..."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
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:
- "Although technology in and of itself is neutral, and must remain so, the way that Internet is used is not neutral."
- "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."
- "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."
- Artists "must not be despoiled of the fruit of their talent. That doesn't simply ruin them, but far worse, it enslaves them."
- Governments "wish to enter into dialogue with you so that we can defend one another's interests."
- "[I am] calling for collective responsibility."
- "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':
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.'
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.
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
"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.
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)