Slashdot Mirror
Bill of Rights for the Digital Age
diewlasing writes "Since we are living in a world where the need is growing for privacy measures and rights to use emerging technology, it seems to me that state governments should adopt a bill of rights regarding internet privacy, use of technology and speech on the internet. For example: make it illegal to allow ISPs to release personal information to anyone who wants it. Now, obviously, that's not the only issue. If you were asked by your state government to come up with a bill of rights for internet privacy, technology use, and free speech regarding the internet and emerging technologies, what would you include? Many things are covered (here in the US) under the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, but it seems to me that, these days, people with enough money can disregard this. Perhaps the states might find it a good idea to enshrine rights into law."
The Constitution's Bill of Rights doesn't stop legislators from infringing on rights, so what's to think a new one would do any better?
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Bullshit! The minute they do that, it opens the door for some scumbag politician's power play denying that people possess a right because it's not explicitly enumerated. That's why the bill of rights wasn't written that way in the first fucking place!
By enshrining the rights of EVERYONE, you're inherently protecting the people who are trying to destroy your country and your freedom. If you prevent ISPs from handing out information about their clients, then how are these vicious lawbreakers ever going to be brought to justice?
No, I think this is a case where the good people have nothing to fear, because if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have no reason to worry about your electronic rights.
NOTE: This argument is copyrighted, so when (not if) it's raised by the government, they have to ask my permission.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
Going to need a 1st Amendment right, obviously, to freedom of speech in all cases that do not cause tangible harm to others--e.g. libel and slander, producing kiddie porn, etc.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
What the people want means nothing. Lobbyists and special interests with money are who really count.
There's just too many people in America these days who are willing to give the government any powers it claims it needs, so long as there's the promise of them being kept safe.
And that's not even getting into the fact that our congress doesn't seem particularly interested in asserting it's power (and duty) to keep the executive branch in check.
The free and the brave are in short supply in the US, having been replaced by the cowardly and the cynically opportunistic.
Information wants to be free.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I write sci-fi for metalheads
The digital age bill of rights: "We'll send you the bill, and you have no rights!"
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Make it illegal to harass, discriminate, terminate, or disqualify for hire someone due to what comes up in Google searches if the things found are NOT illegal or in violation to workplace rules.
So what if you have a blog where you gripe but never mention your employer's name? So what if you've shown some sexy shots somewhere? So what if you were at a party back in college, acting like a college student, ten years ago? How are any of these things relevant to your ability to perform a job you are already doing or have applied to do? We seem to have gone from 'did you inhale?' in government procedings to 'did you have a life before you came to us?' for the average person.
What goes on on the Internet -- and has nothing to do with "you" as the employer -- needs to stay on the Internet.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
Are you talking about passing laws at the top level of government (e.g., the U.S. Congress or Constitution) or are you thinking of affirming rights at the provincial level (e.g., the Nebraska legislature or constitution)? If you're going for laws to protect digital rights within small areas like U.S. states, what's to stop infringement of those rights across the border (which is where most traffic will end up)?
So do criminals.
If the founding fathers made it a right to own firearms, would they have done the same for the right to own and drive a car? These days our government preaches "privileges" instead of "rights". To what end?
This country is going down the tubes and here's why: No one cares enough. People are down right happy with their lives as they are and unless there's a large enough percentage of the population willing to openly revolt nothing is going to change.
We have hypocrisies after hypocrisies: Taxation without representation, suspension of habeas corpus, need I go on?
The people in power realize that the people won't stand for oppression so they allow a standard of living that's just good enough for 95% of the population and they are willing to throw away the other 5% because again, they realize it lets them maintain the status quo. 1984? Nah.... just a nanny, security state propped up by the same assholes who can't take responsibility for their own actions so they let the government move in and regulate everything.
So how does this tie into an "Internet Bill of Rights"? You have to make enough CARE to create a movement for anything. As for some rules.... lets start with just one for now..... Network Neutrality.
Clarify that one-sided EULA "contracts" where the purchaser has no opportunity to negotiate (or even access the text of) the agreement prior to purchase is not a legal contract.
True rights don't require or aren't about anything technological. Rights exist apart from technology, so that if you're stranded on an deserted island, your rights still exist.
... "there ought to be a law" and ceded Liberty for Security.
This is one of those things that people on the left have no concept of. They think rights are things you're entitled to by government decree, which is completely contrary to the founding document of the USofA. Government ought to be extremely limited, not an all powerful monolithic demigod that it has become. And rights don't require forcing others into situations they don't want to be in (eg Universal Health Care).
While it is NICE to want Universal Health Care, it isn't a "right" because it requires something from others. It requires technology and the work of others. The biggest problem we have today is that people don't have a clear concept of what a "right" is, because they lack a foundation for describing what rights are.
From the article "state governments should adopt a bill of rights regarding internet privacy, use of technology and speech on the internet. "
Why? It is the responisibility of each of the users to protect themselves, and government shouldn't get involved except in cases for prosecution of whatever contractual breaches occurred. When you willingly give your info to others without a contract in place, and it escapes in the wild, that is the risk you take doing so.
"For example: make it illegal to allow ISPs to release personal information to anyone who wants it."
Wrong approach. Either accept that personal info is going to be released or find an ISP that offers a guaranteed level of privacy you desire. Can't find one? Tough, go without. Or find an open access point, internet cafe or whatever, that doesn't require personal info.
"If you were asked by your state government to come up with a bill of rights for internet privacy, technology use, and free speech regarding the internet and emerging technologies, what would you include?"
I don't want a Nanny state, babysitting people. I want a state that protects the LIBERTY of all men, and not pass stupid laws because someone said "there ought to be a law". How about this instead. Be Responsible for yourself, protect yourself at all times. If you took care of yourself, then you don't need the laws you're proposing. Personally, I don't want to give up Liberty for Security, because you end up with neither.
"people with enough money can disregard this."
That is the result of government power abuses. That is a result of a government that cannot even rule itself. That is a result of power grab by the government because someone said
"Perhaps the states might find it a good idea to enshrine rights into law."
Perhaps you don't know that rights exist apart from law. Laws are only there to secure rights and Liberties of men. Government doesn't grant rights, and your basic premise clearly shows that you don't understand what a right or liberty really is, or the government's purpose is.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
1) An extension to the Bill of Rights: "it shall be incumbent upon the legislature to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any new grant of authority to government agencies, or restrictions on any right, secured by any article of any constitution, law or policy, shall be not only necessary, but be the only effective solution. The courts may strike down any grant of authority or restriction on a liberty covered by this statute, if anyone may prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the legislature was in error, and that a more effective, less invasive approach could have been implemented instead."
2) No intellectual property law shall circumvent state laws governing property, or common law property precedent or tradition.
The pesky thing, according to its original meaning, would have stopped many social programs such a social security. It would have allowed ordinary people to be armed. Rather than go to the trouble of amending the thing, they decided to turn it into a "living document" that could be redefined on the spot, by redefining what the meaning of "is" is.
Another great step in social progress.
So now the problem is: how do we write a new constitution that will allow "the people" to vote themselves free bread and circuses and free health care, and not take away anyone's rights.
Everyone is refusing to admit it to themselves. Government big enough to take care of everyone, will inevitably "take care" of every one's rights as well.
The power of self deception is such that the people of America are now selling the most precious thing they have, freedom, for the pot of pourage of the promise of free services. No one can tell them that that is what they are doing.
It will take rivers of blood, to get that freedom back!
Technology makes it easier to do certain things, but those things could always have been done in the past. The U.S. Constitution has never had an explicit right to privacy, and has always had freedom of speech (at least since it was ratified). There might be lots more data moving through your ISP, but plenty of your data still moves through the U.S. postal service, FedEx, UPS, etc., in plain old non-technology ways.
--- JurassicPizza
Well, some of the things I'd like to see: tightening of requirements for communication providers (ISPs & telcos) to keep your communications private. Fix FISA so it is very narrowly allowing surveillance of foreign targets, after court review (I personally don't see why this couldn't be prior review only - no retroactive approvals). Make the "national security letter" and other noxious provisions of the Patriot act clearly illegal (they may be unconstitutional even under current law). Tighten requirements on banks and other financial institutions to secure and prevent disclosure of sensitive information such as SSNs and credit cards. Require in most cases an "opt-in" for disclosure of even non-sensitive personal information such as name & address. None of this by a long shot completely prevents the erosion of privacy and possible leakage of your personal data that comes from your using a global communications net, but it would help.
Producing kiddie porn is illegal because the act of pedophilia is statutory rape. That is enough -- distributing kiddie porn which has already been produced should be legal, so long as you were not involved, in any way, with producing it.
Now, libel and slander -- what we really need here is a system whereby it is easier to determine the veracity of a statement, rather than a system where it is possible to sue someone after the damage is done.
So, that said, I propose this:
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
The Federal government will just assert authority under the "commerce clause,"* and all the state's efforts will be for naught.
*Assuming they even try to justify their power-grab according to constitutional principles. Though in this case they would actually have a leg to stand on.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Most of the time, it's just that nobody wants to apply the old law. English common law is a wonderfully broad and malleable thing. Besides, a new law doesn't have a hope in hell of being passed, anyway; attitudes have changed drastically since the last time Americans had any fundamental, broadly respected rights. If this weren't the case, protections that (used to) apply to telephone conversations would also apply to Internet communications. You're either entitled to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, or you're now. It's not "OMG, they invented the typewriter/telegraph/radio/telephone/intertubes, EVERYTHING'S CHANGED!!!" time. It's "Think of the children/terrorists/illegal aliens/liberals!!!" time.
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
Maybe an amendment specifying that infringing on rights is treason?
I have a sneaking suspicion that this is exactly the sort of thing that was asked back in England. They had the opportunity to setup shop in the new world though, far from the reaches of their government. They probably felt their system was broken and that there was no way to change the system from within, so they left to the fringe, and there is where they severed their ties and became their own entity.
Our new world is entirely different. Where they had water separating the air their governments controlled from the air the colonists breathed, we are occupying the same meat space, talking over a series of tubes controlled and taxed by those same people we disagree with. For us to live in a fringe society seems almost barbaric. Funny that, though, as I'm sure that's exactly how the colonists felt about their lives.
So here's where I suggest you start. You start by saying fuck the internet. A digital bill of rights is useless in this current incarnation of the web. It would be subverted by anyone who had any leverage at all, and often even by those who don't (the bank vs wikileaks for example). It may seem barbaric, but work on alternatives to the internet routing system as it currently is. TOR seems like a good underground metaphor, but mesh networks seem like a potential "new world" so to speak.
And even still, after you think about all of that, you have the problem of infrastructure. The colonists left the English infrastructure entirely. They just had to fight to own what was state-side, and that was that. We, however, would be running our own internet on the infrastructure (housing, power, water, govt services, etc) that is already in place, meaning once again, there is leverage.
So where do we go from here?
about #4 : You can't hope to make a law that defines "human readable" as opposed to legalese; but I agree stronger legislation on what is allowed or not to put in a contract should exist. Moreover, putting abusive clause (which is the case on alsmost all EULAs) should be motive to sue the company. Anyone should be able to do it (ie, competitors, not just users), justa as false advertising (maybe it's already the case?).
about #5 : IANAL, but I think this is already illegal (I received an email when ebay changed some of their EULA; then again, I'm in europe.)
about #6 : Again to vague to transcribe in legalese. Adding specific customer protection laws should do the trick, that way you can explicit those "assumptions"
about #10 : To much of a hassle to everyone to be enforced. When I'm quoting a slashdot post, or showing a picture in a video mashup, I don't have the time to contact or acknowledge every owner. That's actually the current state of IP, and it means everybody is breaching the law a little (modulo fair use, but it's pretty hard to prove it without paying lawers), so everyone is open to takedown letters.
I do agree with the idea; but laws are tricky things, and you have to make them legalese-compatible
Don't take my posts literally; it's just code to control my botnet.
How about a right to make sure we can get together and defend the other rights. Something like this:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
First, we would need legal recognitions for some key tech related concepts:
a) Open Source.
Open source (and CC) licences sould not have to rely on copyright to protect them; the fact that someone donates it's work to the community should be acknowledged, and given a special status (so that you can give it *more* protection than public domain). (This does realte to a "bill of right" because free speech issues).
b) Personnal informations.
There needs to be a list of datas known as "personnal informations". Then you can enforce special laws about them. For example, that no organization except the government can force you to give them if they can provide the service without it (no "required field" with your name and address on a forum, for example). Maybe instaure a national service whitch lets you generate identifying numbers that the government can read (for tracability of payments, etc), but the company (the online store) has no right to read.
c) Cryptography.
Crypto changes everything on the internet; the very nature of crypted or unencrypted data is different, and this must be acknowledged. For example, it must be stated somewhere that making a crypted file public does not mean you are making the file itself public. The definition of encrypted content should include a reference to the "current knowledge of the scientific community".
A good idea could also be to give everyone a public key on some government hosted server.
All of these concept can be used with the law as it is, but they are left to the appreciation of judges, who do not always know the subject.
Don't take my posts literally; it's just code to control my botnet.
Obviously based on the "Real" Bill of Rights... I think it makes a lot of sense:
Amendment 1
No ISP shall make no rule or policy prohibiting the free expression of content.
Amendment 2
A well regulated set of services, being necessary to the stability and availability of information, the right to run applications, including servers, shall not be infringed.
Amendment 3
No provider shall be granted access to content or physical components without the consent of the owner, or in a manner prescribed by law.
Amendment 4
The right of people to be secure in their persons, equipment, content, and software against unreasonable searches, seizures and restrictions of use, shall not be violated, and no Warrents shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the items to be searched and the things to be seized as precisely as practical.
Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for any violation of terms of service unless on a presentment reviewed by a local court. Nor shall any persons' identifying data be disclosed, nor shall any person be deprived of service or access, without due process of law.
Amendment 6
In all actions by a service provider against a user, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public hearing by an impartial jury of peers, and shall be informed of the nature and evidence of the accusation, and shall enjoy the right to confront the people and evidence supporting the claims.
Amendment 7
Excessive penalties shall not be levied, nor excessive restrictions imposed, nor shall anyone be denied rights to author and publish content.
Amendment 8
The enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or restrict any other right or technology available.
just a question. Have any of you made an attempt to speak your mind to our Govt. or are we just bitching on /.
heh
Like previous posts unless we rally together and revolt to actually make a change this place will continually degrade at an exponential rate. kinda like technology
Cem Kaner wrote a Bill Of Rights for Software Customers: http://www.satisfice.com/kaner/?p=8
He introduces it with this:
"As the software infrastructure has been going through chaos, reporters (and others) have been called me several times to ask what our legal rights are now and whether we should all be able to sue Microsoft (or other vendors who ship defective software or software that fails in normal use).
"I'd rather stand back from the current crisis, consider the legal debates over the last 10 years, and make some modest suggestions that could go a long way toward restoring integrity and trust -- and consumer confidence, consumer excitement, and sales -- in this stalled marketplace."
1. Let the customer see the contract before the sale
2. Disclose known defects
3. The product (or information service) must live up to the manufacturer's and seller's claims.
See Cem's post for 4 through 10
1) Right to communicate and store data using any kind of cryptography.
2) Right to communicate anonymously.
Both of these would be subject to the usual exceptions; slander, libel, copyright law, patents, search warrants, using cryptography or anonymous communication to commit a crime is still a crime, etc..
3) Government data made available to the public shall be accessible in a documented, royalty-free format.
4) Installing private communication cable between adjacent properties shall not be forbidden by local regulations (though it may be regulated to conform to reasonable best practices).
5) Municipalities may provide Internet access to private citizens or businesses, regardless of whether they are competing with local businesses.
Define tangible. Take the recent case of that women who pretended to be a boy to a young a girl who ended up commiting suicide. Is that tangible harm?
It was discussed end people really didn't come to any single conclusion, so was the woman safe because of free speech yes or no? Either way, you are going to have to deal a lot of shit. Yes, then you obviously can say anything even if it causes death, no and you put an end to anyone ever pretending to be someone they are not.
I think you should see the constitution as the bible, a intresting write up, some bits are worth keeping in mind, but ultimately it was written by people who lived in a different age who even back then hardly were part of the 'real' world. it is a nice idea to come up with simple rules, but that stuff really belongs on Oprah, real life is to simple to capture in a simple set of rules other then perhaps "don't panic".
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
That is the problem with the world. They think making a silly law will change anything. How about we leave the laws alone for a while... Just a suggestion.
1. Everyone has the right to say anything they want to. No information is illegal to distribute.
1.A. Everyone has the obligation to sign their name to everything they sign.
2. Everyone has the right to read anything they want to. No information is illegal to obtain, possess, or use.
2.A. Everyone has the obligation not to impersonate another person.
3. Everyone has the right to filter-free Internet. If a person decides they want filtered access, the contract must specify exactly what is filtered, in technical and non-technical detail. It will be easy for the person receiving filtered access to turn off the filtering to see what is being filtered out.
4. Everyone has the right not to have their machine accessed against their will.
4.A Anyone accessing a machine without the owner's permission will be executed...slowly.
5. Everyone has the right to understand the laws. Every law will be published, and will be understandable by the average 8th grader.
6. Whereas Ex-Post-Facto laws are illegal under the bill of rights, and whereas US IP laws have been changed Ex-Post-Facto 11 times since 1959, the following are necessary to the survival of a free state: (1) All persons who served in the Us Congress who voted for Ex-Post-Facto laws will be executed...slowly. (2) All IP which was the subject of Ex-Post-Facto changes to US IP Laws is now in the Public Domain. (3) All current and former employees and owners of member companies of the BSA, RIAA, and MPAA will be executed...slowly.
7. Any person who discovers, invents, or authors something truly new, unique, and non-obvious will be able to record their discovery on a government web site. If this discovery is found to be truly new, unique, and non-obvious, that person will be granted a royalty of 10% of the selling price of any product that employs that thing for a period of 10 years after the date of registration. If the discoverer, inventor, or author used another's machines to develop the thing, then the owner of the machines will receive a 5% royalty, and the discoverer, inventor, or author will receive a 5% royalty.
8. Any person found to be making a deliberately false IP claim will be executed...slowly.
8.A Any person who takes negative action against another due to claims made about that person shall provide the victim of the negative action with copies of the claims.
9. (right against poor faith, and the right to a speedy trial.) In all civil cases, the plaintiff shall show proof to the defendant and to the court in a single document. If the defendant refuses to agree to damages in 30 days, the case shall be tried in the 7 days immediately after the 30 days. If the plaintiff only presents his/her document at trial, and the case is decided for the plaintiff the actual damages will be tripled.
10. Any recording of a permanent place must be registered on a government web site. The longitude/latitude coordinates of the recording (to an accuracy of 10 meters or better,) and example frames of the recording shall be uploaded to the govt web site, where they will enter the public domain. The must be kept for 1 year by the govt. After this has been in effect for 10 years, all recordings of public places must be echoed live to the govt web site, and kept for 10 years.
The govt is prohibited from recording any public place unless the govt meets the requirement set for private citizens above.
11. Whereas the DMCA is the worst law since Hitler's "Final Solution" all persons who enforced the DMCA, or made claims under it shall be executed...slowly.
Andy Out!
All rights require something from others. The question is whether that something is negative (my right to freedom of expression requires you not to silence me) or positive (my right to equal treatment under the law requires you, as a restaurant owner, to serve me in the same manner that you serve other customers).
It's harder to state where rights end. My right to life requires that you do not shoot me. Does it require you to offer me basic first aid if someone else shoots me? Does it require you to allow me onto your property to escape someone trying to shoot me? Does it require you to sell me services that will save my life? Can you charge whatever you like, or does the cost have to be "reasonable"?
And what happens when you have absolutely no way of knowing your ISP's policies in terms of releasing information, or whether it complies with those policies that you do know? You have absolutely no bargaining leverage at all as an individual, and "go without" isn't much of an alternative.
Wouldn't it be better for government to step in and provide people with the tools they need to actually take care of themselves? I agree that there's no need to make the transfer of personal information illegal per se - but what about requiring that ISPs allow customers to observe, or even determine, the parties to whom their information is transferred?
If, as you say, "Laws are only there to secure the rights and Liberties of men," then doesn't a law that prevents a gross imbalance of information about personal data sharing achieve exactly this end? Is there any party other than government that is adequately positioned to even out the balance of power between an ISP and an end user?
individuals should be vested with a property right in information about themselves. A properly motivated judge could probably find this in the penumbras of the present Bill of Rights, but nobody has deep enough pockets to pursue it in the courts against all the vested interests. Better for a legislator to introduce a bill affirming it.
Right now the government has no interest in giving people more rights, especially when it comes to issues involving commerce or speech. In fact, they haven't been interesting in doing that in quite awhile. So I'm not holding my breath for a digital "Bill of Rights". Why don't we ask for truth in advertising for ISPs while we're at it?
I heard about people who don't RTFA and there are even some who don't RTFS but you have created a new low, not RYOFC Read Your Own Fucking Comment.
Make it illegal to harass, discriminate, terminate, or disqualify for hire someone due to what comes up in Google searches if the things found are NOT illegal or in violation to workplace rules .
Exactly what kind of protection does this give me? You allow the workplace to set the rules by which they can harass me, discriminate against me, terminate me or disqualify me.
So all that is needed is for them to add some overly broad clause to their workplace rules and they can do what they want?
Now you know why lawyers earn such big bucks, because writing laws is HARD. I have no doubt you meant alright but the way you wrote that first sentence basically gives people even less protection then they have now. You gave companies to do anything they want to people as long as they take the time to put it in their rule book.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
If you want something more binding and refined it makes sense to properly enumerate it in a statute.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
... applies only to the government, not to business, indutry, or private indivuals. That is to say, if the government tracks this information they are violating the Bill of Rights. If I (or Google) track this information, you can't sue me for violating your rights. (Maybe for stalking, but not for violating your rights.)
Some jurisdictions do have privacy laws of various sorts, like the medical privacy laws in the US (aka HIPPA), if someone is charged with releasing your private medical information they violated the HIPPA law not the Bill of Rights.
A rights question for everyone here though - the recent Wikileaks case, the bank claimed that they were revealing customers private data. We all agree that the delisting was wrong, but then shouldn't Wikileaks have hidden account numbers and such information? That is really what we're talking about, how much information about you should websites be able to track and share.
space... the final frontier.
it used to be alaska, but times change.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
read it a bit... then if you aren't laughing, read the bill of rights. then if you aren't laughing, you're hopeless.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > 311
:-)
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(source http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html)
So women have to join the Guard to be in the militia, but guys just have to be standing there with a pulse. Including Illegal aliens if they promise to become citizens eventually.
In theory, they kick you out of the militia after you are 45, but this might trigger an age discrimination suit if they tried to take your guns just because of your age. I'm sure some lawyer could make a profit in that trial.
The Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 pretty much settled the question of how the new federal government would respond to an armed insurrection.
A Tax on Whiskey? Never!, Little Rock Boils Over
We already have this covered, both expressly:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Those terms are pretty damn straight forward, but nowhere near as clear as:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Note, it doesn't say "shall not be violated by the state" or "shall not be violated by the federal government" but "shall not be violated. It does not specify exceptions for companies, federal agencies, or anything of the sort. It doesn't make exclusions of types of things which may be searched or siezed; in fact, it's inclusive of all effects belonging to a person.
And generally:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The wording there is pretty damn broad and outlines exactly which rights we have (which covers much, if not all, of our rights to our digital selves), as well as broader specifications saying the government can't encroach. It's pretty damn clear cut.
The problem isn't that there aren't enough rules on the books. It's that the government (and corporations) do not care, and violate them at every possible opportunity, when it serves their "individual" interests.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
How about:
The right of the people to privacy in their personal information shall not be abridged. Personal information shall not be transmitted outside the transaction into which it was expressly transmitted by any person, nor retained longer than the duration of that transaction, except when expressly and previously authorized outside or after that transaction by the person. In the case of exceptions for the purposes of national security, those exceptions shall be obtained only under law, after due process, upon lawful warrants issued by an authorized court, overseen by the legislature. Reports of such exceptional activity shall be transmitted to the person whose personal information is at issue in a timely manner not to exceed the time required to undertake appeal of that exception before the exception must take place. Exceptions to such reporting shall be obtained only under authorization by an authorized court as empowered and overseen by the same legislative control as the underlying transmission exceptions. In every case the legislature shall have access to the records of such exceptional transmissions, and the power to stop them. The courts shall have the power to remedy any violations of these rules.
--
make install -not war
nope.
Ps-I believe this was Madison's point over 200 years ago.
The point was to see what you would like in terms of privacy, fair use etc. Not to scrap our current Constitution, or restrict people with more laws. Something like a counter measure to draconian laws like the DMCA. I know state law has to follow federal law, and there is a huge apathetic feeling in the country and Congress, but it's got to start somewhere right?
Why is it that every time anyone starts talking about Internet rights, they quickly focus on maintaining anonymity. What about the rights of those who are harmed by those anonymous Internet users? What about the rights of those suffering liable by "anonymous" competitors? What the Internet needs is less privacy, not more. If everyone knew their statements and actions would become public knowledge, the Internet would be a more civil and honest medium.
After they're done gutting FISA, they'll "reward" the media giants with tiered WWW pricing and the banning of "evil" protocols - just watch.
Signing Statements:
http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/TOCindex.htm
On December 20, 2007, President Bush signed routine postal legislation. In a "Signing Statement", the President claims Executive Power to search the mail of U.S. citizens inside the United States without a warrant, in direct contradiction of the bill he had just signed.
January 4, 08 Story:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003508676_mail04.html
House Dems Near Surrender on Bush Spying:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/house-dems-near-surrender_b_89726.html#postComment
Washington Politicians Are Gutting America Like A Fish:
http://whitehouser.com/politics/bush-fascism-failed-democracy/
Bush Legacy Already Established - Helen Thomas:
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/helenthomas/15358518/detail.html
Nancy Pelosi:
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/
email:
americanvoices@mail.house.gov
(415) 556-4862
District Office - 450 Golden Gate Ave. - 14th Floor - San Francisco, CA 94102
Greetings:
I left you a voice message earlier.
There is an article at The Huffington Post:
House Dems Near Surrender on Bush Spying:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber/house-dems-near-surrender_b_89726.html#postComment
If you read the comments, I think you might just begin to understand the movement that is starting to happen. I think all the Democrats you lead in the House should read this.
It's of things to come.
We have had it.
Democrats, and even a lot of Republicans are starting to wake up to the major damage done by this President, to our Constitution and our Freedom, and of the empty promises you, Nancy, made to those of us that put you there to represent us.
This Congress, lead by you, will be held responsible for idly standing by, and of recent, participating in the dismantling of our laws and accepted practices and replacing them with "mere precedent" and outright disregard for the rules of law, the ones we go to prison for, the same ones others are exempt from.
You and the Democratic Party will hear from us, we have, as a group, a starting list of 12 in the Democratic Party that will not be returning, as they are to be voted out.
The Republicans, double.
You have woken the sleeping giant that is the American people, and you all will be hearing from us and a growing number of voters across this country, that oddly enough depends on a manipulated election system we've all grown wise to.
A few weeks ago, we had thought you all had come to your senses by standing up to Mr. Bush and his group, but evidently, it was fake. We had, at one time thought that maybe you were waiting for the proper time to act. But you've decided which side you're on.
You all have failed to uphold your oaths.
We/I, have lost faith, so we shall act, and we will organize, and we will win.
Last chance has already past, and you all blew it to a lame duck President, no less.
SURRENDER DOROTHY
http://www.littlestuffedbull.com/images/comics/surrenderdot.jpg
~hylas
You have the right to freedom. That requires that I give up my desire to imprison you. You have the right to free speech. That requires that I not restrain you from speaking. You have the right to an education (not a constitutional right, but it's legally enshrined and I'd argue that it's as fundamental as all the others...). That requires that the government provide you the opportunity to become educated.
Every right has an associated obligation. If you actually knew anything at all about 'rights', you'd know that there are 'negative' rights and 'positive' rights. These are classified based on the nature of the obligation that goes with it: the right to free speech is a negative right because it requires that I not do something that infringes upon that right; the right to vote is a positive right, because it requires that the government provide you with the means and methods to vote. The idea that a right only exists if no one else has to do anything is utter nonsense. Your rights still exist on that desert island only because I am still obligated to acknowledge them.
As Long as the Bill Gates fiasco remains intact you will have no freedom security or easy use. The Goverments in bed with MS so from voting machines to cel phones Ya' got Nothin' IF IT'S FREE YA' AIN'Y GONNA GET AND IF IT'S TRUE YA' AIN'T HEAR IT.
State law already enables individuals to achieve much of what the originator of this thread wants. The state law to which I refer is not constitutional law; it is contract law. See legal arguments at http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2008/02/some-fear-law-will-not-accord-adequate.html and http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2007/11/privacy-advocates-such-as-nyu-professor.html
Benjamin Wright, Dallas, Texas, benjaminwright.us
There already is a campaign for an "Internet Bill of Rights", defined as a set of documents to define rights and duties in different online situations seen from the point of view of the average users. It is rooted in the United Nations' Internet Governance Forum. You can find more information at http://www.internet-bill-of-rights.org/ .