[Chapter-delegates] Digital sovreignty and splinternet

Thu May 26 08:04:28 PDT 2022

But, but. The Internet is not content. It is infrastructure and protocols.

On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 10:56 AM Richard Hill via Chapter-delegates <
chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:

> Dear Ted,
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, national laws are such that content which is legal in some
> places is not legal elsewhere (e.g. selling Nazi memorabilia is legal in
> the US, but not in Europe). So entities may have to take steps to restrict
> access to content in some jurisdictions. This was first litigated in 2000,
> see:
>
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LICRA_v._Yahoo!
>
>
>
> This does not violate the UDHR or the ICCPR, because certain restrictions
> on speech are allowed under international law (in particular, restrictions
> on hate speech).
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ted Hardie [mailto:ted.ietf at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 26 May 2022 16:46
> *To:* Richard Hill
> *Cc:* ISOC Chapters
> *Subject:* Re: [Chapter-delegates] Digital sovreignty and splinternet
>
>
>
> "The Internet is borderless by design" is shorthand for a set of technical
> characteristics of the communications enabled by the Internet.  A slightly
> less shorthand version might be that if we define the Internet as the
> reflexive set of network nodes which are reachable by IP, we can observe
> that this set is not congruent with or affected by national borders.  The
> corollary is that any node reachable by IP can offer resources or services
> to any or all other nodes without regard to those same borders.  That
> insight is what makes the World Wide Web world-wide; if you have a browser
> and can identify the right node, you can get the resource from anywhere.
>
>
>
> Digital sovereignty does not change this technical characteristic, but
> creates a regime in which specific services must be sourced within specific
> regions (mostly national but sometimes at the level of supranational
> region).  If I could access a resource currently offered in the Netherlands
> but the provider must offer it to me in Portugal, the service can no longer
> take advantage of the Internet's characteristics.
>
>
>
> Carried to its extreme, this results in a splintering of the reflexive set
> of network nodes reachable by IP into a number of subsets.  Each subset has
> nodes using the same technology,  but they are no longer able to provide or
> access services to all the other nodes. "Splinternet" is the very short
> shorthand for this condition.
>
>
>
> Whatever the shorthand, the result is bad both for the network and for its
> users.  At its most extreme, it could be read as a violation of Article 12
> and/or Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
> <https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights>.
>
>
>
> regards,
>
>
>
> Ted Hardie
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 11:08 PM Richard Hill via Chapter-delegates <
> chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
>
> I refer to this post which was recently brought to our attention:
>
>
>
> https://www.internetsociety.org/action-plan/2022/digital-sovereignty/
>
>
>
> I’m puzzled by this bit: “The Internet is borderless by design.”
>
>
>
> All telecommunications are designed to facilitate cross-border
> communications flows. In fact, the ITU was created in 1865 precisely to
> facilitate the cross-border flow of telegrams, and subsequently facilitated
> the cross-border flow of other forms of telecommunication.
>
>
>
> While base telecommunication protocols (e.g. TCP/IP) are indeed designed
> to be borderless, the physical facilities that implement the protocols, and
> that provide services based on the protocols, are subject to national law,
> for example criminal law, copyright law, etc. (Recall that offline law
> applies equally online.)
>
>
>
> In addition, there may be telecommunications-specific regulation.
> Traditionally, those were heavy, and, in many jurisdictions, provided that
> only state-owned or authorized monopolies could provide certain services.
>
>
>
> That ended in the 1980’s, with the introduction of liberalization and
> privatization.  But certain specific laws still exist. For example, in the
> US, CDA 230 creates a liability regime for certain Internet services that
> is specific to the Internet.
>
>
>
> Names and addresses were traditionally assigned on a national basis, and
> this was carried over in the domain name system in the form of the ccTLDs.
> However, in keeping with the tenets of privatization, most ccTLDs are not
> state-owned, and in keeping with the tenets of deregulation, many ccTLDs
> are not regulated.
>
>
>
> IP addresses are handled differently: they are assigned on a regional
> basis.
>
>
>
> And Internet routing is not based on national borders.
>
>
>
> Here is a more detailed discussion:
>
>
>
>   http://www.apig.ch/Internet%203-characteristics.doc
>
>
>
> But the most important difference regarding the Internet is its funding
> model for many services: monetization of personal data through targeted
> advertising. This has had some unwanted side-effects, see for example:
>
>
>
> http://boundary2.org/2015/04/08/the-internet-vs-democracy/
>
>
>
>
> http://www.boundary2.org/2018/02/richard-hill-knots-of-statelike-power-review-of-harcourt-exposed-desire-and-disobedience-in-the-digital-age/
>
>
>
>
> http://www.boundary2.org/2018/10/richard-hill-too-big-to-be-review-of-wu-the-curse-of-bigness-antitrust-in-the-new-gilded-age/
>
>
>
>
> http://www.boundary2.org/2021/04/richard-hill-the-curse-of-concentration-review-of-cory-doctorow-how-to-destroy-surveillance-capitalism/
>
>
>
> Since the Internet now underpins most aspects of our lives and economic
> activities, it seems to me inevitable that governments will evaluate
> whether they should be more involved in its governance (e.g. by enacting
> data privacy laws, and/or by enforcing anti-trust law).
>
>
>
> Obviously there is a risk (and not just in non-democratic states) that
> government intervention could have unwanted side-effects. So it seems to me
> that it is important to provide information to governments that will enable
> them to make sensible decisions.
>
>
>
> Regarding the specific issue of splintering, I fear that it’s not just the
> Internet that might splinter, but the world as a whole. I fear that we are
> moving to a new version of the Cold War which some of us are old enough to
> have lived through.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS):
> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS):
> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct:
> https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>
> --
> --------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  +12185659365
> --------------------------------------
> <https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20220526/7c59ccc5/attachment.htm>