[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ih] [IP] EFF calls for signatures from Internet Engineers against censorship

That's a constructive approach. There is an element of Internet culture that regards itself and the Net as above the law (such as the "Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace") so extra-diligent engagement is needed just to overcome that. Not that I think PIPA is all that bad, mind you; there are a lot of problems with the ICE process, but that's a whole different story from refusing to resolve criminal domains.

Richard Bennett
Senior Research Fellow, ITIF

On Dec 20, 2011, at 8:37 PM, Vint Cerf <vint at google.com> wrote:

> I spent 2 hours with ICE reviewing their domain seizure practices and
> have committed to engage the technical community to look for
> alternative mechanisms to fight piracy in lieu of domain name seizure
> or the mechanisms of the ill-conceived SOPA/PIPA. I may be calling on
> some of you to engage.
> vint
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 3:19 PM, John Curran <jcurran at istaff.org> wrote:
>> On Dec 20, 2011, at 9:20 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>>> On 12/20/2011 6:02 AM, John Curran wrote:
>>>> I was noting that SOPA is the type of outcome that occurs when we
>>>> fail to proactively engage governments.
>>> John, the implication of your original note and this latest round is that opposition constitutes a failure to engage.  The signed opposition note is a petition.  You might recall a reference to petitioning in the Consitution.
>>> The point that you seem to be missing is that the current bill is being pursued willfully and is ignoring expert guidance that contradicts the substance of the bill.
>>> That's just bad technical policy.
>> Dave -
>>  Our failure to engage _years ago_ proactively with governments
>>  regarding their needs has led to this outcome.
>>  Do you feel the petition is constructive engagement regarding
>>  governments perceived needs in this area?  I am unable to find
>>  any suggestion therein of an alternative approach to solving the
>>  problem of "foreign infringing sites", nor even a suggestion of
>>  meeting to seek an understanding of their views on the problem.
>>  Absence of these elements leads me to believe that the petition,
>>  while quite clear in its message, doesn't represent constructive
>>  engagement as much as "drawing battle lines".  It may or may not
>>  be an effective mechanism, but my point is one of Internet history
>>  in that we've never proactively sought out governments' requirements
>>  for the Internet during its development into a global communication
>>  medium, and therefore we should not be surprised at government attempts
>>  to now more directly control communications in order to accomplish
>>  their perceived responsibilities.
>> /John