Slashdot Mirror
What Should Be In a Technology Bill of Rights?
snydeq writes "The Deep End's Paul Venezia argues in favor of the creation of a Technology Bill of Rights to protect individuals against malfeasance, tyranny, and exploitation in an increasingly technological age. Venezia's initial six proposed articles center on anonymity rights, net neutrality, the open-sourcing of law enforcement software and hardware, and the like. What sort of efficacy do you see such a document having, and in an ideal world, which articles do you see as imperative for inclusion in a Technology Bill of Rights?"
1. Right to access the internet if you pay for it
2. Right to control what software is on your computer
3. Right to copy anything you own for your own personal use
4. Right to use software that does not interfere with anyone else's right
5. The Right to publish any information that is true without fear of takedown notices
6. The Right to possess any information
7. The Right to control your own hardware
8. The Right to use any device for any purpose that does not interfere with rights of others
9. The Right to remain anonymous
10.The Right to have free, uncensored speech on your own servers
Have all these and we would have a good start.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
These things have a habit of A) never becoming law and B) being subverted if and when they do become law.
For example:
Article 2: No network provider may constrain or restrict access to the Internet in any way, shape, or form other than agreed-upon access speeds
Really: Cart Blanche to do any amount of illegal acts on the net without fear of having your use cut off? Really? Required car analogy: I can do anything in my car as long as I don't exceed the speed limit? Really? You've thought this thru, have you Paul?
Article 3. No individual shall be held liable for effects of malware or malicious code unknowingly run on a personal computer
This exonerates those who write malicious code. They release a virus to the internet, but have no knowledge of which computers it becomes installed on. Therefore, they are not liable.
Number 4: Why should anyone be obligated implement mandatory update checks in any software?
What if I don't want my software calling home?
The more you read this screed the less well thought out it becomes.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Material you create on an electronic device is *yours* and if that is encrypted or "protected" by some third party technology you always have the right to break that technology to get to the content you rightly own.
Yes.. this is directly in contrast with the DMCA... and it's outrageous.
Unfortunately, you and I are so 18th century. Back then, if not otherwise specified, the government had no rights. But now, it has been successfully turned around. Unless otherwise specified by the government, the people have no rights. Like it or not, I think most Americans see it that way, and not just Democrats. Damn shame.
I don't know why its scary: the Bill of Rights itself is the product of discussion, debate, and democratic process. Sure, they reflect a means of protecting what at least a significant portion of those discussing and debating thought were fundamental rights in natural law, but they were no less a product of political process than any other law.
The treatment of the Constitution (whether the main text or the Bill of Rights) as some sort of quasi-religious revealed document given by quasi-divine Founders, rather than a political document created by men and subject to debate on its merits, is what I find scary.
I'd also go further and require that any software shipping with DRM that restricts any fair use rights should be required to have exactly what rights it restricts, and how it restricts them, labelled on the outside of the box.
What about future Fair Use rights? Fair Use, until very recently, was not codified, and even today, the enumeration in Title 17 is not a complete listing of all Fair Use rights (for instance, most people consider copying mp3s to a portable player or a phone to be Fair Use, but nowhere in the codified law does it say this is Fair Use, and a strict reading of the law would lead one to the conclusion that this activity was certainly illegal). Before codification and even now, many Fair Use rights are decided by precedent in the courts. How could a label cover all that?
Still, I like the direction your thoughts are taking :-) A Surgeon General's style warning might be nice: "DRM has been known to cause fits of rage and even strokes in some individuals."
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
The other point is where you get these rights from? GOD? This is scary, as the move to make this country secular puts your rights on thin ice.
Just because the source of these inalienable Rights is unknown or, better yet, undefined does not mean that they are dependent upon such a source. I do not believe that Jehova had a deal with the Founding Fathers to strike anybody with lightning who willingly violated the Constitution. The reason these rights are inalienable is this: These are in many ways the minimum Rights necessary for the system to function. By threatening any of these Rights for any individual, everybody's Rights are threatened. These Rights come from nature as there is no way to guarantee Rights for some but not for all without tyranny.
Therefore, you can assign any origin to these Rights you want: physics (it is a property of reality), logic (it does make sense to do it any other way), God (if a being created everything, that being should be able to take credit for the properties within that creation), the Tao (it is impossible to enforce Rights for some in the absence of Rights for all), or even Jefferson (smart guy). I think the reason the terms "inalienable" and "natural" were chosen for a reason. They avoid this fixation on a specific creed and allow people of all faiths or no faith to have the same belief in Freedom.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.