Allow me to add something I said somewhere last week causing some laughter, ".. starting with demilitarizing the Internet." On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Alex Gakuru <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Eloquently put! The real problem is not nor has been the Internet per se > but its unprecedented societal order transforming success – > instantaneousness, equally placing everyone on the same platform. Then the > publics/participants responding by transferring their most varied motives > online resulting in ages old societal conflicts and humans interaction > tensions replaying online. > > Given your illustrated cultural, traditional, religious, human nature, > infrastructural instruments, among other, interactions challenges, how/can > these tensions be eradicated such that when everyone connected is > all-smiles online? Or yet another illuminating case for global attitudes > overhaul ;-) > > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Marc Perkel <[log in to unmask]>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. >> > >