Comment forget the details (Score 1) 103
It's clear that a lot of people had considered the Internet to be somewhat immune to the possibility of regulation because of its lack of physicality and the great number of countries it serves - I've heard people say 'the net will never be regulated - to do it you would have to get every county in the world to agree upon, enact and then enforce an international multi-faceted agreement/legislation'
They would go on to say that we were therefore safe because all you would need would be to have one country refuse to enter into the agreement as one no doubt would)and it would be rendered useless - because everyone would then have their sites and content hosted in the abstaining country where there were no laws relation to Internet content etc - then unless you made it a crime to view such sites - who could stop you?
That's great in theory, but of course it doesn't take into account the willingness of countries to enact draconian legislation to regulate the activities of their own citizens in relation to the use of the Internet. You don't need world spanning legislation to regulate the Internet when a local law can address every aspect of the use of that medium. If it's illegal for me to submit a hack for a buggy OS, or a new set of algorithms to decode a DVD in my own country, what the heck do I care if someone in Bangladesh can do it with impunity - it still stops me from doing it - or at least makes it dangerous for me to try.
There is little limit to the laws a government can choose to enact, especially if it decides to employ such terms as 'National Security' in it's reasoning for the inception of laws. So there's not even any hope in the possibility of an international declaration that the Internet isn't the property of anyone (and therefore it is untra-vires for any country to attempt to make law for it) - because you don't need to make laws any further away from home to cripple the net as we know it.
I think the commentators have somewhat missed the boat when it comes to identifying the most important Internet Law development of the year, which is simply that at last the lumbering colossus of commerce and government has realised that it's going to wake up one day very soon and find their accepted ways of business have been replaced completely by functionality in the ether.
It's something that they have failed to grasp properly for years, and they intend to make up for that lack of foresight by enacting every possible law they can to regulate what they see as their worst enemy - free speech on a global basis. I include in my definition of 'free speech' the ability to write and propagate code, and disseminate information that is directly in conflict with that of others - including governments and big business.
We live in a capitalist world. That's the way it is, it isn't any other way - wish what you might. Commonsense dictates then that there must be laws to protect and aid trade - both locally and internationally. Most people agree to these laws without even thinking about them. But with law and the internet, these things have begun to take on an entirely different persona.
It could well be too late for the Internet, at least in it's current incarnation and at this point in time. The only thing that can really prevail against the rising tide of regulation and invasive legislation is a massive public outcry that goes to the roots of the governments in office. Unfortunately, I can't see that occurring. Sadly, most people are either unaware or have a lackadaisical attitude to the growing spectre of over-regulation and the peeling back of civil privacy rights.
It's been said before and does sound terribly uncomplicated (and thereforebound to draw derision) but since this is really the only way that big business and governments are going to be held in check, then I think a concerted effort needs to be made by those of us who give a damn. Make people aware of the problem, scare them, do whatever you think will communicate the message that one of the worlds greatest wonders could simply vanish under a varnish of business slogans and regulation - along with many of the rights they have taken for granted for so long.
I'm a lawyer //insert jeers here - and I belong to a group of lawyers that spend a lot of time appealing proposed and existing legislation regarding the internet and it's collateral privacy issues. Unfortunately though, governments have huge scope to make provisions for national security, and so at the end of the day it all comes back to the people, because they are the only thing, en masse anyway, that can hold a government to task.
There's little point talking about the intricacies of certain pieces of legislation, we can argue legal technicalities till the cows come home, and do, but it's little better than a stalling tactic - that we're losing.
Take it up on a constitutional basis and when that fails, take it up on a popularity basis. Nothing else is going to work. People must learn that they do have power, they do have a voice, and they should exercise it before that right disappears in deference to fast food, a warm bed and the protection that only a prison warder can give.
They would go on to say that we were therefore safe because all you would need would be to have one country refuse to enter into the agreement as one no doubt would)and it would be rendered useless - because everyone would then have their sites and content hosted in the abstaining country where there were no laws relation to Internet content etc - then unless you made it a crime to view such sites - who could stop you?
That's great in theory, but of course it doesn't take into account the willingness of countries to enact draconian legislation to regulate the activities of their own citizens in relation to the use of the Internet. You don't need world spanning legislation to regulate the Internet when a local law can address every aspect of the use of that medium. If it's illegal for me to submit a hack for a buggy OS, or a new set of algorithms to decode a DVD in my own country, what the heck do I care if someone in Bangladesh can do it with impunity - it still stops me from doing it - or at least makes it dangerous for me to try.
There is little limit to the laws a government can choose to enact, especially if it decides to employ such terms as 'National Security' in it's reasoning for the inception of laws. So there's not even any hope in the possibility of an international declaration that the Internet isn't the property of anyone (and therefore it is untra-vires for any country to attempt to make law for it) - because you don't need to make laws any further away from home to cripple the net as we know it.
I think the commentators have somewhat missed the boat when it comes to identifying the most important Internet Law development of the year, which is simply that at last the lumbering colossus of commerce and government has realised that it's going to wake up one day very soon and find their accepted ways of business have been replaced completely by functionality in the ether.
It's something that they have failed to grasp properly for years, and they intend to make up for that lack of foresight by enacting every possible law they can to regulate what they see as their worst enemy - free speech on a global basis. I include in my definition of 'free speech' the ability to write and propagate code, and disseminate information that is directly in conflict with that of others - including governments and big business.
We live in a capitalist world. That's the way it is, it isn't any other way - wish what you might. Commonsense dictates then that there must be laws to protect and aid trade - both locally and internationally. Most people agree to these laws without even thinking about them. But with law and the internet, these things have begun to take on an entirely different persona.
It could well be too late for the Internet, at least in it's current incarnation and at this point in time. The only thing that can really prevail against the rising tide of regulation and invasive legislation is a massive public outcry that goes to the roots of the governments in office. Unfortunately, I can't see that occurring. Sadly, most people are either unaware or have a lackadaisical attitude to the growing spectre of over-regulation and the peeling back of civil privacy rights.
It's been said before and does sound terribly uncomplicated (and thereforebound to draw derision) but since this is really the only way that big business and governments are going to be held in check, then I think a concerted effort needs to be made by those of us who give a damn. Make people aware of the problem, scare them, do whatever you think will communicate the message that one of the worlds greatest wonders could simply vanish under a varnish of business slogans and regulation - along with many of the rights they have taken for granted for so long.
I'm a lawyer
There's little point talking about the intricacies of certain pieces of legislation, we can argue legal technicalities till the cows come home, and do, but it's little better than a stalling tactic - that we're losing.
Take it up on a constitutional basis and when that fails, take it up on a popularity basis. Nothing else is going to work. People must learn that they do have power, they do have a voice, and they should exercise it before that right disappears in deference to fast food, a warm bed and the protection that only a prison warder can give.
