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

[Carlos Ayala]

----- Mensaje original ----
De: Jan Huwald <jh at sotun.de>
Enviado: miércoles, 6 de febrero, 2008 9:29:54
> 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.

In PIRATA we believe that citizens should "have the same rights and freedoms inside and outside the Internet", as we think that there are no differing realities; actually that kind of argument -supposedly differing realities, i.e., difficulty in preventing paedofilia, terrorism and other crimes within internet- is widely used by mass media to try to justify the promotion of harsh Internet laws, like censorship & surveillance & others. We have right to privacy, we have freedom of speech, we have right to life, we have right to physical and moral integrity, freedom of ideology, religion and worship, right to be free and safe, right to assembly, right of association, right to obtain effective protection from judges and courts of justice ... these and other rights and freedoms both inside and outside the cyberspace so ¿why do we need different laws depending on the environment, if actual laws already rule those rights and freedoms?

As an example, Spanish LISI law is actually trying to regulate Internet -cyberspace- by defining legal concepts not only already treated in current laws, but also more restrictive and freedom-eroding than current laws' ones; they try to allow administrative -i.e. public offices and public office dependant organisms- entities to be legally entitled to shutdown web pages, in the name of health, antiterrorist, antipaedofilic, national security and other kind of reasons. Fortunately Spanish Constitution explicitly forbid such legal behaviour as only courts of justice can perform such activities -though in PIRATA we believe, as we stated (in Spanish) when a court seized this cartoon of Prince Felipe and his wife, even that judicial seizure is not the right way of punishing abuses of freedom of speech, because we think that "the best way to fight media-related crimes is not informative silence nor censorship, but to adding to the actual punishment -it would
 may be increased- the public exposure of the shame, to allow the crime serving as counterexample; hiding the crime deeply only contributes to feed morbid feelings and to turn reproachable -when criminal- contents into myth", so we think seizure wouldn't be allowed at all-.

If that attempts of overregulating the cyberspace were not allowed, current laws would be enough to preserve our rights and freedoms and rule of the law wouldn't have becomed compromised -as some people who don't understand (outside PPI, at least in Spain) the cyberspace use to answer when noticed about LISI "who cares? it's only the Internet, while they don't seizure conventional media ..." without understanding that such overregulation with time will lead -in the name of harmonization- to an overall seizure & censorship scenario, as with time most citizens will be frequent Internet users and will become habited to censorship. It's just one reason to be willing to avoid considering mere environments as separated realities.

> Not 
only 
bcause 
of 
that 
cyberspace 
differs, 
but 
also 
because:

Leaving apart the fact that such supposed difference has not been proved -not at least within this mail thread-

> * 
(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

Great for us if privacy can be enhanced in cyberspace compared with physical environment, though does it changes law applicability? rights and freedoms regulation? We have the same right to privacy inside and outside cyberspace, it's just that it's easier for us to preserve that privacy within the cyberspace that outside it, just it.

I think it's being mistaken the power and applications of a tool -Internet is, I think, a tool of Information Society, not a universe in itself (because we, the citizens, are the ones who form the Information Society; Internet communication tools only define its specific characteristics)- with the concept of that tool as a separate universe. When telephone network was created it supposed a revolution in communications -as you've said about Internet, it allowed the building of new layers of social and technical mechanisms upon older ones in possible with increasing speed (creating a new quality of complexity explosion)-; so what? does it make phonespace a separate universe not fully related with the physical one? it's all about people, I think we should never forget it; I think we should never overestimate tools because they're important only as long as they're being used by people to shape and transform the society where people live.

And most important thing from my viewpoint: we shouldn't overregulate Internet and cyberspace by defining special laws for it -which would mean that we would have duplicity of laws, the common ones for the physical environment and the extra laws to specifically regulate the same rights and freedoms though only in the cyberspace environment- ... if required, maybe even should be underregulated, then triggering that underregulation the same underregulation in the physical environment, as all these troubles come from excessive regulation. I mean, public offices create laws to regulate and control, not only in cyberspace -think of Data Retention directive, which uses mobile antennas to geolocate where do we are at every time-, where do we are, who do we talk with, even if it's allowed to sing and even whistle a copyrighted song in a public park; rights and freedoms have to be preserved and laws -together with law enforcement, because without it laws are just
 literary papers- are useful for that goal, but I believe that such idea is being perverted for the good of those who try controlling our lifes, so I think we should allow that legal duplicity nor general overregulation.

This is one of main reasons for us in PIRATA to believe that rights and freedoms must remain the same outside and inside the cyberspace -thus not considering both environments as differing realities, but as mere separated environments of the same reality-.

> > 
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.


To be able to answer this ... what do you exactly mean with code and law? code as informatic code and law as legal texts?

> 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!

It happens the same as previously with the code-issue: I got myself lost. What do you mean with create code to shape (cyber-)reality? Regards


                                                                                              Carlos Ayala
                                                                                              ( Aiarakoa )

                                                                      Partido Pirata National Board's Chairman




       
______________________________________________ 
¿Con Mascota por primera vez? Sé un mejor Amigo. Entra en Yahoo! Respuestas http://es.answers.yahoo.com/info/welcome
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20080206/d11ae129/attachment.htm