Europe Proposes International Internet Treaty 116
Stoobalou writes "Europe has proposed an Internet Treaty to protect the Internet from the political interference which threatens to break it up. The draft international law has been compared to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which sought to prevent space exploration being pursued for anything less than the benefit of all human kind. The Internet Treaty would similarly seek to preserve the Internet as a global system of free communication that transcends national borders."
Europe? (Score:2, Insightful)
Europe is not a country. You need to clarify what institution in Eurpoe proposed this treaty, the European Union for example.
Who is Europe? (Score:3, Insightful)
The european parliament, the council, some other organisations or perhaps a country from Europe?
The article is a little bit light on detail.
What about ACTA? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who is Europe? (Score:1, Insightful)
The Council of Europe (founded 1949) is a lot older than the EU, it also contains non-EU-members, such as Russia, Switzerland and Turkey.
Re:What about ACTA? (Score:3, Insightful)
ACTA was not supposed to be a treaty, but an Agreement (that second A) - i.e., something the President could do by Executive Order. That it really was a treaty in all-but-name was a large part of the reason why I opposed it.
At any rate, ACTA came from the US. This, isn't. So, based on the limited knowledge we have, I would consider these two efforts orthogonal.
Sigh more attempts at making international rights (Score:2, Insightful)
Europe has a history of censorship (Score:2, Insightful)
Whereas the status quo does not. In Europe it is common to have bureaucrats who put into place censorship in the form of hate speech laws which don't have any clear cut boundaries (who gets to decide what kind of speech is hateful?) and I'd rather not have them be enforced for "the benefit of humanity." Besides, I don't see such a treaty being signed by countries such as Iran, China, Cuba, etc.
In other words, this sounds like a bad idea.
Regulation? (Score:2, Insightful)
As ostensibly noble-minded as this is, it's a means of saying "an international body should make internet rules". If they can have authority to force some things to be allowed, that same authority can be used to have other things banned. I would worry over any treaty that allows other nations sovereignty over what I can view or post, as many of my views on individual rights run counter to European governmental values (the freedom to own weapons that are effective against modern police and infantry, and to use them in violent acts of rebellion and insurgency should the need ever arise; the freedom to criticize religious organizations and dogma when they demonize me or attempt to seize secular power; the freedom to keep the rewards of my work rather than subsidizing others who have no intent to work at all).
Thanks, but no thanks. My political speech is already protected, I can already look at jigglers and danglers belonging to consenting adults, and there is no circumstance under which I would permit a European treaty body to have even the slightest authority over me, regardless of its stated purpose. Bureaucracies only grow, and they only do so by expanding their realm of control.
Re:Europe has a history of censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
Censorship applies to all communications. Not just facts and opinions. If I want to say something, ANYTHING, and you prevent me. You are censoring me.
Re:Oh good... (Score:1, Insightful)
They were 'pseudo-political' enough to stop ACTA, unlike corporate-political nations.
Re:Europe has a history of censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
Censorship applies to speech. Hate is speech.
Opinions may or may not be expressed as speech.
Opinions expressed as speech are protected in the US. Opinions expressed as DEEDs are not.
Why is that so hard for the rest of the world to get right?
Nazi marches down street with swastika flag in US. Protected.
Nazi smashes window of shop owned by Jewish man. Prosecuted.
Simple.
Re:Europe has a history of censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
This is VERY BAD!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Sad, Sad, Sad...
A Treaty such as this would only accomplished exactly what it is pretending to prevent. Use your brain people!
We already have the power to accomplish what this bill indicates, yet I hear no elected officials even remotely advancing ideas to that end. We only need to get the general ignorant population from voting in people with special interests... namely any candidate from any party! George Washington warned everyone about the evils of a party system in his farewell address, but 200 years later, even after he basically predicted the Civil War, we pay him no heed!
This treaty would only accomplish more control over the internet. You people forget how cunning a government is by making your believe that you are getting more with each bill signed into law, having only been taken!
Err, correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:2, Insightful)
...but first, you're never going to legislate away nationally motivated cybercrime, so that's out.
Second, as far as I can tell it was the Europeans who started getting all squirrelly about the 'nationalism' on the net when the US wouldn't do what they wanted.
No country worth it's peoples' loyalty is going to voluntarily give its sovereignty to the UN, a non-democratic pack of calumnious backbiters or bored dilettantes, depending on who you're speaking about.
Meh. It's the Internet. The US built it. If you don't like it or the rules it's operating under, build your own.
Re:Err, correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:2, Insightful)
Meh. It's the Internet. The US built it. If you don't like it or the rules it's operating under, build your own.
Do you know what the Internet is? Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet [wikipedia.org].
The US built the current Internet in the same way that the guy who built the first road built all roads.
Re:This is VERY BAD!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
"You people forget how cunning a government is by making your believe that you are getting more with each bill signed into law, having only been taken!"
I'm aware. However, what would you suggest be done? Leave it alone? That won't accomplish anything, either.
Re:Europe has a history of censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
US management of the internet has led to censorship of foreign sites globally through the court seizure of gambling domains, the court orders to take the Wikileaks domain offline and so forth.
As US management of the internet currently allows arbitrary judges to arbitrarily censor any part of the net from public view by seizing the domain names, whether based in the US or not then I don't see how a treaty to prevent exactly the sort of thing could make things worse, even if it is sponsored by Europe.
At least European censorship has to pass through democratic process and can be challenged in courts both at local and European level, rather than the arbitrary censorship US judges can impose on the internet at the behest of any random litigant requesting it currently. It's also worth noting that the US has pushed ACTA provisions, and it's comments regarding Wikileaks suggest it is moving strongly towards even greater powers and ability to censor parts of the internet at will.