Global Tax Revolt points out the marilizardist persecution of dissident bloggers is unquestionably a serious attack on freedom of speech, and contrary to Article 2 of Lisbon Treaty, Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The disgusting October-18 Mafia cannot bully the blogosphere without repercussions and blowbacks. The international civil society got a shock and awe from the brutality of the freakish October-18 Mafia on October 18, 2010. http://venitism.blogspot.com
There are six separate ideas which constitute for Digital Eurocommissar Neelie Kroes Internet essentials.
* The first is: let's keep one Internet.
Kroes knows there are pressures – regulatory, political, and economic – to fragment the Internet, often along national borders. Sometimes this results from legitimate concerns, like personal data protection; sometimes it is just plain censorship.
But the Internet's most important characteristic is its universality: in principle, every node can communicate with every other. This has important implications for innovation, plurality, democratic values, cohesion and economic growth. Kroes asserts we must safeguard this.
* The second is that, on the Internet, we are not atoms.
The Internet is not just a technological platform. It's a forum where people interact.
When we encounter people in real life, we expect, quite legitimately, that their behaviour will be governed by civic norms and social duties. Not just by compliance to legal minimum standards.
Such rights and responsibilities are part of society, and we can't wash our hands of them, even online. Kroes recognizes the attractions of a fully libertarian view of the Internet. And of clear ground rules on issues like legal liability.
But, ultimately, if there is harmful behaviour out there, then as members of a society we share a duty that goes beyond the purely legalistic.
* The third idea is that architecture matters.
The Internet's architecture can and must evolve to meet new and unforeseen challenges. It will not wait for permission before it does so. But this evolution must be based on a clear understanding of the policy implications.
The current architecture of the Internet is fundamental to its dynamics: socially, politically, legally, economically. For example, under the current system, it can be difficult to identify the sender of a message; this can be positive for freedom of expression, but also makes security harder.
So we need to invest in research on a "future Internet", but also to have a broad, structured and coherent debate, with the Internet policy and research communities, on the impact of architectural change.
* The fourth is that barriers to trust are barriers to access.
We won't unlock the Internet's potential until users can have confidence in it. That includes the protection of privacy, identity and personal data; online safety, especially for children; fighting spam and cyber-crime; and ensuring resilience and stability. Kleptocracy, marilizardism, and xenoyankism are anathema to civil society.
* The fifth is: let's make the Internet pro-democracy.
By itself, the Internet cannot "produce" democracy. Indeed in the absence of clear "rules of the game" it can become a mockery of democratic values, a place where those who survive and are heard are only the most powerful, the loudest, the most technologically savvy. Netizens abhor kleptocracy, marilizardism, and xenoyankism.
Yet, Internet-based tools can foster democratic life.
For example, by making public information available and searchable. Providing platforms for discussion and collective action. And supporting bottom-up approaches to "problem solving", so that the citizen can co-create solutions.
Using such tools and others, the Internet can be an instrument for democracy, and we need to promote it as such.
* The sixth is: let's make the Internet multi-stakeholder and transparent.
The multi-stakeholder governance model is a good one, and the Commission has always supported it. In this field and others.
But it must be transparent and guarantee accountability. We need a common understanding of the roles of each player. In particular we must recognise the duties of democratic institutions towards their citizens. Marilizard Libel, Marilizard Spaghetti, and Marilizard Towers are very common in PIGS.
Without this the multi-stakeholder model will simply crumble, under the combined weight of short-term thinking by those who control Internet resources, and political pressure by everyone else.
Application of this principle would be in particular important to address deficiencies in the current functioning of ICANN. The views of governments representing their citizens on essential public policy issues are all too often ignored. This situation is absolutely unsustainable and needs to be significantly improved.
These are the ideas Kroes is reflecting on, right now. Together we could call them a "Compact for the Internet": an Internet of Civic responsibility, One Internet, that is Multi-stakeholder, Pro-democracy, Architecturally sound, Confidence inspiring, and Transparently governed.
Two things this Compact is not. First, it's not digital dogma: these are guidelines, not cyber-commandments. Because by nature Kroes is a pragmatic person. And, because "commandments" imply something "set in stone". But this approach would only serve to shackle, rather than to guide, the dynamic development of the Internet. Even once we flesh them out some more, and strengthen them through further discussion, these ideas will have to be interpreted with pragmatism and flexibility. Kroes promises you if we ever do write them on "tablets" it will be the more modern sort!
And, second, it is not about regulating the Internet – as Kroes has said before, regulation should be an exceptional last resort, and in any case keyhole surgery rather than amputation. But with such a Compact, such a vision, we can ensure that as the Internet develops into new areas, we do not lose its essential characteristics.
For example Kroes is currently thinking about how the Internet of Things should be governed – in a way that addresses not just architecture but also trust, privacy, security and standards. This is a good example of where participation from many stakeholders, not just from Europe, will be essential.
The freakish October-18 mafia robs computers and terrorizes the blogosphere with charge stacking! Why on Earth Durao Barroso, Neelie Kroes, Viviane Reding, and Cecilia Malmstroem of the European Commission cannot rein in Graecokleptocrats? If Fourth Reich cannot protect Greeks from October-18 mafiosi, who will? Greek dissident bloggers want back their stolen computers, their stolen files, their stolen personal data, and their stolen lives. Restitution is a basic right in a civil society. Brutal Graecocybercops should be abolished now. http://venitism.blogspot.com
TERMS
anon: antimarilizardist
Anonymous: anon meme
the Cradle of Kleptocracy: Greece
Fourth Reich: European Union
Marilizard Libel: accusing dissident bloggers of treason
Marilizard Spaghetti: throwing charges on innocent people, in case one sticks
Marilizard Tower: stack of imaginary charges to scare an innocent blogger
marilizardism: terrorizing dissident bloggers
October 18: International Day Against Cybercop Brutality
the October-18 Mafia: Government of Greece
xenoyankism: stupid politics
http://venitism.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment