It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


France attempts to "civilize" the Internet; Internet fights back

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:08 AM

France attempts to "civilize" the Internet; Internet fights back

For some time, French Pres. Nicolas Sarkozy has talked about his dream of a “civilized” Internet, but this dream has long been a nightmare for those who worry that “civilization” is really a code for “regulations favorable to big business and the national security state.” To make his vision a reality, Sarkozy helped to create this week's e-G8 meeting currently underway in the Tuileries Gardens next door to the Louvre—and the critics are fuming.

"I was invited to the e-G8 and declined," said author and activist Cory Doctorow recently. "I believe it's a whitewash, an attemp
(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:08 AM

..."I was invited to the e-G8 and declined," said author and activist Cory Doctorow recently. "I believe it's a whitewash, an attempt to get people who care about the Internet to lend credibility to regimes that are in all-out war with the free, open 'Net.

The President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, has organized an e-summit.

In this e-summit, the "e-G8," he calls directly for the participants to join with governments towards sharing the "responsibility" of control over the Internet.

It was noted by the Internet Governance Caucus that there was some dis-ingenuity behind the affair. Since those being 'invited' and those 'sponsoring' the event were the same mega corporation which are already poised along with governments to control the internet in the first place. In fact, in my opinion they are not looking to "control" the Internet, they are looking to "rule over it" just as their model of governance of people proposes they rule over populations.

Some of the sponsors are, Orange, Google, eBay, Microsoft, HP, and others... all privately funding this "e-G8" summit.

Sarkozy delineates some fundamental points for his plea:

  1. "Although technology in and of itself is neutral, and must remain so, the way that Internet is used is not neutral."
  2. "The universe that you represent is not a parallel universe which is free of rules of law or ethics or of any of the fundamental principles that must govern and do govern the social lives of our democratic states."
  3. "Don't forget that behind the anonymous Internet user there is a real citizen living in a real society and a real culture and a nation to which he or she belongs, with its laws and its rules."
  4. Artists "must not be despoiled of the fruit of their talent. That doesn't simply ruin them, but far worse, it enslaves them."
  5. Governments "wish to enter into dialogue with you so that we can defend one another's interests."
  6. "[I am] calling for collective responsibility."
  7. "What I am calling for is for everyone to be reasonable."

The Internet Governance Caucus sent an open letter to Sarkosy, that he may find 'reason' of a contrary nature of his stated interests. It makes for a bland read.. but at least someone is paying attention.

If I may address some of the French President's 'points':

1 The French President clearly has forgotten that ALL mediums of mass communication are subject to the same reasoning as the Internet. Can we say (especially now) that Television, Radio, and the Press are "neutral?" If not, how can we justify the corporate-governmental move to render it equally dysfunctional? If they are, then what does it matter that the Internet is as it is? It appears that the intent is to strengthen control for purposes other than the ideals of 'civilization.'

2 In stereotypical narcissistic fashion, this member of the ruling class declares that the Internet must be "governed" and that the freedom of unrestrained communications between people necessarily equates to "no ethics." I believe many ATS members would beg to differ.

3 That Netizens are subject to the laws and rule of their national origin seems to have some weight in this president's estimation. But he fails to delineate how those laws and rules are different for different netizens, and thus, seems to be calling for uniform policing. I can't help but imagine the function of those who 'alert' local governments of the words or activities of people on the net that may fall under their jurisdiction.

4 "Artists" some how figure into the grand scheme of the internet. Because apparently, all artists are now victims, or potential victims, of free speech. Clearly, the "artists" he refers to are those represented by a media conglomerate with a failing business model. At least he can be assured of their support.

5 Taking into consideration who was involved in sponsoring this meeting, who organized it, and who will be 'responsible' we are seeing a blatant call for governments and corporate entities to "ally" themselves with each other.... for their common defense. But defense from whom? Are the enemies so many that a global effort must ensue to remedy the problem? Or is it more posturing to achieve the eradication of the freedom inherently bound within the Internet as it has taken shape in our societies?

Points 6 and 7 are simple; a call to arms from the brotherhood of corporate-government interests.

About a week ago, a Reuters article was published which seemed to show the growing cooperation between the EU and the Unites States on the issue of Internet control. That article calls for the "Right to be Forgotten" a relatively new concept which speaks to the enduring nature of personal data on the web, and how people should be able to remove their data and be informed of how much is there and where it is. Apparently, a US political appointee, Fiona Alexander, identified only as a member of the Department of Commerce (But her title is actually "Associate Administrator. Office of International Affairs. National Telecommunications & Information Administration) stated:

"I think our baseline understanding of the rules is very similar," said Fiona Alexander of the U.S. Department of Commerce, who was in Brussels this month to meet EU regulators. "The implementation in the past may have been different."

If they are similar, when will the people of the United States be treated to attending the marriage of more corporate and government cooperation to 'control' the internet, where most of our real news is found, and most of the real national dialog is taking place?

(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 25-5-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:14 AM
A supplemental and MOST relevant additional link to enjoy.....

Copyfight: EFF co-founder enters e-G8 "lion's den," rips into lions

His friends asked him not to lend the legitimacy of his name to the event... somehow, I'm glad he went.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Maxmars

..."I was invited to the e-G8 and declined," said author and activist Cory Doctorow recently. "I believe it's a whitewash, an attempt to get people who care about the Internet to lend credibility to regimes that are in all-out war with the free, open 'Net.
I'm glad he declined, as it does sound like he might be right about the true intent.

I don't think the internet is broke, so I'm pretty much opposed to ideas like this to "fix" it.

I think I've got lots of company in the general population, but it will be interesting to see who wins this battle, the people like you and me, or the greedy megacorporations.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:29 AM
The internet is one of the last safe havens to actually get REAL news and know what is going on. This is ONE thing the government cannot have, the internet belongs to the people not the greedy corporations. There are reasons why I no longer watch TV.

"despoiled of their fruits?" I see artists in their big mansions and expensive feraris, i dont think they are "despoiled".

Does this give us the right to download mp3's? off course not, but one thing artists should keep in mind is that the whole purpose of being an artist is to be heard, listened to and SHARE thoughts. We are one, if you knew that I am you and we all all one under God, would deprive me of your thoughts? or would you rather be heard?

I just think artists have lost their ways to greed, that or corporations wants to keep making money from a cow that has already been milked time and time again until one day it can no longer be milked, then what? You can have all the gold and money in the world? If it's not in the streets, all you will have is worthless metal and cheap paper. The people will have no choice but to fend for themselves...oh wait its illegal to do so right?

So..we cant grow our own foods, wait they also are releasing chemicals unto the nice way to back people into a corner.

here is the thing, people dont like to be cornered, one day they will snap and do away with the corporations.

I see a fall out soon, but that's just me.
edit on 25-5-2011 by RisenAngel77 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Maxmars
A supplemental and MOST relevant additional link to enjoy.....
I'm glad you added that, and you're right, it's a fantastic story, even better than the one in the OP!

And he actually got some cheers from the audience, so the audience must have had enough diversity to not just consist of a bunch of "let's control the internet" fanatics.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:30 AM
Hey don't touch my internet i paid for it.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:54 AM
It's cases such as this that I am glad we have Anon. Ironically, they would probably be one of the said reasons for control.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:45 AM
Despoiled of fruits....

does it look like this "artist" has been despoiled of anything?

People, do whatever it is that you feel is right. And i don't mean to over rationalize great evils so you can convince yourself they are right. I mean, follow your conscience and do what you feel is right.

Then ignore every other "law" that is out there.

We can all sit and complain while wringing our hands, but that won't do anything. Stand up, demand your freedom.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:00 PM
its true that all of sarkozy's points are valid.

but its a strech to blame the internet and act like it's a problem specific of the internet.

the problem seems to be that the internet gave the voiceless a voice.

the internet liberalized propaganda, anyone can make it now.
governments want to be the sole providers of propaganda.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:01 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

Civilized internet or any controlled internet is a violation of the largest freedoms, I personally put it right there in between the freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms.
The internat is the last frontier, the wild west.
We don't need no stinkin badges just guns.
Plus nobody dies on the internet, and if we do we respawn.

Sure there are things that can be hacked but if you worry about that, UNPLUG you idiots.
But please do not try to take away my newest freedom as I would demonstrate the rest of my freedoms.
Just my take.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:07 PM
I think the internet is fine the way it is. Whilst I agree with the points Sarkozy makes about the net it's not worth risking the freedom of speech and expression the internet offers in order to 'civilise' it slightly and make it more corporate/regime friendly.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 06:42 PM
It is sad that Artists concerns are being used in this manner, but those concerns are real. People are in fact stealing intellectual property and acting as if it is their right to do so.

If I start using the logo from ATS would that bother anyone? Would I not be wrong? Of course I would, I'd be a thief in fact. A lowlife.

I do however think it's being so heavily leveraged to justify things I think are just as wrong as people stealing other peoples work. So we have liars arguing against thieves to justify unrelated nonsense. Pot meet Kettle. Because the products of bad parenting are stealing massive amounts of intellectual property, they therefore are justified in regulating unrelated Internet activities to their advantage. Am I in the ballpark here?

Bigfatfurrytexan, you think all Artists are filthy rich, you have got to be kidding! Right! You would be floored by how many musicians for instance are existing in poverty off of tiny royalty payments. Some are quite famous. Some of the worlds most talented artists are working serving food or on construction jobs to survive it is so hard to earn a living. Every penny matters and to not protect them is well, evil. Only a tiny number of Artists succeed earning even enough to survive.

Yes I'm biased as far as Artists are concerned. Not only that, stealing is just plain old wrong and people worth wasting air on do not steal other peoples work. If that offends, so be it. That was a false argument and I'm thinking you likely did that as a knee-jerk reaction. I doubt you are for stealing.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 07:20 PM
reply to post by Blaine91555

The best bet is to create a new business model. The one that was in place often didn't reward artists, it rewarded copyright owners.

Most musicians make their money on tour. While at concerts I hear them encouraging illegal download (many bands over the last 3 years).

It is a problem...but nothing that a shift in business model wouldn't fix.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:29 PM
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Good idea and it clearly needs to happen. However most of the hype surrounding the abuse of artists is based on fiction, but it does exist. Not at a level to justify people stealing though. The entertainment industry, like professional sports has far more people barely surviving than those who make big bucks. For every known there are hundreds if not thousands of struggling unknowns.

Sorry OP for dragging this off topic. I'm scolding myself for it right now.

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:35 PM
reply to post by Blaine91555

Not a problem..., it's part of the picture and perhaps the key to disarming those who wish to use the public abuse of intellectual property as an excuse to govern a virtual environment that must be what the users want it to be.

Artists need to craft their industry, not industrialists.

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:21 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

And that should really be the challenge: create a business model that protects your property. It is not the job of the government to do it for you. This "theft" should be a purely civil matter, and the criminal proceedings only prove how corporately corrupt our nations government really is.

To use a parallel, if i had horses that were allowed to roam the country freely, could I really go after someone when they decide to catch it, and make it theirs? As a rancher, I am expected to protect my property by keeping it safeguarded. Media giants cannot be expected to do the same?
edit on 26-5-2011 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)

top topics


log in