Dear Roland,<div>I liked your distinction between the 'right to speak' and the 'right to listen'.</div><div>I am also concerned about something practical with which the technical people might be able to help - in the way that Vint Cerf suggested in his original article. If content is blocked, to my understanding the user has no way of knowing unless s/he is aware of that material from another source. It's the same thing with 'Interception of Communications' surveillance - unless one finds out, after the fact and from another source, there is no way to know that it is happening. And therefore there are no grounds to complain and to invoke the law. What we need is the virtual equivalent of the click created when a third party picks up a telephone receiver to eavesdrop on a conversation. Then we can complain and the law is helpful.</div>
<div>The citizen needs to be empowered with knowledge of what is going on. The danger to freedoms comes when this knowledge is withheld or concealed.</div><div>Deirdre</div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 27 January 2012 05:11, Roland Perry <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:roland@internetpolicyagency.com" target="_blank">roland@internetpolicyagency.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">In message <CAD=1Ovf_Er95PUBBnsnZ21=<a href="mailto:NA_fYt%2B36ZAFy-Xpep7BuMQ6mwg@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">NA_<u></u>fYt+36ZAFy-Xpep7BuMQ6mwg@mail.<u></u>gmail.com</a>>, at 22:51:50 on Thu, 26 Jan 2012, Paul Lehto <<a href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com" target="_blank">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a>> writes<div>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
This relates to one big reason Google (via Vint Cerf) would oppose a right to ACCESS the "Internet"<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Isn't there a danger of confusing access to the Internet with access to particular content sites on the Internet?<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
-- most people naturally think of the internet as international and various parties, including but not limited to Google and Twitter, and putting more and more structural barriers in place to accessing the free international internet<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
To use their own example, they'd respect the law in Germany, regarding pro-Nazi content, by withholding it from Germany rather than removing it from the whole world.<br>
<br>
That retains the individual's right of freedom on *speech*, but restricts the right to *listen* in some places (but only because of the law in that place).<br>
<br>
eBay has being doing this kind of thing for years - selectively restricting prohibited products depending on the country it's offered for sale. And all countries (even the USA) have things they wouldn't want you to tweet about.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
-- <br>
Roland Perry<br>
<br>
</font></span><br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979<br>
</div>