[Chapter-delegates] Narelle Clark - Is the Internet different?

[Veni Markovski]

Fred,
Agree with your last sentence 100%.
Unfortunateluy, in many countries, the laws are created for different,
than implementing them, reasons.
I can give example with Bulgaria, where in 2002 the Copyright law was
amanded, and one of the provisions seemed very strange, not at all
belonging there. I was an invited expert, and asked peacefully
(really!) why is this text proposed. None of the members of the
Parliament could respond. The chair of the Committee, a friend, took a
note and at the next week session read an answer from the minister of
state administration (sic! What does HE have to do with this law?!?),
"this text is agreed upon between the State Administration and
Microsoft", and continued, "so we're not going to discuss it, but just
accept it".
When companies have interest in a law, they will do anything they can,
including reaching "an agreement" with foreign governmentd to get what
theu wanted. The case made the pages of the NYT and the Herald Tribune
in 2003, during the WSIS... Unfortunately, nothing followed, as the
power of money always wins, where vertues are not strong :(


Best,
Veni
(via blackberry)
http://www.veni.com


On 7/9/10, Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 9, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>
>> Narelle's point, written in the context of clumsy moves by Governments to
>> control Internet behavior, is that statutes should not discriminate
>> between online and offline activity. That networking is becoming so
>> integral a part of society that there essentially is no need for
>> difference in laws. For example, why introduce broad online censorship in
>> an otherwise free society?
>
> Her point, stated as "The Australian chapter of the Internet Society has
> argued strongly that our system of law needs to be robust enough to be
> applied and be enforceable independently of the medium", echos the position
> that ISOC in general and the IETF have pushed regarding internet-based
> legislation and regulation for a good 20 years. In short, we have no
> shortage of laws regulating behavior; use existing law in the new medium of
> communication rather than specially regulating it, or if one is going to
> write new regulation, make it apply in all media.
>
> I had an interesting conversation along this line with a lawyer from the
> Family Research Council, a US christian lobbying organization, a number of
> years ago. She wanted an obscenity law tailored to the Internet, and I as a
> contributor was concerned. So I called and asked. When I pointed out the
> plethora of obscenity laws, she said "yes, but those have all been gutted by
> the courts; due to precedent, they have no teeth." I wondered aloud why this
> law would be different, and she replied "of course it will be gutted. But it
> gives me another opportunity to argue the case."
>
> I stopped supporting FRC. If a law cannot be effective in its intended
> effect, it should not exist.
> _______________________________________________
> Chapter-delegates mailing list
> Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org
> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device