I have a feeling that this is a trap.

Baudouin

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Amr
Elsadr
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 4:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet
treaty

Thanks Marc. Couldn't agree more.

Amr

On Dec 15, 2012, at 3:26 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:

> My problem is that no matter how benign a treaty might sound in the
beginning it would lead to the creation of an infrastructure to allow
enforcement. Once you have an international infrastructure of control who is
to say the rules might change? So something might start out as the society
for the protection of cute kittens organizing to stop child porn and end up
with the thought police installing chips in your brain.
> 
> And you can imagine where this would go when it comes to "religiously
offensive" materials sent across the internet. There are many countries
where not believing in God caries the death penalty, as well as believing in
God the wrong way. I can imagine what would happen between Christians and
Muslims on an Internet with a central control infrastructure. There was a
story recently where a man who was a non-believer determined that a crying
statue of the Virgin Mary was caused by a leaky sewer pipe and he's being
prosecuted for it. Imagine what a threat it would be to realists if those
views could be enforced across international borders.
> 
> And what about uprisings? The Arab Spring was organized online. Would we
be obligated to censor the cries of the oppressed and tortured because of
treaty obligations of the oppressing country?
> 
> The bottom line for me is that some criminality is the price we pay for
freedom and it's worth it. Once you put in an infrastructure to stop the bad
guys then that infrastructure can, and most certainly will, be used against
the rest of us. So I support our resistance to any treaty or domestic law to
centrally control the internet.