G8 internet regulation

[Dubh the dark]

Well it's finally happening. After Anonymous, the PSN crash and the Twitter/Facebook importance in the revolutions across N. Africa and the Middle East, the G8 have put the issue of internet regulation on their agenda.

Eric Schmidt, Google's executive chairman, and Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, warned governments to tread lightly on internet regulation because moves to tame its rough edges risked hurting its virtues.

At the conclusion of a two-day forum in Paris, their comments exposed deep rifts between tech titans, academics and policy makers, even as they tried to agree on a message to take to world leaders at the Group of Eight industrialised nations meeting on Thursday in Deauville, France.

With the forum, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, was seeking to put his stamp on the debate over regulating the internet and encouraging the digital economy during his one-year term as president for the G8.

Despite a glittering guest list, the event dubbed the e-G8 internet forum ended up with few concrete policy recommendations and mostly vague conclusions that the delegation of six technology chief executives, including Schmidt and Zuckerberg, would present to leaders in Deauville on Thursday.

The outcome highlights the difficulty of finding a way to regulate the internet that is acceptable to governments, industry and civil society.

In a speech to the e-G8, Sarkozy stressed the role that the state should play in the context of what he called the "total revolution" of the internet.

"We must participate in a revolution that has been born in the heart of civil society for civil society, yet which has a direct impact on governments. Because if technology is neutral and must remain so, it is clear that this is not the case for the ways in which the internet is used," the French leader said.

Zuckerberg denied on Wednesday that his global social networking site was to thank for enabling the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt through protesters coordinating online.

Twitter's Tony Wang, meanwhile, told the e-G8 attendees that his company would share user information with authorities should they be "legally required" to do so, in reference to a debate in Britain over the website's defiance of a super injunction.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/eu...413757852.html

So is it right for States to step in and try to regulate internet usage or is an attack on personal liberty?

[magpie]

Thanks for the post my friend, God those Governments hate the net, Makes them feel insecure and less self important As expected Napoleon Mk 3 was leading the charge.

[Dubh the dark]

Thanks for the post my friend, God those Governments hate the net, Makes them feel insecure and less self important As expected Napoleon Mk 3 was leading the charge.

They have their pretext to attempt regulation. It was bound to happen eventually, allowing people to say what they want anonymously on the internet, somehow is anathema to the principles of democracy. Go figure huh?

[Sharpe's Company]

The UK Government is always asking youtube to take down videos, especially videos of men and women arresting a judge under the Magna Carta in an act of Lawful Rebellion.



Why doesn't the Guardian report the real news?

[irontaino]

It was inevitable.

[Ahlerich]

ah, just a little one man show of the french poser no.1
there are farts with more impact on society

[removeduser_487563287433]

ITT Sharpe claims Government keeps making YouTube take down a particular video.

Then he posts the video, hosted on YouTube.

Doesn't see irony.

[Sharpe's Company]

If you knew anything about the case, then you'd understand but you're unware of the facts.

Keep living in cloud cuckoo land, some of us are actually fighting for Britain.

http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/content...titution-group

We, the British People have a right to govern ourselves. That right has been subjugated as a consequence of acts of treason having been committed by the collective political establishment, aided and abetted by corrupt segments of the judiciary, the police, the Church and the civil service.
Furthermore, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, whose position has been usurped by a corrupt House of Commons and who has been forced into the destruction of her Kingdom and the breaking of her coronation oath, no longer governs us in accordance with our laws and customs, as was the situation when she was elected by the people as our Sovereign and our Head of State.
Why Her Majesty has failed in her duty is not for us to judge at this point in time - Her Majesty has however been made aware of the situation and is now duty bound to make amends.
A political elite has for some time manipulated the electoral system to deprive the people of true democratic representation by constructing a party political system that has allowed, indeed encouraged, acts of treason to have been committed.
As a direct consequence of the betrayal of the British people by the collective political establishment, and others, the British Constitution Group is calling for Lawful Rebellion, as is our right under article 61 Magna Carta 1215.

[Dubh the dark]

If you knew anything about the case, then you'd understand but you're unware of the facts.

Keep living in cloud cuckoo land, some of us are actually fighting for Britain.

http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/content...titution-group

We, the British People have a right to govern ourselves. That right has been subjugated as a consequence of acts of treason having been committed by the collective political establishment, aided and abetted by corrupt segments of the judiciary, the police, the Church and the civil service.
Furthermore, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, whose position has been usurped by a corrupt House of Commons and who has been forced into the destruction of her Kingdom and the breaking of her coronation oath, no longer governs us in accordance with our laws and customs, as was the situation when she was elected by the people as our Sovereign and our Head of State.
Why Her Majesty has failed in her duty is not for us to judge at this point in time - Her Majesty has however been made aware of the situation and is now duty bound to make amends.
A political elite has for some time manipulated the electoral system to deprive the people of true democratic representation by constructing a party political system that has allowed, indeed encouraged, acts of treason to have been committed.
As a direct consequence of the betrayal of the British people by the collective political establishment, and others, the British Constitution Group is calling for Lawful Rebellion, as is our right under article 61 Magna Carta 1215.

Sharpe this is about the G8 putting the issue of internet regulation forward, don't high-jack this thread - it's an important issue.

[Sharpe's Company]

Sharpe this is about the G8 putting the issue of internet regulation forward, don't high-jack this thread - it's an important issue.

The wilder implications are greater, it is yet one other area where the government is trying to control our lives, by taking away our liberties.

Not that you really care in Ireland, having given away your economic policy to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and also at the IMF.

[Dubh the dark]

The wilder implications are greater, it is yet one other area where the government is trying to control our lives, by taking away our liberties.

Not that you really care in Ireland, having given away your economic policy to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and also at the IMF.

Just for that I'm going to reference the Guardian;

David Cameron is to resist calls for international regulation of the web by Nicolas Sarkozy at the G8 summit. The French president will table proposals for controls on the internet on the first day of the conference of world leaders in Deauville, Normandy.

Cameron's officials stressed they believed there were many hurdles and mechanisms before anyone could regulate the net internationally. "We will not be regulating the internet any time soon," said a Downing Street official.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...net-regulation

It seems more of a stall tactic so the point stands - does the State have a right to regulate the net?

[PacSubCom]

Sharpe this is about the G8 putting the issue of internet regulation forward, don't high-jack this thread - it's an important issue.

Sharpe is the only one here with an inkling as to what this "important issue" is about: Power. Yet what you can read here in the rest of this thread is that it's really all about Sarkozy's short stature.

The power in question is that of the people who can use communication to organize politically. Organization = Power. So the functional elites want to control communication. Not that complicated really, if you are capable of some systemic thinking.

[Dubh the dark]

Sharpe is the only one here with an inkling as to what this "important issue" is about: Power. Yet what you can read here in the rest of this thread is that it's really all about Sarkozy's short stature.

The power in question is that of the people who can use communication to organize politically. Organization = Power. So the functional elites want to control communication. Not that complicated really, if you are capable of some systemic thinking.

Sharpe already took a number of threads and talked nonsense about the Jews, Irish etc. He's a BNP member and I didn't want another flame war here that's all.

[Ahlerich]

Sharpe is the only one here with an inkling as to what this "important issue" is about: Power. Yet what you can read here in the rest of this thread is that it's really all about Sarkozy's short stature.

The power in question is that of the people who can use communication to organize politically. Organization = Power. So the functional elites want to control communication. Not that complicated really, if you are capable of some systemic thinking.

you have a point but all that came out of this was hot air so no reason to get wrried yet.
when the german government was trying to establish filters for child porn as a first internet regulation the other year they did not come very far either.
as long as there are no real threats to liberal values in regards of the internet there is no reason to get worried.

once some regulations are proposed its still time to talk about how to stop that initiative and how to evade it technology wise.

sometimes this urge to civili liberties and protection of private sphere is ironically funny. people resist the census this year in germany because they dont want the state to know details about their life and on the same day they post all kinds of personal information about themselves and their familys and friends on data mining sites like facebook.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The only fighting I can see there were some strange men trying to undermine a hearing for a man who refused to pay his council tax.

I don't see what's constitutional about tax evasion, Sharpe.

Anyway, I won't contribute to you hijacking a thread with a topic actually worth discussing any further.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Anyway, the internet.

It's a thorny, complicated issue. Indeed there are some, as has happened every time there has been a new media, who want to seize it to their own uses. I do not believe that will happen.

[Gromovnik]

Oh how much I despise that pseudo-french cartoon character of a man...

[Copperknickers II]

Is it even possible for there to be restriction on the internet? I think short of the authorities pulling all of the undersea cables and wiring out of the infrastructure, there will always be a way of circumventing controls.

[Dubh the dark]

Is it even possible for there to be restriction on the internet? I think short of the authorities pulling all of the undersea cables and wiring out of the infrastructure, there will always be a way of circumventing controls.

I don't know, but I remember Obama proposing an internet ID requirement, which basically gives up your anonymity;

-President Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans, a White House official said here today.

It's "the absolute perfect spot in the U.S. government" to centralize efforts toward creating an "identity ecosystem" for the Internet, White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt said.


That news, first reported by CNET, effectively pushes the department to the forefront of the issue, beating out other potential candidates, including the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security. The move also is likely to please privacy and civil-liberties groups that have raised concerns in the past over the dual roles of police and intelligence agencies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_1...37-501465.html

I think the plan might be to create these ID's initially to use with Facebook, Youtube etc. where most web-traffic goes through - thereby affecting the majority of internet users.

[Rex Germanius]

I especially enjoy the phrasing used: "Identity ecosystem." Not only is this an incorrect application of the word ecosystem(environment would be a more accurate term), it implies a level of positive nature about it by associating the limiting of rights with environmentalism, hence "ecosystem." It's dishonestly vague and incorrect.