[ALSC-Forum] Coments on Bertelsmann Study

[Bruce Young]

Here's my comments on the study "Who Controls the Internet, the Bertelsmann
Foundation's Recommendations for Internet Governance":
<http://www.democratic-internet.de/berlin2001/recommendations.pdf> 

Over all, this document displays a degree of forward thinking uncommon for a
big content provider and RIAA member (which makes them automatically
suspect!) :)  I agreed with much of what was stated in this document, and
only have a few  comments on statements made in it:

"Since Internet content is judged differently depending upon the culture in
question, co-regulation must also take these differences into account."
This implies establishing "least common denominator" rules that would remove
from the Internet anything anyone in the world might find offensive, which
is anathema to the proper discourse necessary to maintain a democracy!
Instead, I subscribe to a "highest common denominator" policy that, in each
instance, conforms itself to the *highest* level of free expression of all
participants!

" . . . all Internet users should have unrestricted access to encryption
technologies through which they can ensure confidentiality in their exchange
of data and communications."  I agree with this wholeheartedly.  However
they then go on to say, "Here the interest of criminal prosecution is to be
safeguarded to whatever degree necessary."  This smacks of the failed "key
escrow" idea the Clinton Administration tried to implement, which would have
violated the US Constitution's fourth amendment.  Jeff Schiller, executive
member of the Internet Engineering Task Force, and network manager for
Massachusetts Institute of Technology made what I believe to be the seminal
statement on this subject "Law enforcement was not supposed to be easy.
Where it is easy, it's called a police state."  'nuff said!

"Efficient mechanisms based on self-organization, self-regulation,
transparency and compliance with basic legal principles should be employed
for dispute resolution."  Whose "basic legal principles?"  The law is very
different from one jurisdiction to another even within the same country, let
alone between countries.  Internet regulations must transcend local bias
and/or sensitivities.  If this affords greater freedoms for action over the
Internet than in the physical world, I can live with that!

" . . . problematic content should be addressed with a co-regulatory system
of responsibility."  The problem here is: who decides what is "problematic
content"?  Again, if we endorse this thinking we're headed down the path
toward "least common denominator" rules governing content.  The speech most
in need of protection is often that which a majority of others in society
find "problematic."  Libel (intentionally making statements the writer knows
to be untrue to harm the reputation of another) should be the only content
disallowed.  To ban anything else opens the door to allow one group to use
their cultural or religious biases to block the speech of others who do not
share similar beliefs.


Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
byoung651@home.com
http://members.home.net/byoung651/index.html