This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Internet freedom: Safe or In Peril?
"They" are sniffing around the thing we call the Internet. Regulators, politicians, opportunists, and interested parties are officially coming together to focus on ideas for regulating the Internet. They are from the government and they are here to help us.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/06/22/will-un-regulate-internet-battle-for-net-freedom-nears/
Closing Statement from edward long
Seven TEDsters joined me in cogitating on this issue. There was unanimity on the sub-question: " Is action to protect internet freedom indicated?"
Here are the highlights of the ideas and concerns expressed:
1) A tax-funded, sovereign, non-profit entity created to compile an accurate representation of public sentiment and susequently authorize any major changes to internet governance.
2) The internet cannot remain free of regulation lest personal freedoms be lost. The U.N. is a good choice to be the regulating agency. No tax should ever be levied against the internet. Censorship should be exercised to remove hate speeches and all promotion of intolerance or violence.
3) All freedoms are always in peril. The U.N. is not a good choice to serve as regulator. The issue is one of concern as evidenced by 1.2 million hits on search for "Internet Governance". The key to fair regulation is honest and accurate internet polls/elections.
4) "Big Brother" is a threat to internet freedom. Many other freedoms are also in peril. Younger people tend to be unaware of the potential for loss of freedom(s).
5) The internet is a virtual sovereign nation. To preserve internet freedom from a take-over by Big Brother It must be lightly regulated by an open-source body, not the U.N. We are on the cusp of a major shift in humanity.
6) Big Brother will, by nature, try to take control of the internet. Internet is like a genie out of the bottle, very difficult to control. Nations who choose to suppress internet freedom will perish.
7) Iinternet freedom is definitely in peril.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Mitch SMith 50+
But I'm not sure how far it can go. The internet is not really understood by anyone.
What is clear is that it is a potential nation - with more voters than most countries.
This alarms most governments.
THe UN is moving to garner support to form a ruling body for the internet, however, the proposals so far are being formulated behind closed doors.
I believe the internet should become globally governed, but as an open source body.
The proliferation of negative activities on teh net cannot be controled because of national jurisdictional conflicts.
Giving the internet up to secret government representatives will disconnect the user from influence on freedoms.
I would prefer the healthy anarchy that exists today - warts and all.
Perhaps it would be worth visiting https://www.accessnow.org/ for more in-depth analysis.
edward long 100+
Mitch SMith 50+
I was a great believer in the UN.
But I don't think the net needs them now.
Geography does not matter in teh new instant communication paradigm.
Population is currently 2 billion and rising.
Armed forces could be arrange pretty quick for cyber wars. It is already in its nacent form with Anonymous.
Government (of the internet) could be arranged with a style something like wikipedia.
A currency would be pretty easy too - paypal needs a competitor anyway. It could be linked to something with true value .. say commodities .. or it could be run as a credit system financing major global infrastructure projects a la Larouche. Merchants could trade in wikidollars for international transactions. Conversion into and out of wikidollars would be based on the risk spread without hidden loadings - this would generate a surplus that could be used to fund instruments of the wikination and buy-up the ISPs. Tax would be by donation - to defined projects.
Etc.
"They" are backing the warts - "they" have too much vested interest to scrape the warts off. "They don't care about decency or law - "they" only care about treating humans like sheep - drive us down narrow channels and harvest our effort.
"They" we can do without.
edward long 100+
Mitch SMith 50+
Learning what it is is akin to learning what the air is.
As a commons, it represents a relaxation of the human spirit back to its beginnings - a kind of return to hunter-gathering. But it will need some light regulation to prevent the "tragedy of the commons" and that regulation will need to be global. If the regulation becomes heavy, then it will probably split with the commons moving into major VPN structures (virtual private network) or even alter-nets. The treaties and proposals on the table right now virtually criminalise our children .. it won't be tollerated.
edward long 100+
Mitch SMith 50+
This makes it far easier to act - the isolation from consequences emboldens the online person. So having a free opinion is easier - the force of online petitions is already havin gimpact on policy makers - with just a couple of clicks, you can add your support .. and it doesn not require the time and effort to write/post a paper letter, does not require facing a potentially beligerent voice on the telephone.
The days of elected representatives subsuming a public mandate into their personal agendas is potentially over. The isolated online-activist is not affected by corruption exerted on the representative - the game changes.
What it changes to? Who knows? You are probably correct that the "human spirit" will not be the only player on teh block.
edward long 100+
Mitch SMith 50+
Thing is that fiber optics are not all that affected - so long as you shield the electronics connected to it. So maybe one way or another, we will be forced into completely optic networks. I predicted this long ago - cellular mobile is a dead end.
I believe you are right about "they" .. but it will come down to how the various millitary forces will react to their orders.
edward long 100+
Mitch SMith 50+
When you see the light - that means that every unshielded electrical device pointing at teh galactic centre is dead, no one will have the comms to warn the rest of the world as it rolls around for its dose, and within 24 hours, everything stops.
But it's possible that no one will be near their phones, becuase the earthquakes that preceed it will have everyone occupied.
After a few weeks, the Ort cloud will start intruding against the solar wind and will start red-shifting solar light, things wil get very smoky in the heavens, the sun and moon will dim, but the temperature from re-radiated infra red will make CO2 warming look pale.
People will mobilise and unite instantly to get comms going again - there will be a lot of laying of optic fiber .. and emergency logistics will get started moving food again. But not until after a few weeks, during which all kinds of mayhem erupts.
"THey" will be hiding behind their ramparts and shelters armed to the teeth - but it won't do them any good. They will become ring-fenced and allowed to starve - a cave is a grave.
It matters not if this EMP comes from "Them" or the galactic core - pretty much same result.
"They" seem to be having fun playing dice in Syria right now .. I assume for oil.
People are not as adicted as they appear - when things are in the balance - humans get together and do damn well.
edward long 100+