A Digital Citizen's Bill of Rights

New submitter matt.a.f writes "Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) has published a first-draft Internet Bill of Rights, and it's open for feedback. He wrote, 'While I do not have all the answers, the remarkable cooperation we witnessed in defense of an open Internet showed me three things. First, government is flying blind, interfering and regulating without understanding even the basics. Second, we have a rare opportunity to give government marching orders on how to treat the Internet, those who use it and the innovation it supports. And third, we must get to work immediately because our opponents are not giving up.' Given the value of taking an active approach agains prospective laws such as SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA, I think it's very important to try to spread awareness, participation, and encourage elected officials to support such things."

Comments

Is that really happening?

[azalin]

It might be interesting to monitor what happens to this in a few months time. Will it be simply ignored, shelved or "noted as valuable input" and then ignored. I'm getting a bit pessimistic about common sense and politicians accepting input from the public lately.
I really hope something good will come out of this, but I won't hold my breath.

Re:Is that really happening?

[rtb61]

The reality is, all you can do is publicly support it. Even if it is empty politics, the greater the public support the more they will have to take notice of it and the greater the risk of ignoring it. It matters not what party, whether conservative or progressive is arbitrary, at the end of the day all that counts is policy. The internet bill of rights for individuals is good policy, the greater the support, the greater the impact of the policy. Even if it is a political scam, should the response be strong enough, the politician will find themselves bound by as the backlash would be to severe to just ignore it. So pile on there and pass it on and then see what will come of it.

Re:Is that really happening?

[Shotgun]

Granted, but you have to give him some slack. He did say publicly that the government (which refers to him) is flying blind and doesn't even understand the basics of what it is they are trying to regulate. Whenever a person is willing to admit ignorance, the person is open to teaching.

We already have one

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need an "Internet Bill of Rights." The government just needs to adhere to the actual "Bill of Rights" that's already in the Constitution, and we'll be ok.

Re:We already have one

[Vanderhoth]

We don't need an "Internet Bill of Rights."

I don't know about that. I think the internet has developed into something bigger, It's an entity all to itself. I think it pretty well needs to be or have it's own government to protected it from all other governments. It's not just the US government that's attacking the internet and it's users and we need a collective voice out there telling all governments to "step off", this is outside their realm of influence and anyone anywhere at anytime should be able to use the internet as a medium to share ideas.

The problem is the internet can't fight back because there is not central authoritative "leader" to fight back, but it is powerful, which is why I think governments are working to control it and it's contents. Look what happened when SOPA was proposed, all the sudden there was outrage. Using the internet we were all able to collectively say fuck off and what happened!? The government backed down. Unfortunately they've only backed down until people have forgotten what they tried to do, they'll learn form their mistake and come after the internet again. Next time we might not be able to stop them.

Being able to get all governments to agree anyone using the internet should have certain rights is the first step to creating an internet government that will have the ability to fight for what all it's users collectively want.

The problem with these efforts

[GodfatherofSoul]

Politicians eventually end up consulting "industry experts" (read that as corporate representatives) for advice/bribes to help craft the legislation. Then, we end up with a watered down or punched-full-of-loopholes version of a great idea. We're a full blown fascist government now. There simply aren't enough politicians willing to give up the power and post-Congress paybacks to make something like this happen.

Re:The problem with these efforts

[wickerprints]

"Fascism" isn't really the most accurate term for what passes for government in the US. "Plutocracy" is much, much more appropriate, because at least in fascism, there is no pretense of a two-party system, in which dissent is superficially tolerated as a means to divert attention from those who are actually in control. Governance by the wealthy, for the wealthy is what we have had for quite some time now, and a true republic under the principles set forth in the Constitution that establishes equal representation, has really been a pretty fantasy repeated to the electorate in order to give them the illusion that they have any actual power. In the meantime, you have plenty of folks waving their flags and embracing their Bibles, calling out anyone who exhibits even the slightest criticism of their blind nationalism as a turban-wearing terrorist (or back in the McCarthy days, the term of art was "pinko/commie").

Money--and we're not talking a few dollars here or there, but mind-numbingly enormous sums--is an inherently corrupting force in any political system. Citizens United was only the latest example of how corporate power has so flagrantly rewritten the rules in their favor. It is the coordinated collusion of financial corporations, mainstream media, elected officials at the state and federal levels, local and federal law enforcement, and the military industrial complex that has successfully stripped citizens of their rightful and primal role in governing a just society.

In a sense, a fascist state may be preferable to what the United States has become--for at least a fascist state would be more likely to incite a revolution, rather than perpetuate this sickeningly cowed, brainwashed, and indentured so-called "American public," fattened on a steady diet of processed foods to make them weak, 'popular entertainment' that doesn't invigorate their passions, and propaganda designed to curtail critical thinking. In this context, then, a "digital Citizen's Bill of Rights" is about as absurd as demanding that the rights nominally codified in that thing we call the Constitution actually be respected in the first place.

Re:If the government really understood the interne

[SuricouRaven]

If the government really understood the internet, they'd have destroyed it before AOL started offering public access.

Technology

[JackPepper]

I miss my Telegraph Citizen Bill of Rights.

Re:A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace

[SuricouRaven]

An independant internet runs into a practical problem: The hardware has to go somewhere, and wherever it goes there will be someone governing the region who can take control of it by force - or at the very least, physically destroy it if their demands are not met.

Re:Darrel Issa

[Anonymous Coward]

Then say "copyright and trademarks and patents". They are nothing like property.

Property is inalienable from the person, it's one of the reasons governments exist.

Copyright is _meant_ to expire and soon.
Patents are _meant_ to expire and soon (no, really, that's why we as a society have them: so they expire).

Your deed for your house is not meant to expire.

So use the right words and not 1984 newspeak.

Re:Government actually working for the people

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. It's rare to see a politician, let alone a Republican, taking a stand to help protect freedom.

I'm nott surprised. No matter how evil you might think that a person is I have strong doubts that you can find a person who doesn't consider themselves as good.
Conflict doesn't occur because there is a good and evil side, they occur because there are two or more views on what is good.

No right to free speech or anonymous communication

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the right to free speech on the internet in this doc? And a corollary of a right to free speech should be the right to communicate anonymously and pseudo-anonymously, without which there can be no safe free speech.

"Bill of Rights" cliche

[SirGarlon]

I am getting annoyed with lawmakers calling this or that a "Bill of Rights." We've have the Airline Traveler's Bill of Rights, and the Credit Card User's Bill of Rights, and now this. To call these feeble gestures "Bills of Rights" cheapens the real Bill of Rights.

If the legislature and courts would pay attention to upholding the real, one-and-only Bill of Rights, this Internet "bill of rights" would emerge as corollaries to Amendments #1 and #4.

Problems

[Rysc]

The idea is sound, the implementation is lousy.

5. Creativity - digital citizens have a right to create, grow and collaborate on the internet, and be held accountable for what they create

Since when is the "right to be held accountable" a "right"? This is a clear attack on anonymity, as is the glaring omission of a right to anonymity from the list of bullet points!

I fail to see how most of the things listed have anything to do with the internet. Equality, Association and Privacy are rights we have anyway, so they should already apply to the internet as with everywhere else.

I like that he's got "Sharing" in there and I think I understand why, but we already have freedom of speech and I don't see how this is any more than that.

The bullet on Property is worrying at best. We already have a right to property, are we now trying to codify additional rights for the ill conceived notion of "Intellectual Property"? Is this supposed to imply DRM requirements as a matter of law for all digital "property"? I don't see that this can lead anywhere good.

So yeah, nice idea but horrible details which are either due to innocent misunderstanding or a veiled ulterior motive. Given the source, I'm guessing that the language here is something that some unknown corporate masters thought would be good for them and not something people who know anything about the internet told him would be a good idea.

Re:Government actually working for the people

[schwit1]

It isn't corporate greed that is bankrupting California, it is Union greed. Corporations and unions are no different in their self-interest at the expense of everyone else.

Re:Government actually working for the people

[silentcoder]

Hey, I wasn't critisizing the bill, just wondering where the money is. Says something that I'm basically incapable of seeing a politician do anything (good or bad) without wondering where the money is.

Re:Government actually working for the people

[mcgrew]

Citing the wsj for an anti-union story is like citing linux.com for an anti-microsoft article, or citing Fox News for an anti-Obama article. As to "Corporations and unions are no different in their self-interest at the expense of everyone else", that's incorrect. Whether you're in a union or not, you can blame or praise them for safer working conditions, wekends, paid vacations, sick leave, and a host of other things you would never have had were it not for unions. When the union wins, the only losers are management and the 1%, those who work for a living always win when the union wins whether or not they're in a union.