What Should Be In a Technology Bill of Rights? 247
snydeq writes "The Deep End's Paul Venezia argues in favor of the creation of a Technology Bill of Rights to protect individuals against malfeasance, tyranny, and exploitation in an increasingly technological age. Venezia's initial six proposed articles center on anonymity rights, net neutrality, the open-sourcing of law enforcement software and hardware, and the like. What sort of efficacy do you see such a document having, and in an ideal world, which articles do you see as imperative for inclusion in a Technology Bill of Rights?"
Avoid Firts Post (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Avoid Firts Post (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Avoid Firts Post (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Lets see... (Score:5, Funny)
Net neutrality, Linux on desktop, Duke Nukem 4 Ever, cheap macs, freedom from malware, peace in the middle east and a cuddly Tux for all.
Re:Lets see... (Score:4, Funny)
...cuddly Tux for all.
Yeah, that'll happen.
Everybody knows cuddly Tux isn't ready for neck-space! They are still only good for you stuffed animal geeks who prefer their own hand-sewn plushies to mass produced teddybears and beanie babies. Open source sewing machines are helping, but there are still too many situations where hand-sewing is the only option, and that is just not acceptable.
Laws (Score:3, Funny)
The right to bear arms (Score:5, Insightful)
Er, the right to defend yourself against the evils of viruses, malware, and if I dare to be redundant, DRM.
To be fair to the publishers (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd also go further and require that any software shipping with DRM that restricts any fair use rights should be required to have exactly what rights it restricts, and how it restricts them, labelled on the outside of the box.
Re:To be fair to the publishers (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd also go further and require that any software shipping with DRM that restricts any fair use rights should be required to have exactly what rights it restricts, and how it restricts them, labelled on the outside of the box.
What about future Fair Use rights? Fair Use, until very recently, was not codified, and even today, the enumeration in Title 17 is not a complete listing of all Fair Use rights (for instance, most people consider copying mp3s to a portable player or a phone to be Fair Use, but nowhere in the codified law does it say this is Fair Use, and a strict reading of the law would lead one to the conclusion that this activity was certainly illegal). Before codification and even now, many Fair Use rights are decided by precedent in the courts. How could a label cover all that?
Still, I like the direction your thoughts are taking :-) A Surgeon General's style warning might be nice: "DRM has been known to cause fits of rage and even strokes in some individuals."
Nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, wait, the Constitution is routinely ignored by the Federal Government. So I'm sure a non-binding technology bill of rights will have a huge impact on limiting the Federal Government's actions...
Re:Nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
The bill of rights already protects our personal rights and limits the federal government's powers over the states and the citizens.
Actually the Bill of Rights just codified our rights. Our rights are inalienable regardless of whether or not they are listed in the Bill of Rights.
Oh, wait, the Constitution is routinely ignored by the Federal Government. So I'm sure a non-binding technology bill of rights will have a huge impact on limiting the Federal Government's actions...
Beat me to it :(
Re: (Score:2)
Our rights are inalienable regardless of whether or not they are listed in the Bill of Rights.
However, these "inalienable rights" are only referred to as inalienable in a non-legally binding document.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the Bill of Rights just codified our rights. Our rights are inalienable regardless of whether or not they are listed in the Bill of Rights.
Only if your government doesn't have nuclear weapons. What is inalienable has changed considerably since 1776.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
China, being communist, has a stated economic interest in the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
That must explain Tiananmen Square......
American Capitalists, who really control the government through legalized bribery, have no such interest.
Capitalists don't control the Government. Capitalists have influence in the Government that outweighs their numbers but "control" is a bit of a stretch.
It only takes ten million dollars and ten corruptible underpaid soldiers to do this *WITHOUT* an order.
Actually it takes a bit more than that. Look up "permissive action links" the next time you lose sleep over the security of our nuclear weapons.
Yes they do. And in return we reward them with poverty, no VA benefits, and an utter lack of respect.
And that's relevant to my point in what way exactly? It seems that you are ignoring the point I was trying to make in favor of spouting liberal talking points.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then you're being an arrogant and placing your culture above theirs.
I have no problem doing so as long as my culture respects freedom and self determination and theirs does not. Ours is clearly superior and it's about time that we recognized that instead of rationalizing the bad behavior of others as some sort of cultural difference. African tribes routinely slice off the clitoris of young girls but we don't celebrate that behavior because of their culture. We condemn it and use what influence we have to change it.
China oppresses individual rights, is wiping out the Tib
Inalienable Rights (Score:4, Informative)
Replying more to all the repliers above me than the parent: you people are completely misunderstanding what was meant by "inalienable rights".
It does NOT mean that it is impossible to infringe on "inalienable rights". What it means is that there are a set of basic rights that apply to all human beings. They are "inalienable" because we desearve these rights by our very existance. However, just because they exist does not make them un-infringeable. What the constitution did by spelling those rights out in the Bill of Rights was make a promise that the US government would not infringe on those 10 basic rights.
The system for discovering violations of these rights tends to be slow, since the government is large and things tend to escape notice for a while or simply take time to become sizeable enough to be noticed. However despite it's slow nature (or perhaps because of it?) the system is very effective, and we have essentially the same freedoms - more in some ways, in fact - that we had at the nation's founding.
Our system was designed around protecting these basic, inalienable rights. Even if the mightiest of the mighty in this land - our elected officials, president, and SCOTUS - manage to screw up the Bill of Rights, there is always a do-over. Laws are constantly neutered or bolstered by the courts, SCOTUS decisions can and have been overturned by other SCOTUS decisions, Amendments to the Constitution can and have been supplanted by new amendments, and the President can and has been impeached.
All this to protect our basic human rights (plus others, sure).
That said, the promise (i.e. the Constitution) was not made to non-US citizens and so US actions outside the US territory are often ignored, and the oppression of other people is always ignored unless it somehow represents a direct threat to the freedom of US citizens.
That's just the way it goes.
Re:Nothing (Score:4, Interesting)
The other point is where you get these rights from? GOD? This is scary, as the move to make this country secular puts your rights on thin ice.
Just because the source of these inalienable Rights is unknown or, better yet, undefined does not mean that they are dependent upon such a source. I do not believe that Jehova had a deal with the Founding Fathers to strike anybody with lightning who willingly violated the Constitution. The reason these rights are inalienable is this: These are in many ways the minimum Rights necessary for the system to function. By threatening any of these Rights for any individual, everybody's Rights are threatened. These Rights come from nature as there is no way to guarantee Rights for some but not for all without tyranny.
Therefore, you can assign any origin to these Rights you want: physics (it is a property of reality), logic (it does make sense to do it any other way), God (if a being created everything, that being should be able to take credit for the properties within that creation), the Tao (it is impossible to enforce Rights for some in the absence of Rights for all), or even Jefferson (smart guy). I think the reason the terms "inalienable" and "natural" were chosen for a reason. They avoid this fixation on a specific creed and allow people of all faiths or no faith to have the same belief in Freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Japanese Americans 1942 [wikipedia.org]
That should provide a little context as to the enforcement of the bill of rights. Thanks to George Carlin for reminding me of this one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Things like that are covered under Presidential Emergency powers. Just like making weather reports classified and making the U.S. Coast Guard a part of the U.S. Navy.
"It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy. I love the Republic. The powers you give me I will lay down when this crisis has be abated!" - Emperor Palpatine
Re:Nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
As Douglas Adams put it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Prosser: "Have you any idea how much damage that bulldozer would suffer if I just let it run straight over you?"
Arthur: "How much?"
Prosser: "None at all."
Separation (Score:4, Funny)
Strict separation of state from goatse terror regime.
Or did the frist post already address that?
opt out (Score:2)
Close but no cigar (Score:2)
Opt in.
Opt out and that means the sort of bullshit, "Hey, we sent you a letter/email that might have looked like spam and could have been filtered out that said we're doing this and requesting you raise a fucking racket about it to get out of it."
No. Neither that nor terms of use changes that are agreed to by logging in (think it was Facebook that did that). 'course if we get that, that means shrinkwrap licenses and EULA stuff would (should) be illegal.
Absolute Requirement (Score:4, Funny)
A reference to the Book of Armaments has to be in there somewhere.
Gaaah! (Score:5, Insightful)
The American founding fathers, from whom the Bill of Rights came, viewed rights a inherent to all individuals and not something granted by men. Either from God, or inherent in nature (or actually both, to my understanding).
These rights are what is referred to as "negative rights". Basically put, that you can do just about anything so long as it doesn't infringe on another's well-being. Everything in the Bill of Rights demonstratably follows from that--that the government shall not interfere. But it doesn't grant you special privileges, either--nothing that requires one else give it to you (well, with some exceptions like right to a speedy trial).
To then go on to talk about a Bill of Rights as some arbitrarily-agreed upon standards is ridiculous and on some level scary, because it implies your humans rights and worth is something up for democratic debate and potentially is yet another chip on the political bargaining table.
You don't have to be an adherent to natural law (I'm not) to feel or believe in that. No so-called "Bill of Rights" should demand that other private entities ought to give you special privileges or concessions based on some mob rule decision. No wonder Democrats so frequently assume that the 2nd amendment means something that it doesn't--they believe (or at least, appear to believe) that rights and apparently human dignity are government-granted...!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Gaaah! (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know why its scary: the Bill of Rights itself is the product of discussion, debate, and democratic process. Sure, they reflect a means of protecting what at least a significant portion of those discussing and debating thought were fundamental rights in natural law, but they were no less a product of political process than any other law.
The treatment of the Constitution (whether the main text or the Bill of Rights) as some sort of quasi-religious revealed document given by quasi-divine Founders, rather than a political document created by men and subject to debate on its merits, is what I find scary.
I don't know why its scary: (Score:2)
the Bill of Rights itself is the product of discussion, debate, and democratic process. Sure, they reflect a means of protecting what at least a significant portion of those discussing and debating thought were fundamental rights in natural law, but they were no less a product of political process than any other law.
Some Founding Fathers like Alexander Hamilton [wikipedia.org] opposed Rights being included in the Constitution. So the Constitution was approved without them but with the understanding that a Bill of Rights w
Re: (Score:2)
But they are yet another chip on the bargaining table. If they were inherent in nature,
1) How do we derive them from nature without the feeling in the back of our head that we're making them up as a reformulation of current philosophical norms?
2) Why don't they keep emerging in the same form as we study the history of nations?
Calling these rights inherent in humanity was good propoganda for the times, but eventually we outgrow the need for such undefensible ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not a believer in natural law, but let me put it this way: do you believe that what is right is not always the law, and what is the law is not always right? That the law is not something to be obeyed because it is the law? That some ethical principles, however derived, transcend whatever the government or society thinks...?
That is my position.
Democrats, Republicans, and Rights (Score:3, Interesting)
No wonder Democrats so frequently assume that the 2nd amendment means something that it doesn't--they believe (or at least, appear to believe) that rights and apparently human dignity are government-granted...!
Except Republicans oppose rights, small "r" not capital, as well. For instance Republicans [cthouserules.com] support Three Strikes Laws [wikipedia.org] and manditory minimum sentencing laws. [cbsnews.com] Though some Democrats support them as well most Republicans love drug laws. During the 2008 presidential campaign only Republican Ron Paul wan
empower the user (Score:2)
the first article there, of course, is to allow customers of licensed entertainment to use the material as the copyright law allows. and that is reflected in "fair use."
you have to buy something sometime. once you have done so, as long as you own the original licensed copy, you can replicate it on other gadgets for more convenient use. as long as you only use ONE at a time, and don't give any of it away to non-licensed users.
fair use (Score:2)
you have to buy something sometime. once you have done so, as long as you own the original licensed copy, you can replicate it on other gadgets for more convenient use. as long as you only use ONE at a time, and don't give any of it away to non-licensed users.
Except the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) [allacademic.com] has made fair use illegal in some cases. Look at the ruckus caused by DeCSS [wikipedia.org].
Falcon
Lets see... (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Right to control what software is on your computer
3. Right to copy anything you own for your own personal use
4. Right to use software that does not interfere with anyone else's right
5. The Right to publish any information that is true without fear of takedown notices
6. The Right to possess any information
7. The Right to control your own hardware
8. The Right to use any device for any purpose that does not interfere with rights of others
9. The Right to remain anonymous
10.The Right to have free, uncensored speech on your own servers
Have all these and we would have a good start.
Re:Lets see... (Score:4, Funny)
All those would have made a FAR BETTER start than those suggested in TFA.
Can we have TFA author just shitcan his silly suggestions and adopt yours instead?
Re: (Score:2)
"6. The Right to possess any information"
thinkofthechildrennowait,you'rethinkingofthemtoomuch
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm all against the bullshit, fear-mogering pedophile witch hunt.
I was just making a lulz.
Re: (Score:2)
self made child porn (Score:2)
At worst, you destroy the images/videos and write them a ticket.
No, at worse in movies they made teens should be given a lecture.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
Child porn interferes with the rights of said children. I believe the law covers that.
Or is he saying, their rights were trampled but I didn't do it and the images/video already exist and will exist?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Numbers 5 and 6, as written, could clash with non-disclosure agreements & similar. For instance if I allow someone to inspect the code for my laboriously-written software for security purposes, I'd like to have a legally binding document with them stating that they're not allowed to hand over my source code to my competitors (or indeed anyone, unless they too sign the same agreement, etc.).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Right to access the internet if you pay for it
-- Does my home FIOS plan (asynchronous, no static IP, servers explicitly banned) count as "internet access"? I would argue that it technically does not, though it is very close.
2. Right to control what software is on your computer
-- What about the related immunity from liability for things running on your computer without your knowledge?
3. Right to copy anything you own for your own personal use
--Fair enough
4. Right to use software that does not interfere with anyone else's right
--I don't follow.
5. The Right to publish any information that is true without fear of takedown notices
--There has to be some takedown process though, for information that is untrue. You never get to publish without any fear, there just needs to be a counter-takedown notice process.
6. The Right to possess any information
--So, no copy
Re: (Score:2)
-- Does my home FIOS plan (asynchronous, no static IP, servers explicitly banned) count as "internet access"? I would argue that it technically does not, though it is very close.
If it is advertised as internet, or the general definition of it is internet access, yes it should count.
-- What about the related immunity from liability for things running on your computer without your knowledge?
Sure, that would be nice, but it would be better done on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps not by computer-illiterate judges, but there are too many ways of making a rootkit yourself and claiming it wasn't you.
--I don't follow.
Basically, if you have the software and the software's capabilities, you can use it for whatever you feel like. This is to prevent software from being made that won't let you use it a certain way
Re: (Score:2)
I think what I want is just a more sane application of legal standards, not absolute rights.
1. Right to access the internet if you pay for it
Some people should be restricted on the Internet, but only serious criminals not people downloading popular music.
5. The Right to publish any information that is true without fear of takedown notices
Including your stolen medical records? Military secrets? Trade secrets? Truth is not an absolute defense offline, then it shouldn't be so online either.
6. The Right to possess any information
How about any material currently legal to possess? Is there any reason to make Internet the free zone for everything?
9. The Right to remain anonymous
Been there, seen that. If you think t
Re: (Score:2)
1. Right to access the internet if you pay for it
We have this now, except for those who are wards (i.e. children or prisoners), or those who can't as a result of a court proceeding.
2. Right to control what software is on your computer
This is vague. In one sense, everyone has this -- install Linux or whatever. Or are you want the ability to replace each and every dll on your Windows machine individually? And to get around this, manufacturers can lease you a computer for 99 years for a one-time up-front fee.
3. Right to copy anything you own for your own personal use
Worthy ideal. Goes against some laws such as it being illegal to duplicate keys that have "do not d
Re: (Score:2)
I like your list- I'd also like to see "All Information that is collected about me without anonimization by any private entity can be viewed"
If it is truly deleted, that's all right. If people keep the information around about me, I want access to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're just shuffling the problem around. For example, let's say I pay $20 a month for DSL and host controversial mp3s, etc. Ultimately, the process repeats until you get to my computer, and I find your use of punch the flashing monkey ads controversial and choose to remove them from my view of your site.
It's currently not possible to host anything entirely on your own. Anything you put "on the internet" changes hands many times between where it leaves your server and reaches the requester's computer. P
Re: (Score:2)
Hosting providers are given a sort of limited safe harbor where they aren't responsible but must take down content that isn't legal. My ISP that I use to host my site is free of whatever I choose to have my site on (for the most part, some governments and corporations attempt to convince them to take down certain sites though), the hardwa
What about rented webspace? (Score:2)
10.The Right to have free, uncensored speech on your own servers
Webspace providers don't have the right to censor either.
No, government does not have the right to censor, private entities should be able to control what is hosted on their own servers. If a webhost does not want to serve certain political speech, porn, or anything else they should have to right to refuse to host it. For every one that refuses to host some speech another will be willing to do so. Now those who shouldn't control content are
Be careful what you wish for (Score:4, Interesting)
These things have a habit of A) never becoming law and B) being subverted if and when they do become law.
For example:
Article 2: No network provider may constrain or restrict access to the Internet in any way, shape, or form other than agreed-upon access speeds
Really: Cart Blanche to do any amount of illegal acts on the net without fear of having your use cut off? Really? Required car analogy: I can do anything in my car as long as I don't exceed the speed limit? Really? You've thought this thru, have you Paul?
Article 3. No individual shall be held liable for effects of malware or malicious code unknowingly run on a personal computer
This exonerates those who write malicious code. They release a virus to the internet, but have no knowledge of which computers it becomes installed on. Therefore, they are not liable.
Number 4: Why should anyone be obligated implement mandatory update checks in any software?
What if I don't want my software calling home?
The more you read this screed the less well thought out it becomes.
Re: (Score:2)
The "article" was badly phrased, but the explanation makes it clear that by "unknowingly run" he means the user clicking on the .jpg.exe icon. "No individual" probably should mean "no individual who unkn
Re: (Score:2)
Really: Cart Blanche to do any amount of illegal acts on the net without fear of having your use cut off? Really? Required car analogy: I can do anything in my car as long as I don't exceed the speed limit? Really? You've thought this thru, have you Paul?
Yes he has. Even a convicted felon should get access to the net. Try getting a job without that - won't happen. Sure, commit a crime online and you could go to jail, but you won't be banned from the net when you get out.
Right to the source... (Score:2)
... of products people buy after a certain number of years.
One nasty thing about commercial software is that you can't pay other people to fix it because you DON'T have the source. This means many software programs become forcibly obsoleted by autocratic corporate institutions instead of being able to be released into the public domain.
privacy vs anonymity (Score:5, Insightful)
Privacy is the ability to protect ones personal information from others - preventing others from accessing information about yourself.
Anonymity is removing information which could identify a person as a specific individual from a group.
These two ideas are close, but subtly different. Privacy can be an absolute concept - preventing information access and use for certain information can be binary: either others can access it or not. Anonymity is almost never absolute: simply knowing a human posted text has anonymity to 1 in about 6.7 Billion(ish). If you know any other information, the degree of anonymity goes down: Posted online: 1 in 2 Billion, in English: 1 in 400million. A male in the US implies 1 in about 190Million. A person who lives a particular zip code: anonymous to about 1 in 20 thousand. Examining the content one exposes: a person in Chicago, who is interested in the Chicago Cubs, and opposes the fare increase -- digging into details like that can make a person anonymous to about 1 in a few hundred with enough work.
Asserting anything about anonymity must include the idea that anonymity is always a sliding scale, and depends a lot on every bit of information a person chooses to put out into the world.
I do *not* think anonymity is a right, nor should we try to enforce it or preserve it. Anonymity is an anachronism in recent human history. People act better when they know they are not anonymous.
Privacy protections on the other hand are very important. Personal information sets, socially defined, that one chooses to protect and chooses to prevent others from being able to access of use once they have it are extremely important, and should be promoted and protected strongly.
Re: (Score:2)
A person that everyone thinks lives in one zip code but actually lives in another: anonymous
Some people act better when they know they are not anonymous. Plenty of people have made valuable contributions to society only because they
Software evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
If the result or output of a software program is to be used as evidence in court, then the code of that program needs to be made available to the court for analysis.
In 20 years it's going to be a no-brainer that if you're using the output of an algorithm as legal evidence then the algorithm should be up for scrutiny, so I'm not sure why people have difficulty understanding that now (especially as it relates to things like voting machines and breathalyzers).
Mmm.. (Score:2)
2. Yes
3. Bad idea. The enormous range in user perceptiveness (from those who wouldn't recognize an exploit if it popped up a dialog saying "Let your computer be pwnt by teh China? Y/N" to those who run multiple hardware firewalls, IDSes and remote loggers) and the difficulty of creating an objective metric for what constitutes "malicious" and "unknowingly run" will make this a nightmare.
It's called "personal responsibility" folks: You are responsible for your computer and what it does. If you c
More important rights.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Article 1. Any individual shall be able to choose anonymity when posting to Internet sites
I disagree with this. While I do believe in the fundamental right to anonymity, it is totally up to the sites owners to make them anonymous or not. For example, lets say this happened to Facebook, you would be instantly hit by a whirlpool of spam, bots, etc.
I believe you have a right to remain fundamentally anonymous, for example I believe in the right to be able to use temporary anonymous e-mail accounts, the right to use Tor and other anonymity proxies, You should have a right to remain anonymous if you so choose, however sites should have the right to require registration to maintain the sanity of the site. But, similarly allowing anonymous postings on a site should be a right for the owners of the site too.
Re: (Score:2)
That freedom of the press wasn't intended as a timeless and eternal statement about the rest of time - it had specific meaning embedded in the institutions of their society. What we *can* get out of it in the very different society we have now is the values that suggested that particular construct.
Part of the background for colonial free press was a rich, high-volume ecosystem of political journals/newsletters as people discussed and informed each other directly - part of this was encouraged by mail policy
How about... (Score:3, Interesting)
Material you create on an electronic device is *yours* and if that is encrypted or "protected" by some third party technology you always have the right to break that technology to get to the content you rightly own.
Yes.. this is directly in contrast with the DMCA... and it's outrageous.
Re: (Score:2)
> Material you create on an electronic device is *yours* and if that is encrypted or
> "protected" by some third party technology you always have the right to break that
> technology to get to the content you rightly own.
This is true.
> Yes.. this is directly in contrast with the DMCA
No it isn't.
A technology "bill of rights" might be a good idea (Score:2)
But not one that defines "technology" as "teh intertubes". We have been deeply and irrevocably dependent on technology for millennia (hint: Weaving is technology. Cooking is technology. Agriculture is technology). A "technology bill of rights" that described individual rights to technology in the broad sense would be interesting and possibly desireable. One that focuses on "technology" as defined by the newsies would deal only with transient superficial issues with the particular gadgets currently in v
The most fundamental right (Score:2)
Mister Jalopy said it well (Score:5, Insightful)
http://makezine.com/04/ownyourown/ [makezine.com]
Unlimited porn access for all (Score:4, Funny)
Don't read my sig.
Oh hell yes... (Score:2)
Here's one of the things I wanted to include:
The user has a right to know what ports on their machine will be used for any communication, and the locations where software makes changes to their machine (install locations, save locations,
Nothing will change while lobbyists own congress (Score:2)
All Knowledge is Human Knowledge!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
All Knowledge is Human Knowledge!!!
Start with that premise, and then restrict defaulting back to that assumption unless otherwise specifically restricted for good reason. Similar concept of State and individual rights structure found in the U.S. constitution (well in theory anyway).
It does not belong to one company, it does not belong to one person, or country, it belongs to the humanity. No one thinks up the next great invention in a vacuum. They went to school, they read other peoples ideas, they used a human language to express it. It belongs to humanity.
Yes, there should be certain restrictions on who can make use of the knowledge (e.g. how to make atomic bombs, what I had for breakfast), but without compelling reason it should default to the public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
O RLY? What is in my head could save the world. But, because you demand rights to my knowledge, I will not let it out.
Nothing (Score:2)
A technology bill of rights should have zero items, but thinking about tech is a good excuse to review/update what rights people have.
But that list should be invariant, whether we're talking about intergalactic-warp-travelling nano-enhanced genetically modified cyber-transhumans, or cave men whose highest tech is ability-to-start fire.
Your rights are your rights, and technology doesn't have a damn thing to do with it.
morally wrong, politically wrong,wrong in practice (Score:2)
TFA is wrong in three different ways: morally, politically, and practically.
Its proposals are morally wrong because they trample on individual freedom. For instance, #1 says "Any individual shall be able to choose anonymity when posting to Internet sites." Okay, I run a site that catalogs free books, and accepts user-submitted reviews. When new users register, it's made very clear to the new user that he needs to provide his real name. The reason is that I don't want people reviewing their own books. No,
Wishy washy (Score:2)
A lot of these "rights" seem a bit wishy-washy. The US bill of rights works because they are primarily a list of "negative rights" - ie, a list of things the government can't do/take from you. These proposals read more like a list of entitlements (eg, net neutrality, the right to post anonymously) or government contractual obligations (eg, required to use open source). That doesn't necessarily mean that these things aren't desirable, but they don't belong in a bill of rights, imo.
For example, the "righ
Please, don't ever let this guy write the law (Score:3, Interesting)
Every single one of the six points is silly.
1. Any individual shall be able to choose anonymity when posting to Internet sites
Well, we've done this one plenty before, but it's still ultimately down to the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. With freedom comes responsibility. An anonymous party cannot effectively be held accountable for their actions. QED.
Oh, and please spare us the sob story about a hypothetical oppressive regime where anonymous speech on the Internet will bring the cure for cancer and world peace. This is not the US a few centuries ago. In modern countries where free speech with your name attached is not protected, anonymity on the Internet is pretty far down the list of priorities and hardly going to be the decisive factor in making things better (not least because if you have access to the Internet at all, it's probably strictly monitored by the state and your identity is known before you ever reach a keyboard anyway).
2. No network provider may constrain or restrict access to the Internet in any way, shape, or form other than agreed-upon access speeds
Ah, yes, let's have the lawyers interfere with running the Internet, because that always works out well.
What is wrong with a non-neutral Internet anyway? All that really seems to mean is giving preferential bandwidth to some services over others, and frankly, if you think your five-reader blog is as important as Google or BBC News then you're the deluded one. Likewise, if you see a high-bandwidth future where streaming services and remote applications are popular or even the norm, you'd better start studying economics if you think the current financial models are going to support it.
As for crushing the little guy, I have yet to see an argument that isn't pure FUD. A huge amount of Internet traffic isn't from the big businesses who are really going to be affected by such laws, and there is always going to be a demand for the valuable part of that traffic, creating a market for providing such access. We already have competition laws in place should anyone start actually abusing the system to close out that market artificially, and otherwise, why isn't it just commercial dealing, on which foundation we seem to have managed to get this far?
3. No individual shall be held liable for effects of malware or malicious code unknowingly run on a personal computer
Throw in something about negligence and perhaps. But if you're one of the dumbfucks who connects a computer to the Internet and then spews out lots of spam because you're too ignorant to learn basic security, then you are a liability to the rest of the world and deserve to be cut off until you learn better.
One court case with a stupid outcome does not negate this point, incidentally.
4. A company that produces and sells closed source software for use on computers shall be responsible for the security of that product, and a user has a right to seek damages in the event of a failure to secure their product
Way to go, you just undermined the entire software development world. Little, if any, of the software running on most computers today would have been developed under this model, because there would be no sound business case for taking on such a risk under conditions that will never be perfect. Most consumers, private and business alike, simply don't need — or want to pay the disproportionate cost for — that level of quality.
Oh, and spare us the blatant Open-Source-by-the-back-door pitch, please. If you want to compete, make a better product. Forcing competition out of the market through dubious legal tricks is pathetic when big business tries it to prop up their dying business models, and it will be just as pathetic if the OSS world tries it if it turns out that they don't really make better products after all.
5. Any software or hardware used to conduct or support laws and public policy shall be open-source
Re: (Score:2)
Even in the US, there are regularly cases in which one must fight for one's civil rights, freedom of speech and otherwise.
Terms of Service (Score:2)
The right to continue service under the terms which you agreed and the striking of the ability of a service provider to unilaterally alter the terms of service without notice. New service terms must be tied to new services; failure to agree to the new terms must only bar access to the new services and not restrict access to services under the previous agreement. Discontinuation of old services must either include access to equivalent level of replacement service without change to agreement or a discount on
Re: (Score:2)
All contracts must be negotiable. None of this take it or leave it stuff from monopoly DSL and cable carriers.
I think the debate over whether it should be (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, here are some items I think should be added to the ones in TFA:
(A) Any digital information published or disseminated to the public by any government agency shall be distributed in an open, non-proprietary format. (This is prompted by my local city bureaucracy insisting on publishing "public" information in the latest version of Word... which a great many people have no way to easily read. Yes, I am aware that Microsoft makes available a free Word reader, but almost nobody outside of IT knows about it.) This would also have the effect of goading software companies to better support open standards.
(B) The fruits of University and other research that is subsidized by public funds belong in the public domain. Repeal the Bayh-Dole act, which sought to motivate University researchers, but which instead has resulted in corporate ownership of publicly funded inventions and discoveries.
don't (Score:3)
If you make it general enough to handle even just basic human rights, it'll be vague enough to game.
If you make it specific, the fascists will claim that it's an enumeration of right and so no other rights exist.
You may recall some of these arguments from the discussion about whether to adopt the US Bill of Rights, or to simply let the Constitution stand on its own.
Also remember, the internet extends beyond just your country.
You want "rights"? (Score:2)
How about you respect the rights of others first?
How about a bill of responsibilities as well.
Tyranny? (Score:2)
Seriously? Is what the word means so empty that we can call bad technology policy decisions tyranny? Put another way, are we so cynical about political discussion that we need to use crazily charged words like tyranny to label those who are not as libertene as we like? If so, why are we bothering to have the discussion at all?
Getting sensible policies is important, both in creating a society we'd like to live in and in keeping society as a whole working smoothly, but using words like tyranny so lightly clos
The right to a independent experts for court cases (Score:3, Interesting)
The right to a independent experts for court cases dealing with Technology that both sides can use and right to be able to use one for free as well as being to have your own.
Impossible (Score:2)
Any Bill of Rights is impossible today, because I believe it is fundamentally impossible to find a large enough group people to matter that are:
- basically of normal or higher intelligence
- qualified to discuss such topics
- connected enough to matter
- capable of actual altruism
1775 was an exceptional year for humanity, sadly not to be repeated.
My ideas (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Any hardware or software product that is no longer sold must have all source code available under an open-source (not necessarily free) license.
2. It must be legal and possible to backup anything that one has paid for.
LK
Just a few ideas ... (Score:2)
We Control It (Score:2)
I have a saying that keeps me secure in my house and my office:
"If it comes into my possession, I control it."
What that means is that it does exactly what I say, does not call home unless I let it, does not keep hidden logs, does not have back doors, does not answer to anyone but me or the person I have controlling it. I think if this were phrased in lawyer speak, then that would be all we need from technology.
There would be no DRM, there would be no humans answering to robots, ever, even if the robots wer
My ideas to improve the list (Score:2)
Article 1 is good, I like that.
Article 2. No network provider may constrain or restrict access to the Internet in any way, shape, or form other than agreed-upon access speeds unless such constraints/restrictions are required by law (i.e. ISPs being forced to take action by a legal order from law enforcement) or are required to stop actions that are negatively impacting on the network providers network
The last bit allows ISPs to block viruses and malware (e.g. cut someone off who is part of a DDOS attack and
Positive Rights verses Negative Rights. (Score:2)
If we're going to create a "bill of rights", then we should be careful that those rights are negative rights--that is, rights which prohibit taking certain actions (such as a right to be anonymous, which really is a right prohibiting authorities from requiring my personal information be gathered and stored), and not positive rights--that is, "rights" which require someone else to cede control or perform certain actions on my behalf. (For example, a "right" to a computer is a positive right--because it requi
The rights of software ... (Score:2)
Well.. (Score:2)
A unicorn in every stable and a fairy in every pot.
If you're going to make up a document that is never going to happen you might as well go for broke..
Re: (Score:2)
That's nice. Now can you post that without the annoying doublespace?
Translation:
TL;DR.
Same here.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a poor carpenter who blames his tools.
Notepad is fine.
In fact, it's awesome.
--Initial comment about superiority of vi/emacs/etc. over notepad.
--Comment vi/emacs/etc. sucking, and emacs/vim/etc. ruling.
--No you.
Carry on, I got you guys started.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans, and any groups of humans which encounter each other with any regularity, organize themselves and their groups into hierarchies. Stable top-level hierarchies are usually called "government" and will always eventually form. Good government and bad government is a choice, no government is not.
Re: (Score:2)
"Any hardware or software system must be fully documented and digitally published for the public good. The patent and copyright system are good enough to protect your ip." ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I would really like to see the right to be happy while using technology.
Can you imagine how many people would be suing Microsoft for violating their rights if this were passed?