<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.0.4630.0">
<TITLE>RE: [governance] Example of Corporate Internet Authoritarianism -</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Hmmm....</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Bill, it might have been good to have actually read what I wrote and engaged with that rather than a straw man based on a repetition of Fuad's original statement.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><I><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">If access to the Internet is a necessary requirement for participation in an "Information Society" then access to the tools that allow for or facilitate the use of the Internet especially when those tools are linked into some sort of monopolistic position with respect to the use of the Internet should surely fall under that rubric.</FONT></I></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><I><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Courier New">I don't know the details of the case under discussion here but it would follow that if certain information is only accessible on the Internet via a certain tool then denial of access to that tool is the same as denial of access to that information.</FONT></I></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">To my mind this is not a strictly commercial issue.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Mike</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">-----Original Message-----</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">From: William Drake [</FONT></SPAN><A HREF="mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch"><SPAN LANG="en-us"><U><FONT COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch</FONT></U></SPAN></A><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">] </FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 12:18 AM</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">To: Michael Gurstein</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Cc: governance@lists.cpsr.org; 'Fouad Bajwa'</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Subject: Re: [governance] Example of Corporate Internet Authoritarianism -</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<BR>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Hi Michael,</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">On Nov 25, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> I think that Bill's casual dismissal of this issue is not appropriate.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">There's a difference between disagreeing with something and being inappropriate.</FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> </FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> The logic here is surely the same as the overall logic of a "Right to </FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> the Internet" (remembering that I claim no expertise in the domain of </FONT></SPAN>
<BR><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">> discussion around "Rights"...</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Really? "Right to the Internet" is the same as declaring any company that doesn't sell a product in a given country to be "authoritarian."? Sorry, but this strikes me as fuzzy logic, and not the computer science kind.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">It used to be that when a transnational firm entered a developing country's market folks of certain persuasions would decry this as imperialist etc. But now if a firm does not enter a market we can also call them names normally associated with governments that brutalize their populations to retain political power? Maybe you should notify all the groups working against WTO agreements etc that they have it backwards and are promoting authoritarianism, whereas what they really should be doing is demanding that every company everywhere be required to sell everything everywhere else. </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Fouad says Amazon is authoritarian because it "dictates who buys or isn't allowed to buy from its website;" presumably, this would apply to other companies and distribution channels as well. Let's leave aside the many reasons why a company might not serve a given market---costs, level of effective demand, distribution, local partner requirements, regulatory/policy uncertainty/unfavorability, the prospects of fraud (as Carlton notes), etc etc---since I guess normal business considerations don't matter. All that does by Fouad's standard is can I buy what I want, and if not, they're equivalent with, say, the Burmese junta.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I can't get real Mexican food at Geneva grocery stores. I couldn't buy a Coke at the Sharm airport, only Pepsi. I can't watch most US TV shows over the net in Switzerland. I can't see most non-Hollywood US films, e.g. indies, at Geneva movie theaters. But I want these things. So am I a victim of authoritarianism? </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">I'm sorry to hear that Kindle for PC is not currently available in Pakistan. Perhaps it would make sense to actually find out why this is so and see if anything can be done to encourage change? Might be more productive than misplaced sloganeering.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Best,</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG="en-us"><FONT SIZE=2 FACE="Arial">Bill</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>