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?"
The prohibition of off-topic FP!
Net neutrality, Linux on desktop, Duke Nukem 4 Ever, cheap macs, freedom from malware, peace in the middle east and a cuddly Tux for all.
"XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
Thu shall not commit spam.
The Long Now Foundation
Er, the right to defend yourself against the evils of viruses, malware, and if I dare to be redundant, DRM.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Oh, wait, the Constitution is routinely ignored by the Federal Government. So I'm sure a non-binding technology bill of rights will have a huge impact on limiting the Federal Government's actions...
Prosser: "Have you any idea how much damage that bulldozer would suffer if I just let it run straight over you?"
Arthur: "How much?"
Prosser: "None at all."
Strict separation of state from goatse terror regime.
Or did the frist post already address that?
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
A reference to the Book of Armaments has to be in there somewhere.
The American founding fathers, from whom the Bill of Rights came, viewed rights a inherent to all individuals and not something granted by men. Either from God, or inherent in nature (or actually both, to my understanding).
These rights are what is referred to as "negative rights". Basically put, that you can do just about anything so long as it doesn't infringe on another's well-being. Everything in the Bill of Rights demonstratably follows from that--that the government shall not interfere. But it doesn't grant you special privileges, either--nothing that requires one else give it to you (well, with some exceptions like right to a speedy trial).
To then go on to talk about a Bill of Rights as some arbitrarily-agreed upon standards is ridiculous and on some level scary, because it implies your humans rights and worth is something up for democratic debate and potentially is yet another chip on the political bargaining table.
You don't have to be an adherent to natural law (I'm not) to feel or believe in that. No so-called "Bill of Rights" should demand that other private entities ought to give you special privileges or concessions based on some mob rule decision. No wonder Democrats so frequently assume that the 2nd amendment means something that it doesn't--they believe (or at least, appear to believe) that rights and apparently human dignity are government-granted...!
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.
Privacy is the ability to protect ones personal information from others - preventing others from accessing information about yourself.
Anonymity is removing information which could identify a person as a specific individual from a group.
These two ideas are close, but subtly different. Privacy can be an absolute concept - preventing information access and use for certain information can be binary: either others can access it or not. Anonymity is almost never absolute: simply knowing a human posted text has anonymity to 1 in about 6.7 Billion(ish). If you know any other information, the degree of anonymity goes down: Posted online: 1 in 2 Billion, in English: 1 in 400million. A male in the US implies 1 in about 190Million. A person who lives a particular zip code: anonymous to about 1 in 20 thousand. Examining the content one exposes: a person in Chicago, who is interested in the Chicago Cubs, and opposes the fare increase -- digging into details like that can make a person anonymous to about 1 in a few hundred with enough work.
Asserting anything about anonymity must include the idea that anonymity is always a sliding scale, and depends a lot on every bit of information a person chooses to put out into the world.
I do *not* think anonymity is a right, nor should we try to enforce it or preserve it. Anonymity is an anachronism in recent human history. People act better when they know they are not anonymous.
Privacy protections on the other hand are very important. Personal information sets, socially defined, that one chooses to protect and chooses to prevent others from being able to access of use once they have it are extremely important, and should be promoted and protected strongly.
If the result or output of a software program is to be used as evidence in court, then the code of that program needs to be made available to the court for analysis.
In 20 years it's going to be a no-brainer that if you're using the output of an algorithm as legal evidence then the algorithm should be up for scrutiny, so I'm not sure why people have difficulty understanding that now (especially as it relates to things like voting machines and breathalyzers).
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Article 1. Any individual shall be able to choose anonymity when posting to Internet sites
I disagree with this. While I do believe in the fundamental right to anonymity, it is totally up to the sites owners to make them anonymous or not. For example, lets say this happened to Facebook, you would be instantly hit by a whirlpool of spam, bots, etc.
I believe you have a right to remain fundamentally anonymous, for example I believe in the right to be able to use temporary anonymous e-mail accounts, the right to use Tor and other anonymity proxies, You should have a right to remain anonymous if you so choose, however sites should have the right to require registration to maintain the sanity of the site. But, similarly allowing anonymous postings on a site should be a right for the owners of the site too.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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.
http://makezine.com/04/ownyourown/
Don't read my sig.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
All Knowledge is Human Knowledge!!!
Start with that premise, and then restrict defaulting back to that assumption unless otherwise specifically restricted for good reason. Similar concept of State and individual rights structure found in the U.S. constitution (well in theory anyway).
It does not belong to one company, it does not belong to one person, or country, it belongs to the humanity. No one thinks up the next great invention in a vacuum. They went to school, they read other peoples ideas, they used a human language to express it. It belongs to humanity.
Yes, there should be certain restrictions on who can make use of the knowledge (e.g. how to make atomic bombs, what I had for breakfast), but without compelling reason it should default to the public domain.
Living in Chile
Every single one of the six points is silly.
1. Any individual shall be able to choose anonymity when posting to Internet sites
Well, we've done this one plenty before, but it's still ultimately down to the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. With freedom comes responsibility. An anonymous party cannot effectively be held accountable for their actions. QED.
Oh, and please spare us the sob story about a hypothetical oppressive regime where anonymous speech on the Internet will bring the cure for cancer and world peace. This is not the US a few centuries ago. In modern countries where free speech with your name attached is not protected, anonymity on the Internet is pretty far down the list of priorities and hardly going to be the decisive factor in making things better (not least because if you have access to the Internet at all, it's probably strictly monitored by the state and your identity is known before you ever reach a keyboard anyway).
2. No network provider may constrain or restrict access to the Internet in any way, shape, or form other than agreed-upon access speeds
Ah, yes, let's have the lawyers interfere with running the Internet, because that always works out well.
What is wrong with a non-neutral Internet anyway? All that really seems to mean is giving preferential bandwidth to some services over others, and frankly, if you think your five-reader blog is as important as Google or BBC News then you're the deluded one. Likewise, if you see a high-bandwidth future where streaming services and remote applications are popular or even the norm, you'd better start studying economics if you think the current financial models are going to support it.
As for crushing the little guy, I have yet to see an argument that isn't pure FUD. A huge amount of Internet traffic isn't from the big businesses who are really going to be affected by such laws, and there is always going to be a demand for the valuable part of that traffic, creating a market for providing such access. We already have competition laws in place should anyone start actually abusing the system to close out that market artificially, and otherwise, why isn't it just commercial dealing, on which foundation we seem to have managed to get this far?
3. No individual shall be held liable for effects of malware or malicious code unknowingly run on a personal computer
Throw in something about negligence and perhaps. But if you're one of the dumbfucks who connects a computer to the Internet and then spews out lots of spam because you're too ignorant to learn basic security, then you are a liability to the rest of the world and deserve to be cut off until you learn better.
One court case with a stupid outcome does not negate this point, incidentally.
4. A company that produces and sells closed source software for use on computers shall be responsible for the security of that product, and a user has a right to seek damages in the event of a failure to secure their product
Way to go, you just undermined the entire software development world. Little, if any, of the software running on most computers today would have been developed under this model, because there would be no sound business case for taking on such a risk under conditions that will never be perfect. Most consumers, private and business alike, simply don't need — or want to pay the disproportionate cost for — that level of quality.
Oh, and spare us the blatant Open-Source-by-the-back-door pitch, please. If you want to compete, make a better product. Forcing competition out of the market through dubious legal tricks is pathetic when big business tries it to prop up their dying business models, and it will be just as pathetic if the OSS world tries it if it turns out that they don't really make better products after all.
5. Any software or hardware used to conduct or support laws and public policy shall be open-source
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
called a "bill of rights" is pretty silly. So call it something else. Big deal.
Anyway, here are some items I think should be added to the ones in TFA:
(A) Any digital information published or disseminated to the public by any government agency shall be distributed in an open, non-proprietary format. (This is prompted by my local city bureaucracy insisting on publishing "public" information in the latest version of Word... which a great many people have no way to easily read. Yes, I am aware that Microsoft makes available a free Word reader, but almost nobody outside of IT knows about it.) This would also have the effect of goading software companies to better support open standards.
(B) The fruits of University and other research that is subsidized by public funds belong in the public domain. Repeal the Bayh-Dole act, which sought to motivate University researchers, but which instead has resulted in corporate ownership of publicly funded inventions and discoveries.
If you make it general enough to handle even just basic human rights, it'll be vague enough to game.
If you make it specific, the fascists will claim that it's an enumeration of right and so no other rights exist.
You may recall some of these arguments from the discussion about whether to adopt the US Bill of Rights, or to simply let the Constitution stand on its own.
Also remember, the internet extends beyond just your country.
No wonder Democrats so frequently assume that the 2nd amendment means something that it doesn't--they believe (or at least, appear to believe) that rights and apparently human dignity are government-granted...!
Except Republicans oppose rights, small "r" not capital, as well. For instance Republicans support Three Strikes Laws and manditory minimum sentencing laws. Though some Democrats support them as well most Republicans love drug laws. During the 2008 presidential campaign only Republican Ron Paul wanted to get rid of these laws. Former Reform politician Jessy "The Body" Ventura has been vocal about getting rid of them too. A few days ago on CNN's Larry King show he said they should be legalized.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The right to a independent experts for court cases dealing with Technology that both sides can use and right to be able to use one for free as well as being to have your own.
1. Any hardware or software product that is no longer sold must have all source code available under an open-source (not necessarily free) license.
2. It must be legal and possible to backup anything that one has paid for.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
To be fair to the software publishers how about the right to remove and/or disable, and aid others to remove and/or disable, any DRM that in any way restricts the fair use rights of the user.
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.
Replying more to all the repliers above me than the parent: you people are completely misunderstanding what was meant by "inalienable rights".
It does NOT mean that it is impossible to infringe on "inalienable rights". What it means is that there are a set of basic rights that apply to all human beings. They are "inalienable" because we desearve these rights by our very existance. However, just because they exist does not make them un-infringeable. What the constitution did by spelling those rights out in the Bill of Rights was make a promise that the US government would not infringe on those 10 basic rights.
The system for discovering violations of these rights tends to be slow, since the government is large and things tend to escape notice for a while or simply take time to become sizeable enough to be noticed. However despite it's slow nature (or perhaps because of it?) the system is very effective, and we have essentially the same freedoms - more in some ways, in fact - that we had at the nation's founding.
Our system was designed around protecting these basic, inalienable rights. Even if the mightiest of the mighty in this land - our elected officials, president, and SCOTUS - manage to screw up the Bill of Rights, there is always a do-over. Laws are constantly neutered or bolstered by the courts, SCOTUS decisions can and have been overturned by other SCOTUS decisions, Amendments to the Constitution can and have been supplanted by new amendments, and the President can and has been impeached.
All this to protect our basic human rights (plus others, sure).
That said, the promise (i.e. the Constitution) was not made to non-US citizens and so US actions outside the US territory are often ignored, and the oppression of other people is always ignored unless it somehow represents a direct threat to the freedom of US citizens.
That's just the way it goes.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller