Thanks, Nuno. Norbert Klein Cambodia On 07/22/2011 10:38 PM, Nuno Garcia wrote: > Hi all, hi Timothe, > > Allow me to disagree with some of the things you say bellow, mostly > because I think the comparison you chose is not adequate. > > In the Information Society we are all trying to build, to prevent > someone from accessing information in the manner it is published is a > violation of some of the basic Human Rights (and I mean the ones from > the charter of rights published some 50 years ago by the UN). > > Let me explain: some governenments and almost all companies publish > information that is critical to a responsible citizenship in the web, > sometimes only in the web, many times free on the web but payable > everywhere else. > > To put it bluntly, in Europe, the access to Internet is view by > legislators as as important as the access to electricity, water and > health. > > Please don't get me wrong, I too am a strong advocate of responsible > citizenship. > > Yet I am not ever in favou that this group takes on the > responsabilities or tries to impose or define responsabilities onto > its represented elements. There are authorities for that and that > would be way out of our powers. > > I propose that if that is the case, we build a charter of rights and > responsabilities for a responsible cyber-citizenship (or whatever name > you find more suitable). > > Let me know explain why the example you chose is ill formed. > > If a driver misbehaves you may prevent him from driving, not as a > punishment, but as a mean to safeguard all other users of public roads. > > Again, the government may prevent him from driving, but unless the > offense was a crime, it cannot prevent him from using public > transportation, or walking. > > What you propose is somehow similar to put the citizen in a jail where > he cannot move or has limited movements. > > On another aspect, the Internet (capital I), is a privilede, and a > right. A right that derives from the fact that the information it > contains is public domain. A right like reading a newspaper, or > listening to the news and the music in the radio or watching TV. > > The Internet is the mean through which many of the rights described in > the Human Rights Charter are made available to us. > > And may I add, even risking to be one of the "crooks" you mention: we > should never take this discussion to the point where we define who is > a crook and who isn't. This is a very very very dangerous path and > this is not the way we should go. In no time we will be discussing > religion, moral, and other extremely personal and subjective things. > > I hope to have contributed to this discussion. > Warm regards from Portugal, > > Nuno Garcia > > > 2011/7/22 Timothe Litt <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > > At the risk of becoming even less popular, let's see where your > analogy > takes us: > > Like driving, a network presence, including a domain name, is a > privilege > and not an absolute right. > > On the roads, there are standards of behavior that are enforced > for the > safety and convenience of all. And vehicles must have tags that > identify > the owner/operator. An unidentified vehicle strewing sharp > objects (or > explosives) down the road is a problem for everyone. While it will > eventually be stopped, the damage it causes is amplified by the > amount of > time that it takes to identify it. So we have registration > tags... And > those who drive sufficiently irresponsibly have their privilege > revoked - > even if it means they lose their livelihood. > > The internet is a far more complex machine. With the privilege of > becoming > a part of that machine come some responsibilities. Being able to be > contacted when, through error, malfunction, or malicious intent > one has a > negative impact on the machine and/or its users is a basic > responsibility. > And those "network operators" aren't (just) some big anonymous > corporation > staffed by paid technicians; they're also individuals with their > one PC > running their own mail/web/dns server - because they don't want to > entrust > their personal data to the whims of some ISP. Burdening "them" is > burdening > "us". And it's hard enough for "us" to get "them" to take action > against > bad actors when we can identify them - when we can't, it's virtually > impossible. > > Reachability via proxy provides anonymity sufficient for > protecting the > privacy needs of virtually anyone who needs to be part of the > network. Just > like the vehicle whose registration address is a trust or > corporation's > attorney. That scheme protects those with the need (or simply > desire) for > privacy. The strength of the proxy can be adjusted to need - > providing it > still provides access. So maybe you trust your government-run ISP > to proxy > your contact information - or maybe you employ an attorney in a > state on the > other side of the world with different privacy laws and a private > army. I > don't care which - as long as I can communicate thru the proxy to > someone > who can fix or diagnose a problem. And as long as failure to > respond/cooperate allows the privilege of being part of the > network to be > terminated - with due process (and lots of "reasonable" in the > definitions). > > Providing fraudulent/no contact information is not consistent with > being a > good citizen. Proxies provide an adequate alternative, with > sufficient > privacy protection for those who need/desire it. > > We (NCUC) can't be just about "rights"; responsibilities are part of > citizenship too. We should not be advocating bad citizenship, or > making it > "officially acceptable". It's bad for the network. It's bad for our > credibility as an organization of responsible people. It's even > bad for > good people who think it in their interest to be unreachable - > because they > can lose domain names, connectivity and operational help. The > only people > it's good for are the crooks/bad actors. And NCUC should not be > helping to > make their lives easier. > > It's a choice to be part of the network, just as it's a choice to > become a > licensed driver. Those who can't/won't accept the rules of good > citizenship > can employ others to network - or drive - for them. (Yes, > bad/unreasonable > rules can/should be fought. This isn't one.) > > We don't tolerate unlicensed drivers or unregistered vehicles - or > vandalism > of others' vehicles and roads. And while we allow proxy > registration of > vehicles, driver's licenses have a verifiable name, contact > address and > photo. Perhaps that's a sacrifice of some absolutist sense of > "liberty", > but it does make our transportation system work (more or less). I > don't > think it unreasonable to expect the same of those on the network of > electrons as of those on the network of roads. > > Timothe Litt > ACM Distinguished Engineer > --------------------------------------------------------- > This communication may not represent the ACM or my employer's views, > if any, on the matters discussed. > -- A while ago, I started a new blog: ...thinking it over... after 21 years in Cambodia http://www.thinking21.org/ continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia. Norbert Klein [log in to unmask] Phnom Penh / Cambodia