[ NNSquad ] EU Parliament treating Internet censorship as trade barrier

["Fred Reimer" <freimer@ctiusa.com>]

Well, it seems that I have predictive abilities...  See this article:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080227-eu-may-begin-treating-net-censorship-as-a-trade-barrier.html

"The European Parliament recently passed a proposal to treat Internet
censorship by repressive regimes as a trade barrier. The proposal, submitted
by Jules Maaten of the rightist Dutch VVD party, passed on a 571-38 vote.
Maaten describes it as an "unusual, but effective way" to promote freedom of
expression on the Internet."

It wasn't really predictive, as the original article seems to source from
http://www.livre.nl/nieuws/internet/ep-internetcensuur-is-internationale-handelsbarriere-21022008.html (presumably in Dutch) on the 21st, so instead it
may be an occasion of "great minds think alike."

So perhaps this is the beginning of a "framework for resolving disputes like
these [issues]."  Whether this will be enforced or effective is something I
will not attempt to predict...

Thanks,

Fred Reimer

P.S. Lauren, feel free to trim the quoted thread and change the topic if you
wish.

-----Original Message-----
From: nnsquad-bounces+freimer=ctiusa.com@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+freimer=ctiusa.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of Fred
Reimer
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 5:40 PM
To: Barry Gold; nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Pakistanaccess toYouTube restored after
"blasphemous"vid removed

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.

Personally, I think Google/YouTube's response WAS appropriate.  They are
just following the law.  Now if their system is setup in such a way that it
can't block particular content from being served to particular
jurisdictions, and this causes the content to be removed from the whole
Internet, then that is unfortunate.  It would be best if they could block
such content from being delivered only to the parts of the net in that
particular country.

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.

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 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.

Fred Reimer


-----Original Message-----
From: nnsquad-bounces+freimer=ctiusa.com@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+freimer=ctiusa.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of Barry
Gold
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:57 PM
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Pakistan access toYouTube restored after
"blasphemous"vid removed

Fred Reimer wrote:
>...Google/YouTube may have made the decision to
> comply with the laws or regulations of Pakistan in order to continue to do
> business there, that's their prerogative.
...
> The fix for that is not net neutrality, but rather various steps that your
> government can take to change the government in other countries.  This can
> be anything from a message of strong disapproval by your government
> officials, to sanctions on particular items, to a total embargo, to an
> invasion.


In this particular case, I think the appropriate response is a large 
number of messages telling Google/YouTube that we think their response 
was inappropriate, especially for a firm with the motto, "Don't be evil".

And, frankly, I'm starting to think that the appropriate response to 
some of these pipsqueak countries -- that think they should be able to 
set rules for the whole internet -- is an internet death sentence.  Stop 
routing packets to and from those countries.  This should be led by the 
US and followed by Canada, Europe and Japan.  If they want their own 
little internet with no "objectionable" content, let them have it, but 
keep them out of the global network.

   [ Now now, let's not start lobbing death sentences around like
     footballs.  But this story does bring together a number of
     key issues that touch on network neutrality in one way or another.
     I'll expand on this in the next message coming down the line ...

             -- Lauren Weinstein
                NNSquad Moderator ]

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature