4 ms·
I think it's important to draw the distinction between freedom in terms of the freedom of speech on the internet and freedom from surveillance on the internet.
by anologwintermut 13y ago
I think it's important to draw the distinction between freedom in terms of the freedom of speech on the internet and freedom from surveillance on the internet.
The US is the largest monitor of the internet because most of the traffic passes through points it can monitor. Changing this would restrict US spying, but it would make it easier for other countries to do it (consider, given the announced Olympic surveillance plans) if all the traffic went through Russia). So you'd have to simply hope traffic doesn't get routed through countries who want to spy on each-other(remember, few if any countries have legal restrictions on foreign surveillance). It seems the only real solution to prevent surveillance is end to end cryptography.
The part where it gets dicier is that many of the countries trying to get control of the internet have much poorer legal protections for freedom of speech or social acceptance of it than the US (e.g. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil).
- schoen 13y agoThis is one reason I think it would be helpful to have a clearer articulation of which functions people are referring to when they talk about "Internet governance", so that other people can understand whether we want those functions to exist at all, and (if so) what kinds of institutions we would like to try to empower to do them. Many things that can be called "Internet governance" have little bearing on Internet users' free speech or privacy -- but others do. This might be akin to the way that RMS suggests that saying "intellectual property" (instead of "copyright", "patent", "trademark", "trade secret", and several sui generis regimes) leads to conceptual muddles. "Internet governance" may have the same problem; maybe it's a term in need of some disaggregation!