Bill of Rights for the Digital Age 164
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."
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
IF they knew the girls were crack whores, which they couln't have (even if the girls had priors, which IIMN they didn't) they may have been suspicious, but that's the point - they're not supposed to be able to saerch your property without a warrant or your permission Period. You're saying if they suspect you of some crime they shouold be able to go search your house and you should have no say in the matter, regardless
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Don't you mean one branch?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the second one?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple Amendment (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
More to the point, how many have not, and how many people have been harmed by this?
How long has it been since the meaning of the commerce clause was inverted? How long since they began passing ex post facto laws? How long since the right to keep and carry arms has been infringed? How long have they been carrying on a war against people's personal, consensual choices? When we start talking about periods of fifty years, you've lost me on that whole "it takes time to work." Unacceptable.
My feeling is that if the system can't correct itself over a matter of decades, then the potential for harm by rogue laws (and rogue lawmakers, and rogue enforcers) is far too great. From this, I conclude that the system itself is thoroughly broken. It is not acceptable for people to be harmed by congress, the executive, and the courts exerting powers they have no authority to exert.
Also - in a system where the government is allowed to hide who is harmed by their various out of bounds, unauthorized infliction of rogue legislation, it is not acceptable to have to demonstrate harm to one's self. If that is to be the standard, then the law in question MUST be completely transparent in its application. This whole "You can't challenge phone / wire / network taps because you can't show you've been tapped because the government won't say" is a complete and utter line of nonsense.
The US legal system is being managed by criminals. Who says so? The constitution says so.
NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not seeing how your post is a negative response to my post.
Re:NO! (Score:4, Insightful)
The 2nd amendment states: 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.
It's a statement that's somewhat difficult to parse in modern English, but I don't think it says precisely what you're implying. The basis for the amendment is the US was a colony of Great Britain born of an armed rebellion. The authors of the Bill of Rights recognized that a tyrannical government will do what it can to ensure it remains in power. One of those means is to ensure people cannot defend themselves by strength of arms. The second amendment was meant to prevent the government from removing that ability from the people. People might say in the US that no firearms possessed by citizens could defeat the US army, which I agree with. However, armed insurgencies with little in the way of technology or firepower have done very well destabilizing and toppling governments even in the face of the technological might of the US.
Basically, I think the amendment, even to a strict constructionist, doesn't allow the federal government to prevent people from owning firearms. I think it's a better question as to whether states may do so.
Re:NO! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but if things ever got that bad I would think the troops would not turn a blind eye and shoot their
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that was the final (mistaken) belief of every failed revolutionary throughout all of history.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are probably in the militia already (Score:2)
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(source http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html [cornell.edu])
So women have to join the
A tax on whiskey (Score:2)
The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 pretty much settled the question of how the new federal government would respond to an armed insurrection.
A Tax on Whiskey? Never! [americanheritage.com], Little Rock Boils Over [americanheritage.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When that amendment was written, militias were a commonplace fact of life in the Colonies. For folks outside the big urban centers, a firearm (i.e. a rifle) wasn't strictly a military weapon, but a tool of everyday life, useful for protecting your property from strangers, hostile natives, and dangerous animals, as well as for hunting and guarding livestock. In short, it was something like a knife.
Modern weaponry is
Re: (Score:2)
'Arms' had a completely different meaning when the US consitution was written. The idea that citizens should be able to own any gun-shaped device of destruction that science comes up because a 300 years old piece of paper says so is ridiculous.
So did "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." -- we didn't have electronic documents, telephones, photographs, video, breathalysers, DNA tests, etc., but I daresay you would not argue that the 4th amendment should be limited to the 1789 (drafted) or 1791 (ratified) definition. "Arms" takes on the definition of the time in which it's interpreted, just as persons, houses, papers, and effects
Re: (Score:2)
You've obviously never read the Federalist Papers, or any of the other writings of the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, have you?
Also, you ma
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship is when someone in power prevents someone's speech from being heard. So yes... someone in power having enough control over communication to actually prevent those things from being communicated is more evil than a blog post that is maliciously libeling someone or a video file containing footage of someone being killed.
How are you going to censor someone from yelling "
Unenumerated rights. (Score:2)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Enshrine Rights? Why? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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....
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1st Amendment (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
...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)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Define tangible (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't get very far before breaking your own rule.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how those are contradictory.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps not. I wasn't intending to write anything legally sound, just hopefully something from which a legally-sound version could be extracted. This is the short summary in front of what might end up being legalese, or simply guidelines.
My point here is that if there are abusive clauses, they will be right up there,
Not gonna happen or it'll make things worse (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Hell, even three even-powered parties would be a much better scene. Two is just asking for trouble, for the very reason you state above.
Digital age rights (Score:5, Funny)
the right to lack of retribution (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
I'd say one's (in)ability to positively represent themself and demonstrate good judgement are very relevant to a company's hiring practices.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow new record (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, where have you been since 1970? The U.S. government has decided who you may or may not hire since before I was born.
At what level? (Score:1, Insightful)
The Bill of Rights is Outdated (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
EULA does not a contract make (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
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
"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.
Ethics 101... (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
If governments can grant rights, they can also nullify them.
"or hell, see any evidence for their existence at all"
Interesting. If you cant see them, then they don't exist right? How shallow are you?
"As far as I can see, people are peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of life requires nothing from me. If someone shoots you, you don't have a right to expect anything from me. Again, it requires nothing from me.
Going without is always an alternative, even if you don't think it is "much" of one. You want internet or is your right to privacy worth more to you? The problem with your line of thinking is that you've ceded a
Re: (Score:2)
Redefine what "is" is. (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
Digital doesn't change anything (Score:1)
privacy (Score:2)
Waste of time (Score:2)
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.
Just old fashioned Unreasonable Search and Seizure (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
The start of America (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
I've got an idea (Score:2)
"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's suggested Bill Of Rights (Score:2, Informative)
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
A few rights (Score:2)
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
Tagging "goodluckwiththat" (Score:2)
What? We've already got it covered. (Score:2)
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
Here's The Constitutional Privacy Amendment (Score:2)
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
SURRENDER DOROTHY (Score:2)
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]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Politician's rebuttal (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't. It doesn't want anything. It is incapable of want.
However, I want information to be free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)