know what to change if the thing you're changing isn't formally defined?



Mr. Thompson's entire rant can be summed up as, "I don't like the environment of the Internet, and we should do something about it." Fine. He should then quit bitching, roll up his sleeves, and get to work. Preferably with the "quit bitching" part first.

But blaming his visceral dislike of the environment of the internet on supposed US imperialism and 1st Amendment of the US Constitution is a specious rationalization. And his rant is so full of contradictions and wild-eyed naivety that most of his rant can't be included in any serious discussion of his views.

Contradiction: the statement that not buying into his zeitgeist is the equivalent of moving to an enclave in Oregon when it is he who proposes building an enclave that is separated from the greater internet (assuming that the combined internet in the Americas, Asia, Africa, Australia, and Russia, etc, is larger than the aggregate internet in Europe).

Naivety: his belief that a border on the .eu internet is going to stop spam and virii when there are known spammers and virus writers in Europe. His belief that perfect digital security exists anywhere. His belief that trusted computing is intended to protect anything but the digital rights of commercial producers of content.

Specious: Yes, Mr Thompson, Tim Berners-Lee invented HTML at while at CERN. But TCP/IP and UDP, the fundmental protocols on which the internet operates, are American innovations. And if Europe's digital infrastucture is as good as America's, then America's is as good as Europe's. What's your point?


On a side note (but related): Who is Bill Thompson, and why should I give care about his thoughts at all?

______________________________________________________________________
TANSTAAFL!

 

[CajunCenturion]

After reading this article (several times) I come away will more questions than answers. Is this just another case of "America Bashing", or is this a legitimate proposal for Internet Regulation?

Wouldn't his proposal to create a European network simply shift the hegemonic power from the US to Europe? If the problem is the very existance of a dictatorship, then replacing the dictator doesn't solve the problem, because its still a dictatorship. If that's not the problem, then we're back to just "America Bashing", because the basic premise of the article is that US dictatorial power over the internet is what he's sick and tired of.

With regards to freedom - on the one hand, the lambasts the US for abusing its freedom by forcing it on the rest of the world, yet he belives that he could be arrested by for no reason should he set foot in this country, because the basic freedoms upon which this country stands don't apply to him. (Why should they - he's not an American citizen). Well which is it - Do we project our beliefs of freedom throughtout the world for everyone, or do we only reserve those freedoms for our own citizens?

There are many other examples in this article of non-sequitars, and contrary thinking, but perhaps the biggest question of all is:

Could someone please explain to me how US hegemony can be held responsible for these problems with an unregulated Internet? How can "The Big Bully" push its weight around and impose and abuse freedom, on an international medium that by its very nature has no-one in control?

In summary[ul][li]the internet in unregulated[/i][li]lack of regulation has allowed US to take control (without any authority)[/li][li]US has used that control to force its value - specifically "freedom of speech" - over the rest of the world[/li][li]So now we have a big internet problem[/li][li]So lets put someone in charge[/li][li]Provide regulation and censorship, national borders[/li][li]Exercise real control over what is or is not valid content - shut some people up![/li][/ul]

Could someone explain to me how this could be consider progress? Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[petermeachem]

I think it probably depends on where you are looking from.

Do we project our beliefs of freedom throughtout the world for everyone

Not everyone has the same beliefs as the US. There is no reason to suppose that yours are any more valid than anyone elses, from someone elses point of view remember.

shift the hegemonic power from the US to Europe

I would suppose not. It would replace a supposed monopoly with whatever the opposite is.

I thought this was interesting

Even if we don't act we will still get a regulated network, because the commercial interests which dominate the US know that it is a prerequisite for a digital economy. However the shape of that network will be entirely determined by US interests, just like today.

Would US citizens be happy with an Internet controlled by commercial interests. Is it likely to happen? Would it be a good thing or bad.


Could someone please explain to me how US hegemony can be held responsible for these problems with an unregulated Internet?


I'll put this at the end because it is a really long quote. I've copied it because it is just part of a really long page at

http://www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/chunter/iic.html

I've edited it a little:-

An excellent example of the U.S. culture of code undermining foreign cultural values, is the ongoing debate between the U.S. and the European Union (EU) over the appropriate level of privacy protection which should be afforded to online users. From its inception as a U.S. military funded project, the Internet has been developed and shaped primarily by U.S. programmers. One of the uniquely American values that has become embedded in the Internet is that customer surveillance is necessary for the functioning of online advertising and e-commerce.

U.S. norms about data collection stand in sharp contrast to the European Union, which through its European Data Protection Directive, guarantees EU citizens an enforceable legal right to privacy. The Data Directive generally enshrines into law what are known as "Fair Information Practices" which include the right to know that personal data is being collected, to know what purpose such data will be used for, the right to access one's profile, the right to correct such information, and the right to seek legal redress if a company violates a consumer's privacy rights (Davies, 1998). Also within the Data Directive is an important rule known as Article 25 which prohibits EU member nations from doing business with other nations that do not provide an adequate level of privacy protection to EU citizens. This clause has threatened to create a trade war between the U.S. and the EU over the extent of appropriate privacy protections



Peter Meachem
peter @ accuflight.com

 

[CajunCenturion]

Not everyone has the same beliefs as the US. There is no reason to suppose that yours are any more valid than anyone elses, from someone elses point of view remember. Exactly right - The problem is the perceived imposition of a specific belief system - whether that belief system is based on the US system, the UK system, the Chinese system, or anyone else's system. Changing the source of the belief system doesn't solve the problem of that system being imposed on the rest of us.

I would suppose not. It would replace a supposed monopoly with whatever the opposite is. What is the supposed monopoly now, and the follow up - what does the opposite look like?

Even if we don't act we will still get a regulated network, because the commercial interests which dominate the US know that it is a prerequisite for a digital economy. However the shape of that network will be entirely determined by US interests, just like today. I agree that commercial interests will dominate the landscape - not governments. It's not the US interests - its Microsoft's interests, it's Cisco's interests, it's Airbus's interests. This is a commercial issue - not a political issue. To couch this issue in "America Bashing" sells well - but its a complete and total misrepresentation of the facts.

Privacy is a huge issue in the US, and has been since the Privacy Act of 1974. It is a gross misconception that the US does not take privacy seriously. The high standard of Privacy considerations within the US is one big reason why the criminal justice system is in trouble because of evidence obtained via Illegal Search and Seizures. The US protects the rights of privacy to a fault in many cases. You state that "customer surveillance is necessary" as being a US problem. Yet the Fair Information Practices" which include the right to know that personal data is being collected, clearly acknowledges that information IS being collected. Is that not "customer surveilllance"? Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[tomed]

Cajun, I completely agree with your points here. Thompson seems to say one thing and turn around and claim another in the next paragraph.

Could someone explain to me how this could be consider progress?

I don't think he wants progress. In fact, in a strictly "American" way of looking at it, what he wants in the opposite of progress.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with a lot of what Thompson is saying. People need to give up this thought that "cyberspace" is some imaginary other world. I think that belief causes a lot of the deviant behavior on the net.