[pp.int.general] !! Denmark censors Internet, blocks The Pirate Bay

[Jan Huwald]

(I agree to those quotes I have removed fro Ricardos mail)

> > > 2. _Certain aspects_ of the freedom of information are implicit laws of
> > > computer spaces almost as unavoidable as gravity is in the physical
> > > world. Showing this nature of information space is one of the best
> > > advertisings for our party
> >
> > I didn't understand that statement at all; I 
> > mean, I didn't get the point -maybe due to my poor english level :)-.
>
> Jan maybe wanted to figure out, that cyberspace is a kind of reality. I
> believe, this is wrong: reality is an illusion and cyberspacno e is an
> artificial part of this illusion. :-)
>
> Ok, bad joke.the point is, that human rights are coming from human live,
> society and that this human life is and will ever be based on the
> physical world. we do not need special law for the internet, we have to
> enforce human rights also in the internet.

If you refer to a Matroshka: yes and no. Cyberbase is built upon (=within) 
the "pyhsical world" illusion, but the Cyberspace illusion will decouple from 
that grounding in the long run (I differ here between cyberspace and 
cyberspace illusion!).
 and thus
Because of their highly differing realities I am sure we need special laws for 
the Internet (or at least special treatment within the laws). Of course this 
does not touch basic rights but should focus on the "implementation details" 
of the law system.


> But yes, the question of rights on immaterial goods became evident,
> since immaterial goods lost its singularity in a world ofdigital copies
> and mass-reproduction.

Not only bcause of that cyberspace differs, but also because:
* (physical) space vanishs
* link distance and attention wil become new distance metrics
* space is (almost) unbound
* human control of objects (=stuff in physical space, information in 
cyberspace) decreases
* secret, untrackable communication is possible
* building new layers of social and technical mechanisms upon older ones in 
possible with increasing speed (creating a new quality of complexity 
explosion)
* many many more (complicated) reasons


> In short: law must come from ethics, society, human rights, not from
> code.

Misunderstanding! Code is law. Law does not come from code (in terms of being 
derived).


> Code has to be adopted from the principles of ethics society and 
> human rights, too. Not the other way round.

Definitely! But instead of relying on the ethic => law => code Chain we should 
shortcut ethic => code. If you look at privacy problems in private companys 
it is obivous that waiting for law to regulate code is harmful.

One paragraph to the code-issue: we are currently involved in a major shift of 
power. Parliaments power decreases (again) and the power of those creating 
the new spaces increases. The vehicle of that transformation is code (like 
steam, water & mechanic wheels have been vehicles of the industrial 
transformation). If we choose to ignore code then we invest our power in a 
shrinking business. I urge that we follow a hybrid approach and create code 
to shape (cyber-)reality and gain power within that transformation. 
Especially it is our duty to use our technical skills to reduce the 
desastrous consequences of surveillance society to the political system and 
public debate or it might become to late for us to gain power in parliament.

If one objects now, that I argued that parliament is powerless in the long 
run: yes I did. I did so, because I am sure that _re_creating democracy needs 
code!

(that was a follow up to liquid democracy :-)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20080206/55d95806/attachment.pgp