'U.S. tech companies warn of threat to Internet from foreign governments
In a congressional hearing Thursday, they will warn lawmakers of a growing movement led by China, Russia and some Arab states to hand more control of the Web to the United Nations and place rules on the Internet that the U.S. companies say would empower governments to clamp down on civil rights and free speech.'
As the Economist put it about the conference:
'But the internet seems to be an even more divisive than cold-war ideology. The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai, where the ITU met to renegotiate the ITR, ended in failure in the early hours of December 14th. After a majority of countries approved the new treaty, Terry Kramer, the head of the American delegation, announced that his country is “not able to sign the document in its current form.” Shortly thereafter, at least a dozen countries—including Britain, Sweden and Japan—signalled that they would not support the new treaty either. (Update (December 14th, 3.20pm): Of the 144 countries which had the right to sign the new treaty in Dubai, only 89 have done so.)
The main issue was to what extent the internet should feature in the treaty. America and its allies wanted to keep it from being so much as mentioned—mainly out of fear that any reference to it whatsoever would embolden governments to censor the internet and meddle with its infrastructure.'
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/12/internet-regulation
The view that internet regulation can become increasingly intrusive is well made by Tommy Creegan:
'In addition, Congress is working on a renewed version of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, which gives a broad scope for various government agencies to obtain Internet users’ private browsing information. CISPA will be voted on this month.
Internet regulations come in different forms with different purposes. One: we see the government is interested in enforcing intellectual property laws. Two: government sees in the Internet untapped economic activity, from which taxes can be collected. Three: government wants the ability to collect data on citizens for “security” purposes, as demonstrated by the Patriot Act. TrapWire is another example of this that collects mass data and searches for potential terrorist threats.
Furthermore, the IRS has claimed agents do not need a warrant to read people’s private electronic communication. A recently released 2009 IRS handbook says the Fourth Amendment does not protect emails from IRS surveillance because Internet users “do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such communications.”
IRS: I am right here, and I have reasonable expectations for privacy in my online communication. I think it’s reasonable that agencies need a warrant to obtain and search my private messages. I think it’s unreasonable for me to pay taxes in another state for an online purchase. And I think it’s unreasonable that free speech and freedom of information are placed on the back burner to “intellectual property” protections.'
http://www.diamondbackonline.com/opinion/article_3503a1b6-a572-11e2-9cc7-0019bb30f31a.html
At present it seems to me that the concept of regulating the internet seems, on the surface, to be a sensible security measure to protect against malign influences (however we may define them). Yet at the deep structure level it can and will open the door to misuse of powers economically and politically, especially in the sphere of human rights and persecution.
The trick will be to find a method of regulation that guards against misuse but protects democratic rights. At the time of writing I feel that crating a watertight method of doing so is unrealistic.
No comments:
Post a Comment