Hello all,

At this moment it is quite easy to "select" a service that you would like to use; quite easy actually: you agree with their ToS, you are a member and if you don't, simply put, you're not a member. Recently more and more people are outraged about certain actions and measures taken by service providers. I believe that at least half of the users do NOT actually read the ToS and they go ahead and become members anyway.

Regarding the point made about pornography; if it wasn't for pornography, several technologies would have had a different shape than what we are used to now (e.g. VHS tapes vs. Betamax, BluRay vs. HDDVD, etc).

Until now, we still have the ability to select the services that we want to use or not, each of them representing a certain amount of data that we are willing to share with everybody else. After all, nobody is forcing you to post a certain type of pictures and even so, no matter how you put it, aren't you responsible for the stuff you post? See the "famous" case of the airport bomb threat on Twitter (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-11736785)

The "uploading a real picture of the real you" is very weird in a way.. It's not like that's the only way they can check who you are. As a matter of fact, I never heard anyone of having a double identity; real and virtual, and the two being 100% different.

Bottom line, I am not sure if the word "anonymous" or "anonymity" makes sense or will make sense in the next few years. It's not only about the online world but also the day to day life (RFID chips, bank cards, etc).

Yours truly, 


Andrei Barburas

Community Relations Services Officer

 

International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD)

P.O. Box 11586, 2502 AN The Hague, The Netherlands

NPOC, ICANN member


Mobile: +31 62 928 2879

Phone: +31 70 311 7311
Fax: +31 70 311 7322
Website: www.iicd.org

 

People   ICT   Development




On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
First, not every country does have cyberlaw for their own territory. Many countries are making it up as they go along.

Two, having two hundred plus laws for every post makes it a bit difficult to...well, have any post.

Three, Facebook has a real name policy. It has selective enforcement. It pretty much stinks. That's why I prefer VK as my social media site. Based in Russia, VK really doesn't try to be a police force.

Bertrand de la Chapelle has a great project exploring some of these issues, internet and Jurisdiction  ( http://www.internetjurisdiction.net ). He's concerned, as am I, about social media companies Terms of Service (ToS)  being de facto Constitutions. Rebecca MacKinnons Consent of the Governed...fantastic book about, in part,  the danger of rule by private ToS. She's particularly concerned, as are many of us, about the incremental loss of anonymity online by things like real name policies...and seemingly proposals like yours.

Do you by any chance mean "Picture upload should be banned"...I don't think you are calling for everyone to scan and upload pictures if they have pornographic contents etc. Although I'd prefer that to the banning option.

Were you aware that pornography is the second most popular use of the internet (it used to be number one but those social media sites have replaced them)? Porn users have rights too. I happen to live at times in jurisdictions that do not have hate crime laws, sharia law and the like. I'm perfectly happy with the free speech I have there.

Congratulations on Indonesia's Facebook status. Was there a wider point here? I think of the tens of thousands of Indonesians who bought Lady Gaga tickets the minute they went on sale in Indonesia...against the tens or hundreds of people protesting the Innocence of Mohammed.

Your proposal to hold social media sites responsible for content loaded by it's members is dangerous and must be rejected in whole. That would effectively end social media as we know it. I would encourage this Constituency to join me in respectfully rejecting your proposal in it's entirety.

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 4:21 AM, rusdiah <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Facebook should enforce their policy:
1. Picture upload by a person... the person should be accountable for any pictures upload.
2. Picture upload should be scanned if it has pornographic contents, child pornography, lead to terorism, hatred against race, religions and so on...

Here Facebook should be accountable... where ever they operate..since every country now has Cyberlaw for their own territory. Indonesia now ranks four of FB user in the world.
So not only gain profit from advertisement, but also accountable for its content loaded by its member.

Regards,
regards, rudi rusdiah - apwkomitel - indonesia
 
On 09/25/2012 08:35 PM, Mark Leiser wrote:
I actually wrote about this the other day on my FB page. Frightening. I don't know what I expected, but thought more from the fine folks at the EU. 
Most puzzling and shocking is the demand that "Social Media Platforms should ensure users upload a real picture of themselves"... 

Talk about mission creepy! 


Sincerely, 
 
 
Mark Leiser
 
Mark R. Leiser, Phd Student
School of Law, Humanities & Social Sciences Faculty
PGR Room, Lord Hope Building
University of Strathclyde
141 St James Road,
Glasgow G4 0LT
Scotland 





On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Kerry Brown <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 
It seems that people who want to control the Internet always need an excuse to explain their actions. It used to be that they used stopping child porn. It seems this is changing to fighting terrorism.
 
Kerry Brown