[ NNSquad ] Re: Pakistan access toYouTube restored after "blasphemous"vid removed

[Barry Gold <bgold@matrix-consultants.com>]

Fred Reimer wrote:
> Well, I think this would be an appropriate response if a country believed
> something strongly enough.  After all, it is exactly what they are doing
> just in the opposite direction.  I wouldn't call it a death sentence, that's
> a pretty strong term.  I would rather term it reciprocal sanctions, or some
> other similar term.

I was thinking in parallel with the "usenet death sentence" which was 
applied to a host that refused to do anything about spam emanating from 
it.  IIRC, the UDS was lifted and an amicable agreement was reached.

> Personally, I think Google/YouTube's response WAS appropriate.  They are
> just following the law.

Google is a California corporation.  They are legally required to comply 
with US and California law.  They are under no obligation to follow the 
law in any other country, except to the extent that they find it to 
their advantage to do so.

I want as many people as possible to point out, as strongly as possible, 
that it is _not_ to their advantage to do so: that they are spending 
their reputation to gain access to a country with not much disposable 
wealth and which could easily become an enemy of the US if another 
terrorist incident occurs.


> It would be best if they could block
> such content from being delivered only to the parts of the net in that
> particular country.

It would be best if they had some guts.

> What should we do about it?  I don't know that we can do anything about it
> individually.  The answer, however, is not writing Google.  They can't do
> anything about it, other than selectively censor content that is illegal
> based upon the location of the requester.  They WILL be blocked by the
> countries ISP's if they don't comply with the local laws.

No, what they can do about it is to tell Pakistan, "That's your problem, 
not ours."  If Pakistan chooses to block YouTube, then YouTube should 
say "Good riddance."

> What we CAN do is something like you suggested - lobby our government to
> take ever increasing steps to discourage and stop this type of behavior.
> First make diplomatic contact and let them know of our displeasure.  Then
> step it up and threaten action.  Finally take that action, cut them off of
> the Internet, or at least from the part of the Internet that is under your
> control (i.e., the ingress points in the USA, if that is the country that is
> displeased with the actions of another country).  I personally don't think
> any further action is justified, such as sanctions on banks, partial
> embargo's on computer equipment, full embargo's, or war.

I would prefer that Google took action (or in this case _in_action) on 
their own.  Failing that, perhaps we can get some action from our 
government under the next administration.  I'm afraid there is no hope 
of any from the current one.

> I don't believe individual countries should be able to "set rules for the
> whole internet."  There should be some framework for resolving disputes like
> these just as there is a framework for resolving any other kind of dispute.
> As far as I know, no government has been involved on the "defense" side of
> any of these disputes, and perhaps it was time that happened.

Overall, that might not be a bad idea.  Just as the WTO resolves trade 
disputes among countries, perhaps some international body could resolve 
disputes over internet content.