Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy

Bill of Rights for the Digital Age 164

Posted by Soulskill
from the how-about-a-declaration-of-independence dept.
diewlasing writes "Since we are living in a world where the need is growing for privacy measures and rights to use emerging technology, it seems to me that state governments should adopt a bill of rights regarding internet privacy, use of technology and speech on the internet. For example: make it illegal to allow ISPs to release personal information to anyone who wants it. Now, obviously, that's not the only issue. If you were asked by your state government to come up with a bill of rights for internet privacy, technology use, and free speech regarding the internet and emerging technologies, what would you include? Many things are covered (here in the US) under the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, but it seems to me that, these days, people with enough money can disregard this. Perhaps the states might find it a good idea to enshrine rights into law."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bill of Rights for the Digital Age

Comments Filter:
  • So? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dazedNconfuzed (154242) on Friday March 07, 2008 @03:34PM (#22679332)
    The Constitution's Bill of Rights doesn't stop legislators from infringing on rights, so what's to think a new one would do any better?
    • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by flaming error (1041742) on Friday March 07, 2008 @03:54PM (#22679676) Journal
      Doesn't stop legislators? The current Executive branch uses the Bill of Rights to wipe its collective arse. And if the legislature passes something it doesn't like, bothersome parts are flagrantly disregarded by "signing statements."

      Laws only work if there's someone to enforce them. The inherent checks and balances of the three governmental branches are supposed to do that. But we've replaced the framers' three branches with just two: republicans and democrats. And they both blow smoke up our butts while doing whatever the hell they want.
      • Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jeremiah Cornelius (137) * on Friday March 07, 2008 @04:18PM (#22680060) Homepage Journal
        This is a public service announcement
        With guitar
        Know your rights all three of them

        Number 1
        You have the right not to be killed
        Murder is a CRIME!
        Unless it was done by a
        Policeman or aristocrat
        Know your rights

        And Number 2
        You have the right to food money
        Providing of course you
        Don't mind a little
        Investigation, humiliation
        And if you cross your fingers
        Rehabilitation

        Know your rights
        These are your rights
        Wang

        Know these rights

        Number 3
        You have the right to free
        Speech as long as you're not
        Dumb enough to actually try it.

        Know your rights
        These are your rights
        All three of 'em
        It has been suggested
        In some quarters that this is not enough!
        Well...

        Get off the streets
        Get off the streets
        Run
        You don't have a home to go to
        Smush

        Finally then I will read you your rights

        You have the right to remain silent
        You are warned that anything you say
        Can and will be taken down
        And used as evidence against you

        Listen to this
        Run
      • Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by sm62704 (957197) on Friday March 07, 2008 @04:57PM (#22680664) Journal
        The Legislative branch passed the Bono act, despite the fact that the Constitution says "for limited times". The President (Clinton IIRC) signed it, despite the fact that the Constitution says "for limited times". The Supreme Court ruled that "limited" means whatever the other two branches want it to mean.

        Since this is the case, it logically follows that your car can be searched without a warrant. I said more about it here [kuro5hin.org] a few years ago, and again here [slashdot.org] a couple of months ago.

        Not that anybody ever listens to me...
      • Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 07, 2008 @05:30PM (#22681118)
        ...as did the Clinton Administration... as did the Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, LBJ, JFK... well, you get the point.

        Power corrupts. Full Stop. Creating another "Bill of Rights" would do nothing to change it.

        And to the OP, seriously, you really think the government is going to GIVE us more rights? The Bill of Rights, the real one, tells us what we can expect from our Government. Every law since then has been created to restrict what we can do, not expand it. This new "Internet Bill Of Rights" would end up a) being impossible to enforce since State's laws don't cross state lines, b) Be a waste of time, and c) Be restrictive and limiting, not expanding.

        How about we get around to repealing a lot of the "Think of the Children" and other nanny-state crap our legislatures have come up. THAT would be a better movement I would get behind.
      • Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Hatta (162192) on Friday March 07, 2008 @05:33PM (#22681156) Journal
        The inherent checks and balances of the three governmental branches are supposed to do that. But we've replaced the framers' three branches with just two: republicans and democrats.

        Don't you mean one branch?
      • Laws only work if there's someone to enforce them. The inherent checks and balances of the three governmental branches are supposed to do that. But we've replaced the framers' three branches with just two: republicans and democrats. And they both blow smoke up our butts while doing whatever the hell they want.
        This arguement has been made for 200+ years, nothing new to see...
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by iminplaya (723125)
        ...republicans and democrats...

        What's the second one?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by WK2 (1072560)
      My thoughts exactly. This post reminds me of the congressmen who say, "I'm going to do something about identity theft by making more laws!" We're having enough trouble keeping our current Bill of Rights. What good would another Bill of Rights do that basically says the same thing?
    • Simple Amendment (Score:3, Interesting)

      by maz2331 (1104901)
      Maybe an amendment specifying that infringing on rights is treason?
  • NO! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geminidomino (614729) * on Friday March 07, 2008 @03:35PM (#22679348) Journal

    Perhaps the states might find it a good idea to enshrine rights into law."

    Bullshit! The minute they do that, it opens the door for some scumbag politician's power play denying that people possess a right because it's not explicitly enumerated. That's why the bill of rights wasn't written that way in the first fucking place!
    • Re:NO! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chandon Seldon (43083) on Friday March 07, 2008 @03:45PM (#22679512) Homepage

      Bullshit! The minute they do that, it opens the door for some scumbag politician's power play denying that people possess a right because it's not explicitly enumerated. That's why the bill of rights wasn't written that way in the first fucking place!

      Whereas without such a document the politician would deny people *any* rights because there's no reason to think people have rights.

      Consider the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Most of the world blatantly ignores it, but it serves an important purpose - it gives us something to point at as a reference point for which rights are basic and universal.

      Getting back to the US Bill of Rights, it's not that we would have a right to Privacy if no rights were enumerated, it's that we would have no right to Bear Arms is they weren't.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by jZnat (793348) *
        No, the issue with the ability to bear arms is that if it wasn't enumerated in the US Constitution as such, the ability to bear arms could be made illegal and could only be changed by more legislation repealing said acts. As such, the courts wouldn't be able to knock down the law as unconstitutional, and the executive should have to enforce the law as part of their duty.
        • I'm not seeing how your post is a negative response to my post.

      • it gives us something to point at as a reference point for which rights are basic and universal.
        Like "periodic holidays with pay" and to "enjoy the arts"? WTF were they thinking?
    • Bullshit! The minute they do that, it opens the door for some scumbag politician's power play denying that people possess a right because it's not explicitly enumerated. That's why the bill of rights wasn't written that way in the first fucking place!

      You're right, but let's be honest: the Ninth Amendment doesn't stop authoritarian politicians from pulling that "it's not in the Constitution so you don't have that right" bullshit. As evidence, I offer a quote from former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA): "It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion."

      • by Gospodin (547743)

        The Ninth Amendment doesn't say that all rights not mentioned in the Constitution are retained by the people; it just says that this list isn't exhaustive. Furthermore, Santorum didn't say people don't have a right to privacy; he said that it isn't in the Constitution.

  • By enshrining the rights of EVERYONE, you're inherently protecting the people who are trying to destroy your country and your freedom. If you prevent ISPs from handing out information about their clients, then how are these vicious lawbreakers ever going to be brought to justice?

    No, I think this is a case where the good people have nothing to fear, because if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have no reason to worry about your electronic rights.

    NOTE: This argument is copyrighted, so when (not
    • Yes, but keep in mind that wiretapping and suchlike is actually anti-business: by eavesdropping, you leave open an avenue for proprietary business secrets to be exposed to the world--entirely legitimate business secrets, such as manufacturing processes, projects in development, etc.

      Why do you hate businesses? Why are you trying to kill capitalism? Are you some kind of communist mutant?

      Friend Computer has a few questions for you.... ;-P
      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        Wire-tapping is only anti-business if the wire-tappers let the information get out. It just makes sense to wire-tap everyone, and then keep the information someplace secure, where their legitimate business secrets can be safe.
        • But there's no such thing as a 'secure' place--now, *how* many times did the Chinese break into the Pentagon's systems last year again?
        • by Qzukk (229616)
          Wire-tapping is only anti-business if the wire-tappers let the information get out.

          Unless the underpaid FBI agent who spent the wiretap money on ale and whores and desperately needs to pay the bill before his boss gets a nastygram from AT&T decides that he can turn a quick buck selling the information to a corporation, in which case it's pro-(that)-business.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      No, I think this is a case where the good people have nothing to fear, because if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have no reason to worry about your electronic rights.

      I hate this argument. I really do hope you're being facetious. Anyway, it's quite easy to refute: 'anything wrong' is a relative term. Whether you're doing anything wrong or not depends on who's watching. What if I'm an ardent follower of His Noodliness? I might believe that your use of a cable tie eliminates Spaghettiness and is therefore morally reprehensible. Hence, wrong.

      • Yes... my tongue is so far into my cheek, I think I just dislodged a saliva gland. Even so, you KNOW that's going to be the basis for making said Bill Of Rights as advantageous to the writers as possible.
    • by Belial6 (794905)
      Now imagine your logic applied to the Underground Railroad.
  • Going to need a 1st Amendment right, obviously, to freedom of speech in all cases that do not cause tangible harm to others--e.g. libel and slander, producing kiddie porn, etc.
    • Going to need a 1st Amendment right, obviously, to freedom of speech in all cases that do not cause tangible harm to others--e.g. libel and slander, producing kiddie porn, etc.

      ...with the qualifier that "tangible harm" won't mean "they piqued my sense of moral outrage", or you'll have all SORTS of fruit loops abusing this...

      Just 'cause someone has a booger hanging is no reason not to point it out to 'em.

    • Re:1st Amendment (Score:4, Insightful)

      by zappepcs (820751) on Friday March 07, 2008 @03:49PM (#22679580) Journal
      I tend to agree with your sentiment but I thought Libel and Slander were what we called politics in non-election years?

      As for kiddie-porn etc. I don't think that such broad labeling actually defines 'tangible harm to others' as you imply that it must?

      I'm not sticking up for people that do harm to others, just saying that I'm still waiting for proof that all forms of kiddie porn cause tangible harm. As for etc. that you mentioned, I have some questions about that too. There were a number of powerful people that thought Larry Flint was doing tangible harm. Whether you like his products or not did not stop him from protecting your 1st amendment rights.

      As for a new 'bill of rights' - absofuckinglutely not. The reason is simple. The current constitutional ammendments are written pretty well. What is wrong is how they are interpreted by lawmakers and courts. Any new set will be just as poorly interpreted. What we NEED is clear understanding of how they apply to new technologies. But then we have the problem of politicians being in charge of that sort of thing. That whole lobbyist thing is a large part of why the bill of rights is being abused now.
      • I'm merely going by the current standards that it appears the majority of people accept today as being tangibly harmful in my examples; my apologies if the examples aren't optimal.
    • Define tangible. Take the recent case of that women who pretended to be a boy to a young a girl who ended up commiting suicide. Is that tangible harm?

      It was discussed end people really didn't come to any single conclusion, so was the woman safe because of free speech yes or no? Either way, you are going to have to deal a lot of shit. Yes, then you obviously can say anything even if it causes death, no and you put an end to anyone ever pretending to be someone they are not.

      I think you should see the consti

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Belial6 (794905)
      "e.g. libel and slander, producing kiddie porn, etc."

      Easy. Just redefine the age of majority to 200 years, and all porn is kiddie porn. Of course, this also solves all sorts of other constitutional problems, as it is well accepted that The Constitution does not apply to those under the arbitrarily chosen age of majority.
  • by Reality Master 201 (578873) on Friday March 07, 2008 @03:40PM (#22679434) Journal
    There's just too many people in America these days who are willing to give the government any powers it claims it needs, so long as there's the promise of them being kept safe.

    And that's not even getting into the fact that our congress doesn't seem particularly interested in asserting it's power (and duty) to keep the executive branch in check.

    The free and the brave are in short supply in the US, having been replaced by the cowardly and the cynically opportunistic.
    • fair point... if only the question was, "Will we ever have a Bill of Rights for the electronic age"?
  • by Wowsers (1151731) on Friday March 07, 2008 @03:49PM (#22679584) Journal
    The digital age bill of rights: "We'll send you the bill, and you have no rights!"
  • Make it illegal to harass, discriminate, terminate, or disqualify for hire someone due to what comes up in Google searches if the things found are NOT illegal or in violation to workplace rules.

    So what if you have a blog where you gripe but never mention your employer's name? So what if you've shown some sexy shots somewhere? So what if you were at a party back in college, acting like a college student, ten years ago? How are any of these things relevant to your ability to perform a job you are already d
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by goldspider (445116)
      How are any of these things relevant to your ability to perform a job you are already doing or have applied to do?

      I'd say one's (in)ability to positively represent themself and demonstrate good judgement are very relevant to a company's hiring practices.
    • I agree with you, but for a different reason. There needs to be an understanding that what you find on the internet is NOT evidence of an action, and I think there should be something in the books to prevent companies/universities/governments/institutions from using such information in that manner. Should a picture on Facebook of an underage kid with a red plastic cup in his hand be viable evidence that the kid was drinking alcohol and therefore grounds for punishment at his school? Should companies be a
    • I heard about people who don't RTFA and there are even some who don't RTFS but you have created a new low, not RYOFC Read Your Own Fucking Comment.

      Make it illegal to harass, discriminate, terminate, or disqualify for hire someone due to what comes up in Google searches if the things found are NOT illegal or in violation to workplace rules .

      Exactly what kind of protection does this give me? You allow the workplace to set the rules by which they can harass me, discriminate against me, terminate me or disq

    • Same as any other similar law, this would be extremely hard to enforce in practice, unless you presume that employer is guilty by default, and has to prove himself otherwise.
  • At what level? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Are you talking about passing laws at the top level of government (e.g., the U.S. Congress or Constitution) or are you thinking of affirming rights at the provincial level (e.g., the Nebraska legislature or constitution)? If you're going for laws to protect digital rights within small areas like U.S. states, what's to stop infringement of those rights across the border (which is where most traffic will end up)?
  • by DigitalisAkujin (846133) on Friday March 07, 2008 @03:55PM (#22679714) Homepage
    If the founding fathers made it a right to own firearms, would they have done the same for the right to own and drive a car? These days our government preaches "privileges" instead of "rights". To what end?

    This country is going down the tubes and here's why: No one cares enough. People are down right happy with their lives as they are and unless there's a large enough percentage of the population willing to openly revolt nothing is going to change.

    We have hypocrisies after hypocrisies: Taxation without representation, suspension of habeas corpus, need I go on?

    The people in power realize that the people won't stand for oppression so they allow a standard of living that's just good enough for 95% of the population and they are willing to throw away the other 5% because again, they realize it lets them maintain the status quo. 1984? Nah.... just a nanny, security state propped up by the same assholes who can't take responsibility for their own actions so they let the government move in and regulate everything.

    So how does this tie into an "Internet Bill of Rights"? You have to make enough CARE to create a movement for anything. As for some rules.... lets start with just one for now..... Network Neutrality.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bconway (63464)
      Did you ever consider that maybe the reason people think they are happy with their lives is because they are and there actually isn't anything wrong with them? There's a whole lot of people on Slashdot who are happy to debate issues any day of the week that when it comes right down to it, don't really matter to a lot of people because they really aren't important. Time for a bigger world view, I think.
    • by deblau (68023)

      If the founding fathers made it a right to own firearms, would they have done the same for the right to own and drive a car?

      No, of course not. Back then, coming off a war with England where enemy soldiers could enter your land and burn down your house, a firearm was your first, best, and probably last line of defense. It was critical that each person have a firearm to defend themselves and their property. Cars have nothing to do with self defense. If there were cars in the 18th century, they wouldn't h

  • by Nkwe (604125) on Friday March 07, 2008 @03:56PM (#22679720)
    Clarify that one-sided EULA "contracts" where the purchaser has no opportunity to negotiate (or even access the text of) the agreement prior to purchase is not a legal contract.
    • by Kjella (173770)
      First of all, I don't think in general you have the right to negotiate, at least not in the popular meaning of the word. I can make you a fully informed offer, take it or leave it and I don't see a problem with that. Conditions after the fact are in general now allowed, so it's a matter of how much you can cram through the "additional terms and conditions apply". The thing is that even if you did all that, and there was a booklet stitched to the outside of every box, it wouldn't really change anything. Most
  • Rights (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Archangel Michael (180766) on Friday March 07, 2008 @04:00PM (#22679796) Journal
    True rights don't require or aren't about anything technological. Rights exist apart from technology, so that if you're stranded on an deserted island, your rights still exist.

    This is one of those things that people on the left have no concept of. They think rights are things you're entitled to by government decree, which is completely contrary to the founding document of the USofA. Government ought to be extremely limited, not an all powerful monolithic demigod that it has become. And rights don't require forcing others into situations they don't want to be in (eg Universal Health Care).

    While it is NICE to want Universal Health Care, it isn't a "right" because it requires something from others. It requires technology and the work of others. The biggest problem we have today is that people don't have a clear concept of what a "right" is, because they lack a foundation for describing what rights are.

    From the article "state governments should adopt a bill of rights regarding internet privacy, use of technology and speech on the internet. "

    Why? It is the responisibility of each of the users to protect themselves, and government shouldn't get involved except in cases for prosecution of whatever contractual breaches occurred. When you willingly give your info to others without a contract in place, and it escapes in the wild, that is the risk you take doing so.

    "For example: make it illegal to allow ISPs to release personal information to anyone who wants it."

    Wrong approach. Either accept that personal info is going to be released or find an ISP that offers a guaranteed level of privacy you desire. Can't find one? Tough, go without. Or find an open access point, internet cafe or whatever, that doesn't require personal info.

    "If you were asked by your state government to come up with a bill of rights for internet privacy, technology use, and free speech regarding the internet and emerging technologies, what would you include?"

    I don't want a Nanny state, babysitting people. I want a state that protects the LIBERTY of all men, and not pass stupid laws because someone said "there ought to be a law". How about this instead. Be Responsible for yourself, protect yourself at all times. If you took care of yourself, then you don't need the laws you're proposing. Personally, I don't want to give up Liberty for Security, because you end up with neither.

    "people with enough money can disregard this."

    That is the result of government power abuses. That is a result of a government that cannot even rule itself. That is a result of power grab by the government because someone said ... "there ought to be a law" and ceded Liberty for Security.

    "Perhaps the states might find it a good idea to enshrine rights into law."

    Perhaps you don't know that rights exist apart from law. Laws are only there to secure rights and Liberties of men. Government doesn't grant rights, and your basic premise clearly shows that you don't understand what a right or liberty really is, or the government's purpose is.
    • While it is NICE to want Universal Health Care, it isn't a "right" because it requires something from others.

      I'll ignore the actual health care issue, and instead point out the ass-hattery of the statement itself. Something is not a right if it requires something from others...

      You have the right to freedom. That requires that I give up my desire to imprison you. You have the right to free speech. That requires that I not restrain you from speaking. You have the right to an education (not a constitutional right, but it's legally enshrined and I'd argue that it's as fundamental as all the others...). That re

      • Actually, the asshattery of logic is yours. Freedom doesn't require anything from anyone. If I imprison you, I've deprived you of your right to freedom. If I don't, your freedom requires nothing from me. I don't even need to know you exist.

        Education isn't a right, the opportunity to learn is a right. Education (forced government schools) isn't education, it is schooling. My kids don't attend public high school, are more educated than could be provided by public high school. My both my 15 and 17 year old ar
    • by zerocool^ (112121)

      True rights don't require or aren't about anything technological. Rights exist apart from technology, so that if you're stranded on an deserted island, your rights still exist.

      This is one of those things that people on the left have no concept of. They think rights are things you're entitled to by government decree, which is completely contrary to the founding document of the USofA. Government ought to be extremely limited, not an all powerful monolithic demigod that it has become. And rights don't require
  • 1) An extension to the Bill of Rights: "it shall be incumbent upon the legislature to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any new grant of authority to government agencies, or restrictions on any right, secured by any article of any constitution, law or policy, shall be not only necessary, but be the only effective solution. The courts may strike down any grant of authority or restriction on a liberty covered by this statute, if anyone may prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislature was in error,
  • by anwyn (266338) on Friday March 07, 2008 @04:13PM (#22679988)
    We had a perfectly good constitution, with a bill of rights and that restricted to power of government.

    The pesky thing, according to its original meaning, would have stopped many social programs such a social security. It would have allowed ordinary people to be armed. Rather than go to the trouble of amending the thing, they decided to turn it into a "living document" that could be redefined on the spot, by redefining what the meaning of "is" is.

    Another great step in social progress.

    So now the problem is: how do we write a new constitution that will allow "the people" to vote themselves free bread and circuses and free health care, and not take away anyone's rights.

    Everyone is refusing to admit it to themselves. Government big enough to take care of everyone, will inevitably "take care" of every one's rights as well.

    The power of self deception is such that the people of America are now selling the most precious thing they have, freedom, for the pot of pourage of the promise of free services. No one can tell them that that is what they are doing.

    It will take rivers of blood, to get that freedom back!

  • Technology makes it easier to do certain things, but those things could always have been done in the past. The U.S. Constitution has never had an explicit right to privacy, and has always had freedom of speech (at least since it was ratified). There might be lots more data moving through your ISP, but plenty of your data still moves through the U.S. postal service, FedEx, UPS, etc., in plain old non-technology ways.
  • Well, some of the things I'd like to see: tightening of requirements for communication providers (ISPs & telcos) to keep your communications private. Fix FISA so it is very narrowly allowing surveillance of foreign targets, after court review (I personally don't see why this couldn't be prior review only - no retroactive approvals). Make the "national security letter" and other noxious provisions of the Patriot act clearly illegal (they may be unconstitutional even under current law). Tighten requiremen
  • The Federal government will just assert authority under the "commerce clause,"* and all the state's efforts will be for naught.

    *Assuming they even try to justify their power-grab according to constitutional principles. Though in this case they would actually have a leg to stand on.

  • Whenever ANYONE says "We need a new law to cover this new technology", question them.

    Most of the time, it's just that nobody wants to apply the old law. English common law is a wonderfully broad and malleable thing. Besides, a new law doesn't have a hope in hell of being passed, anyway; attitudes have changed drastically since the last time Americans had any fundamental, broadly respected rights. If this weren't the case, protections that (used to) apply to telephone conversations would also apply to Intern

    • You're either entitled to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, or you're now.

      Problem is with common law, is it is up to a judge not a legislative body. You then have binding precedent based on legal opinion based on broad interpretation which may not be the spirit of the law. Look at how judges have allowed the errosion of search & seizure rights over the years (eg how secure your car is from search), or free speech rights.
      If you want something more binding and refined it makes sense to prope

  • by n3tcat (664243) on Friday March 07, 2008 @05:11PM (#22680882) Homepage
    I have a sneaking suspicion that this is exactly the sort of thing that was asked back in England. They had the opportunity to setup shop in the new world though, far from the reaches of their government. They probably felt their system was broken and that there was no way to change the system from within, so they left to the fringe, and there is where they severed their ties and became their own entity.

    Our new world is entirely different. Where they had water separating the air their governments controlled from the air the colonists breathed, we are occupying the same meat space, talking over a series of tubes controlled and taxed by those same people we disagree with. For us to live in a fringe society seems almost barbaric. Funny that, though, as I'm sure that's exactly how the colonists felt about their lives.

    So here's where I suggest you start. You start by saying fuck the internet. A digital bill of rights is useless in this current incarnation of the web. It would be subverted by anyone who had any leverage at all, and often even by those who don't (the bank vs wikileaks for example). It may seem barbaric, but work on alternatives to the internet routing system as it currently is. TOR seems like a good underground metaphor, but mesh networks seem like a potential "new world" so to speak.

    And even still, after you think about all of that, you have the problem of infrastructure. The colonists left the English infrastructure entirely. They just had to fight to own what was state-side, and that was that. We, however, would be running our own internet on the infrastructure (housing, power, water, govt services, etc) that is already in place, meaning once again, there is leverage.

    So where do we go from here?
  • How about a right to make sure we can get together and defend the other rights. Something like this:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
  • Cem Kaner wrote a Bill Of Rights for Software Customers: http://www.satisfice.com/kaner/?p=8 [satisfice.com]

    He introduces it with this:
    "As the software infrastructure has been going through chaos, reporters (and others) have been called me several times to ask what our legal rights are now and whether we should all be able to sue Microsoft (or other vendors who ship defective software or software that fails in normal use).

    "I'd rather stand back from the current crisis, consider the legal debates over the last 10 ye
  • 1) Right to communicate and store data using any kind of cryptography.

    2) Right to communicate anonymously.

    Both of these would be subject to the usual exceptions; slander, libel, copyright law, patents, search warrants, using cryptography or anonymous communication to commit a crime is still a crime, etc..

    3) Government data made available to the public shall be accessible in a documented, royalty-free format.

    4) Installing private communication cable between adjacent properties shall not be forbidden

  • Right now the government has no interest in giving people more rights, especially when it comes to issues involving commerce or speech. In fact, they haven't been interesting in doing that in quite awhile. So I'm not holding my breath for a digital "Bill of Rights". Why don't we ask for truth in advertising for ISPs while we're at it?
  • We already have this covered, both expressly:

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


    Those terms are pretty damn straight forward, but nowhere near as clear as:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable se
  • How about:

    The right of the people to privacy in their personal information shall not be abridged. Personal information shall not be transmitted outside the transaction into which it was expressly transmitted by any person, nor retained longer than the duration of that transaction, except when expressly and previously authorized outside or after that transaction by the person. In the case of exceptions for the purposes of national security, those exceptions shall be obtained only under law, after due process
  • After they're done gutting FISA, they'll "reward" the media giants with tiered WWW pricing and the banning of "evil" protocols - just watch.

    Signing Statements:

    http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/TOCindex.htm [coherentbabble.com]

    On December 20, 2007, President Bush signed routine postal legislation. In a "Signing Statement", the President claims Executive Power to search the mail of U.S. citizens inside the United States without a warrant, in direct contradiction of the bill he had just signed.

    January 4, 08 Story:

    htt [nwsource.com]

APL is a write-only language. I can write programs in APL, but I can't read any of them. -- Roy Keir

Working...