[governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle for Internet Governance"

[Vittorio Bertola]

Dan Krimm ha scritto:
> Interesting, I have not directly received the email response I sent out at
> 13:30 pm PST, though I see from the web interface that it has been posted
> to the list, and I see Milton's later response.
> 
> Apparently some algorithm running between the listserv and my email server
> decided that this conversation was to be filtered out (presumably as
> "spam").  Too many references to a certain "offensive" subject matter, I
> guess.  I don't know how many people received it.
> 
> Or maybe I was just too long-winded...  ;-)
> 
> So, with respect to:
> 
>> Ok, I've not read the paper yet, but here is the Usual Question: let's
>> say that the government of XYZland wants to prohibit access to [certain]
>> content to its citizens, would that be inhibited by your
>> definition of network neutrality?
> 
> Bottom line: what Milton said.
> 
> In my own words:  "The distilled (if not simple) answer is that laws to
> establish prior restraint on data transport (if that's what you mean by
> "prohibit access") would violate net neutrality, but laws to prosecute
> carve-outs from freedom of expression ex post ("prohibit distribution")
> would not.  Under ex post rules, common carriers are not liable for
> distribution of unlawful content over their platforms."  [And to be clear,
> net neutrality is a form of common carriage, which has very deep roots in
> English Common Law.]

Would carriers be liable if they knew?
For example, let's say I am a carrier and one of my users hosts nazi 
stuff on a website at home, connected through his DSL connection. 
Someone comes and warns me about that. Should I be allowed to terminate 
the contract? Would I be liable if I do? Would I be liable if I don't?

And where do platform for user-generated content fit in your plan? Would 
Youtube be responsible for illegal videos? (I'm not thinking of IPRs, 
rather of racist videos, violent videos etc.) At least after getting 
proper notice? From which authority?

 From one point of view I totally agree with you, ex post enforcement is 
the way to go, ex ante censorship - even when required by law - is prone 
to terrible misuse. However I wouldn't want to get to the extreme of 
"irresponsible carriers", who refuse to cooperate in shutting down 
malicious services. Of course you would need some due process, but spam 
and botnets and all sorts of bad stuff thrive on irresponsible carriers 
who do not feel the need to abide by their duty of good netizens.

In general, most of the world doesn't have a first amendment and doesn't 
appear to want one - actually, many citizens scream and ask their 
governments for more ex-ante censorship of the Internet. How to make the 
two visions coexist will be a challenge.
-- 
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance