Q posted about Internet Bill of Rights
>>165853
>>165880
Why leave it up to corporations or government to draft an Internet Bill of Rights?
As an Internet user, what rights do you think should be enumerated?
Q specifically mentioned AT&T's push to 'prevent unfair censorship'
AT&T tweeted in reference to this effort on 1/24/18.
https:// twitter.com/ATT/status/956164685405016064
I'm no constitution-fag, but I think the focus drafting something like this should be on limiting the powers of congress and protecting the rights of people.
In the Internet age, we have to consider more parties have a stake in this:
Individual users of the Internet (real persons)
Business users of the Internet (companies)
Providers of Internet connectivity
Providers of Internet content
Protectors of rights of the above (government)
Anyone I miss?
Found this drafted by Darrell Issa:
Seems to be a little vague and unenforceable to me.
http:// keepthewebopen.com/digital-bill-of-rights
>separation for government usage
I was only including those who I thought had a stake in such an effort. Government has a stake in that if it's written in a way that is vague and unenforceable, then the effort is wasted.
If we want to focus on extending the 1st amendment, we have to consider that censorship can come in many new forms that were not possible at the time the original 1st amendment it was written:
-
Delaying or filtering Internet packets both at their source and their destination
-
Handling various types of data traffic with different priority (simply treating all packets the same is not possible because QoS is required to manage any large network)
-
Internet speech crosses physical (and therefore legal) boundaries
One thing I would think everyone would agree on is that the expectation of privacy should extend from user device to the recipient of the users communication. Unless a user is explicitly identifying themselves on a public platform (social media, etc) then they have a right to be secure just as they would if they were sending sealed letters through the USPS. Intercept of communication should require that a warrant that names the targeted individual, and subject to better protections and oversight than is currently provided in secret by FISA courts.
Some additional comments on this topic pulled in from General #201:
>>165975
>>165963
>>165980
>>165993
>>166023
>>166039
>>166023
>>166032
As an ISP-fag, we need to keep in mind that providers need to manage their network in ways that may affect how user traffic is handled. We cannot prevent that from happening as this is a technical limitation.
As an example, if Netflix or Youtube packets of video were treated with exactly the same priority as VOIP traffic, VOIP could not exist.
So we have to realize that providers must be allowed to manage their network by shaping traffic in ways that might LOOK like censorship to those who don't know how the Internet works, but what we can do is require better disclosure to users of how ISP traffic management works with a given provider.
In other words it needs to avoid the net-neutrality argument pitfalls.
>search results
This one is a little tougher because I'm sure some users find value in search engines that "tailor" their results to their audience in ways the users desire. This must be balanced with the need to maintain a free market
I agree that user preference is preferred, but I think the technical hurdles to accomplish that are significant, because it would be difficult to implement that kind of control across an entire global backbone (let alone multiple providers) where user traffic might flow.
I could see allowing users the ability to select among established applications / ports they use and prioritizing them across their individual gateway, but end-to-end control (especially beyond the edges of local ISP network which accounts for majority of traffic) is nearly impossible.
Yeah, you would have to somehow encapsulate individual user preferences in the exchange of packets and then somehow make sure that all parties are in agreement as to how those preferences are applied.
And as soon as individual user preferences are transmitted, you raise the issue of privacy.
Not only that but traffic crosses borders without regard to international laws. That is, unless you're operating the Great Firewall of China.
>right to ddos
I like the idea of having the right to defend, but DDOS itself is the denial of service to others. If you trample on others with DDOS because big powerful ISP is trampling on you, are you still within your rights?
As unappealing as it sounds, if social media was paid for, service to users would be their product. Instead, the service itself is free, and the product is the users themselves, and their customers are the advertisers, and in our case a plethora of government agencies who are hurling our own tax dollars.
>Just let it be and it will handle itself.
Letting it be is how things got to the point where they are.
>The internet is a series of PRIVATE PROPERTIES that should NEVER be mandated as public property.
I agree with this, however my computer, my mobile device, and my private communications are my private property as well, and yet that right privacy is compromised all the time. Should we ignore that?
Personal attacks aside, I see the misunderstanding here, and I'll take responsibility for it. Now can you calm the fuck down?
All private property should remain as private property. My point is that government and other entities I have not explicitly given permission to are compromising everyone's right to privacy. Legal protection from this is my primary goal in creating this discussion.