Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Politics

Civil Society Statement To the E-G8 and G8 44

Posted by Roblimo
from the with-liberty-and-internet-for-all dept.
jrepin writes "The signatories of this statement are representatives of civil society from around the world working towards the promotion of Internet freedom, digital rights, and open communication. The French Presidency of the G8 is holding a G8 internet meeting -- the eG8 Forum -- immediately before the G8 Summit in Deauville, with a view to shaping the agenda of the G8 Summit regarding key global internet policy. This meeting is significant because this is the first year that the internet's role in society and the economy is explicitly on the G8 agenda. We believe that G8 Member States should use the e-G8 meeting as an opportunity to publicly commit to expanding internet access for all, combating digital censorship and surveillance, limiting online intermediary liability, and upholding principles of net neutrality."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Civil Society Statement To the E-G8 and G8

Comments Filter:
  • by symes (835608)

    Call me a cynic but I'm sure they'll come out with a statement something along the lines of internet freedom, digital rights, and open communication is a great idea so long as it is our sort of internet freedom, digital rights, and open communication and those of our sponsors.

    • by hitmark (640295)

      Hmm, nearly a week ago. No wonder then that i could not find any reactions related to it right now.

      Still, interesting that he writes that he was invited but declined as he suspect a whitewash. I wonder if the same is the case for various orgs like EFF.

  • by Kamiza Ikioi (893310) on Tuesday May 24, 2011 @01:47PM (#36230180) Homepage

    What does the first sentence have to do with the story about eG8? Is there a direct cause/effect, is the G8 recognizing it in some sort of way, or is this story exploiting the eG8 story for self-promotion?

    The eG8 story is significant, but let's not all sing Kumbaya just yet. The context is "freedom", but the content is money. The Internet is the new economic revolution. While the context of the industrial revolution may have been unions and labor law, the content for them would be how to cash in.

    What is even more significant is the idea of moving the entire G8 to an Internet meeting through an undisclosed service. And before you cheer that Anonymous would take the place of the physical protesters, it would more than likely be hosted through a private VPN service to locations around the world.

    What I would like to see, though, is a good portion of the meeting transmitted online. If they truly believe in access and against censorship, then they can at least post portions online and allow for responses.

    • by AmElder (1385909)

      Not cause and effect, contrast. The G8 will be discussing the internet and society, but the G8 organisers haven't invited the experts. People like the EFF, the Center for Internet and Society, the OSI, and the like are the folks who think the hardest and longest about how government should and shouldn't interact with the web so that it's good and not crappy. Mark Zuckerberg's there and presumably Larry Lessig isn't.

      • That makes sense. Of course, those groups don't make piles of cash. So that makes sense, too. I think it is at their loss. Of course, they aren't going to allow the RMS types in. But EFF lawyers, OSI, and the like seem like good speakers, even if they do have a natural bias... it is a bias that needs to be heard. The insulated elite draw the ire of the populous, which is something you would think centuries of experience would teach these supposedly smart people. Money no more buys success than tanks w

  • by AmElder (1385909) on Tuesday May 24, 2011 @01:53PM (#36230270) Homepage
    From TFA (the statement):

    >>>Contrary to current best practices in policymaking, the invite list has been limited primarily to representatives of government and corporate leaders, who already enjoy disproportionately large influence over Internet regulation.

    The signatories of this statement represent most of the groups that wade waist-deep into politics to promote the free and open web. They keep banging on the door, but they don't get a seat at the table. Many of these are the same groups that tried to change the ACTA treaty. As civil society members, they will always be pushing for greater transparency, better access, a more ethical approach. That's their role.

    They're right of course that if business leaders (Around 1,500 guests in all says the Guardian article) get access, the third leg of society, civic leaders, should also have a place. However, no one will just open the door and let them in. They need clout to earn a seat, and they're having trouble building it up. They need charismatic leaders, or need to be able to influence blocks of voters. Right now, they have no standing on any political stage, let alone in a summit meeting like this.

    • by hitmark (640295)

      And once a forum of any kind lets them in, the incumbents take their ball and move to a different venue (observer the near shutdown of WIPO once they let in groups to argue on behalf of the third world and the disabled).

    • Of course if they do let civilian groups in, every special interest in the world is going to be banging on the door pushing their own agenda. There will be groups pushing agendas on abortion, gay marriage, religion, gun sales, child support, and so on...
      • by AmElder (1385909)

        Yes, that's exactly what's happening, though it's not quite a free-for-all of cries for inclusion. Those invited to this "E-G8" include 'civilian groups' such as representatives of the press and business leaders. For example Cory Doctorow was invited and Larry Page apparently attended. Now the civil society groups are saying: we know all about the internet and society, you should listen to what we have to say.

        These groups (including Privacy International and La Quadrature du Net) aren't entirely naive. T

  • Ooh, it's a meaningful acronym -- a cleverly deceptive bit of wool -- A secret even when beneath nostrils!

    Here, let me translate:

    "The signatories of this statement are representatives of civil society from around the world working towards the promotion of Internet freedom, digital rights, and open communication. The French Presidency of the Gate is holding a Gate [Internet] meeting -- the e-Gate Forum -- immediately before the Gate Summit in Deauville, with a view to shaping the agenda of the Gate Summit regarding key global [Internet] policy. This meeting is significant because this is the first year that the [Internet's] role in society and the economy is explicitly on the Gate agenda. We believe that Gate Member States should use the e-Gate meeting as an opportunity to publicly commit to expanding [Internet] access for all, combating digital censorship and surveillance, limiting online intermediary liability, and upholding principles of net neutrality."

    Yeah -- clever. Combating censorship and surveillance (from governments, not for people) limiting online intermediary liability (for businesses, not people), and upholding principles of net neutrality (which we can say, because that feel-good term is not concretely defined as anything at all).

    In short, show your proof of netizenship papers at the Gate, select few shall decid

  • by Anonymous Coward

    As long as we (the general public I mean) act in way contrary to those goals, they will never come to pass.

    People still support DRM and OS-lockdown technologies that are the very same ones that can be used for control and censorship. People need to start valuing ethical considerations when purchasing, especially with mobile tech. It's too late to ever completely lock down general PCs, but with mobile becoming an ever bigger fraction of computing, we are teetering on the brink of the public losing control

  • by alexmin (938677) on Tuesday May 24, 2011 @02:18PM (#36230564)

    He's constantly poking his nose into different things which are none of his business. With abysmal results as well.
    Just couple months ago he dragged us into this Libya thing. Before that was global banking regs (did not go well either.) Even before that he "negotiated" with Russia during Georgian war - and Putin basically had him to fuck off.

    Could French finally have this clown stop?

    • by Issarlk (1429361)
      Not before 2012, sadly. It will be the best year ever just for the pleasure of seeing him go!
      • Ya know, monkey boy was reelected as well, it's not a given yet that he's a goner.

        Remember that the amount of people who care about freedom are a minority today. I'm pretty sure he did some "good" things too (for different definitions of "good") that some people will like him for. Couldn't think of any right now, but then, I don't pay too much attention to the garden gnome.

    • by elrous0 (869638) *

      Good luck stopping him. And if you try, good luck when the CIA sets you up on a rape charge.

    • He's still 10 times less annoying than GWB, so cut him some slack.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24, 2011 @02:27PM (#36230662)

    The bankers have all been rounded up and put in jail? The 2.5 wars are over? The Japanese nuclear genie is back in the bottle? Bankruptcy has been averted in the EU? The Global Elite have stopped raping women?

    No. But my ability to point this out is going to be taken away.

  • We believe that G8 Member States should use the e-G8 meeting as an opportunity to publicly commit to expanding internet access for all, combating digital censorship and surveillance, limiting online intermediary liability, and upholding principles of net neutrality.

    That there is a whole lot of Kool Aid.

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday May 24, 2011 @04:16PM (#36231994)

    Nothing good will come out of this. G8 meetings aren't about consumer rights. Or if they are ... enjoy them while you still have them.

  • Shouldn't they have called it the iG8? Or did they opt for e-G8 because are they afraid of Apple's IP lawyers?
  • by hackus (159037) on Tuesday May 24, 2011 @06:57PM (#36233730) Homepage

    You don't get it.

    The G8 are not there to accept your discussion about internet freedom, they are there specifically to destroy it.

    They are extremely freaked out about what happened when a single man lit himself on fire and the social networks ended up focusing an entire regional uprising, that continues till this day in Libya, Egypt..etc.

    They want the internet stopped, they want it destroyed, they want it controlled.

    If your document has any suggestions on how to do this, they will listen.

    If not, you are a terrorist.

    -Hack

If Machiavelli were a hacker, he'd have worked for the CSSG. -- Phil Lapsley

Working...