Slashdot Mirror
How Should a Constitution Protect Digital Rights?
Bibek Paudel writes "Nepal's Constituent Assembly is drafting a new constitution for the country. We (FOSS Nepal) are interacting with various committees of the Assembly regarding the issues to be included in the new constitution. In particular, the 'Fundamental Rights Determination Committee' is seeking our suggestions in the form of a written document so that they can discuss it in their meeting next week. We have informed them, informally, of our concerns for addressing digital liberties and ensuring them as fundamental rights in the constitution. We'd also like to see the rights to privacy, anonymity, and access to public information regardless of the technology (platforms/software). Whether or not our suggestions will be incorporated depends on public hearings and voting in the assembly later, but the document we submit will be archived for use as reference material in the future when amendments in the constitution will be discussed or new laws will be prepared. How are online rights handled in your country? How would you want to change it?"
Read on for more about Bibek's situation.
He continues,
Here is an email I wrote to FOSS Nepal mailing list. I wanted to post a similar message to some international mailing lists (like the FSF, EFF) but I know only of announcement mailing lists of that kind. If you have something to suggest, please do. We're committed to doing everything we can to make sure that in the future Nepal becomes a country where digital liberties are fully respected. It's my personal dream to make our constitution a model for all other developing (or otherwise) countries as far as digital liberties are concerned.
There are many issues on which your suggestions would be valuable. If you've interesting examples from history, they'd help too. If you're a legal expert, please mention the legal hassles our issues could generate. If you're from the FSF, the EFF etc, please provide your insights. If you're just another citizen like me, how would you like your government to address file sharing, privacy, anonymity, platform neutrality, open standards, etc? This Slashdot discussion itself would serve as a reference to our document.
Here is an email I wrote to FOSS Nepal mailing list. I wanted to post a similar message to some international mailing lists (like the FSF, EFF) but I know only of announcement mailing lists of that kind. If you have something to suggest, please do. We're committed to doing everything we can to make sure that in the future Nepal becomes a country where digital liberties are fully respected. It's my personal dream to make our constitution a model for all other developing (or otherwise) countries as far as digital liberties are concerned.
There are many issues on which your suggestions would be valuable. If you've interesting examples from history, they'd help too. If you're a legal expert, please mention the legal hassles our issues could generate. If you're from the FSF, the EFF etc, please provide your insights. If you're just another citizen like me, how would you like your government to address file sharing, privacy, anonymity, platform neutrality, open standards, etc? This Slashdot discussion itself would serve as a reference to our document.
We're all legal experts here.
There should be no such thing as separate "digital rights". Computers are just tools, and nowhere near important enough to be a special case in a national constitution.
Of course, many rights and freedoms that we might like to see preserved on-line in the Internet age are worth preserving in general: freedom of belief, freedom of association, freedom of expression, the right to a private life, and so on. But it doesn't matter in the slightest whether the infringement of such rights and freedoms is done via digital means or otherwise.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Why should digital rights be considered any different than non-digital rights?
Because I just went down the street to the Microcenter and purchased a DVD for $20 cash.
... general dissent about the government may transpire between me and my friends in my home. But what if it happens through Gmail or Gchat?
No way to track that (and no, no one's stalking me).
However, I just logged into Amazon.com and bought the same DVD on my credit card. My personal computer may hold this data now. My ISP may know this now. Amazon's servers most definitely have all my information. The government might even have logs of this traffic!
That is why this is a special case. And trust me, it does not end there
My work here is dung.
The Norwegian Government has decided that all information on state-operated web sites should be accessible in the open document formats HTML, PDF or ODF. This means an end to the time when public documents are published in closed formats only.
- Everybody should have equal access to public information. From 2009 on, Norwegian citizens will be able to freely choose which software to use to get access to information from public offices. More competition between suppliers of office programs will be another effect of the government's decision, Minister of Government Administration and Reform Heidi Grande RÃys says.
The Government's decision is as follows:
* HTML will be the primary format for publishing public information on the Internet.
* PDF (PDF 1.4 and later or PDF/A ISO 19005-1) is obligatory when there is a wish to keep a document's original appearance.
* ODF (ISO/IEC 26300) is to be used to publish documents to which the user should be able to make changes after downloading, e.g. public forms to be filled out by the user. This format is also made obligatory.
- For many years, Norway had no specific software policy. This is now changing. Our government has decided that ICT development in the public sector shall be based on open standards. In the future, we won't accept that government bodies are locking users of public information to closed formats, Ms Grande RÃys says.
The new demands will take effect from January 1, 2009 for state bodies. The Ministry of Government Administration and Reform will be working to formulate regulations making this obligatory for municipal organs as well. The Government's aim is that the regulations should take force from January 1, 2009.
The government decision does not prevent state bodies from using other document formats in their communication with the users, provided that the documents also are produced in one of the obligatory formats, ODF or PDF.
Heidi Grande RÃys says that state and municipal organs as well should be able to receive documents in these formats from their users and partners. - This is the first step in standardising document formats. We are also considering formats for document exchange with the public sector and for the exchange of documents within the public sector, Ms Grande RÃys says.
A list of obligatory and recommended standards in the public sector according to the Government's recent decision is to be found in Referansekatalog for IT-standarder i offentlig sektor (Reference catalogue of IT standards in the public sector, Norwegian edition only).
From regjeringen.no
Currently they are considering what standards to use for audio and video; the current policy of Open Standards apply.
The Long Now Foundation
But really, those things still don't make digital rights a special case. The real questions are, do you have freedom of speech? Freedom of assembly? What about a right to privacy? If you can answer those questions, those rights should be protected regardless of the technology.
The particulars about how those rights are protected will have to change over time, as the culture and technology change. Those can be individual laws and court cases, but probably shouldn't be in a constitution.
But really, those things still don't make digital rights a special case. The real questions are, do you have freedom of speech? Freedom of assembly? What about a right to privacy? If you can answer those questions, those rights should be protected regardless of the technology.
The particulars about how those rights are protected will have to change over time, as the culture and technology change. Those can be individual laws and court cases, but probably shouldn't be in a constitution.
Your argument makes the assumption that rights are considered the same whether they are digital or otherwise. This isn't necessarily true. There is absolutely nothing that would stop an activist court from deciding that some right isn't actually protected simply because it's digital. I'll even give you an example. Consider the 4th amendment, which outlines the right of citizens to be free against unreasonable searches and seizures. Are imaginary papers protected under the 4th amendment? Can you not imagine a world where it is decided that digital files are considered immune from this amendment? At the very least, I think it could be helpful to outline and spell out the simple ideas that digital property is real property, and that rights do apply even within the digital domain.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
The real answers are, yes, yes, and no.
The right to privacy is a recent idea (in terms of it being a right guaranteed by the US Constitution).
It's not actually in there, and I think court cases that have interpreted it as being in there have been flat out wrong.
I do think we need the right to privacy (actual privacy, not the bullshit we have now), but we do NOT have it, even as a reserved right (in terms of interpreting anything not in the Constitution).
Privacy rights are so hard to define because we could use them as a justification for literally everything (or at least as a justification against getting prosecuted for said things).
We NEED to define them, and we NEED to get the people involved, NOT the politicians, NOT the lawyers, NOT the corporations, NOT law enforcement goons.
There is no need for a separation of digital privacy rights vs non-digital privacy rights. Such a separation is unnecessary, and merely presents potential loopholes for attacks.
I agree with the GP, there is no need to specify that you have free speech online as well as in general.
If it MUST be done put it in a separate amendment similar to our Ninth. " The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." + "or restrict these rights to any particular venue, medium, technology or to any other specific means."
Of course. We are already in a country where a frightened president and his congress could pass a set of law which makes the Fourth Amendment pretty much of a joke, and then they call it a "Patriot Act".
If you have a system where the rich can buy political power, and corporations are given the rights of persons, and money is considered to be the same as speech, then no matter what your constitution says, you're screwed.
We've got a very well-planned constitution here in the US, but at least five out of the last six presidents have pretty much wiped their bums with it.
You are welcome on my lawn.
And if an "activist" court decides that a black man has the same rights as a white man, or a gay person should have the same rights as anyone else, then it will be so.
Whenever you hear someone use the term "activist" judge, you should understand that their definition of "activist" is "someone who doesn't agree with me".
What's more "activist" than telling a state to stop counting ballots in a Presidential election?
"Originalist" is another bullshit term often used. If the people that like to use the term "originalist" ever had a chance to really understand the "original" intent of the Founding Fathers, they would piss on themselves.
You are welcome on my lawn.