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

[Carlos Afonso]

I certainly agree, and would add that, given the intense participation 
of Brazilians in orkut (it seems more than 70% of users now), mostly 
young people (prime target for predators), Google could move its orkut 
servers to Brazil.

This would save us a lot of international bandwidth and let authorities 
like prosecutor Suiama (Google's nemesis in BR) enforce rulings against 
child abuse within orkut far more easily.

:)

--c.a.

Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> What Vittorio raises below is exactly what Google is facing in Brazil (of
> all places) with its Orkut social platform abused by some members for
> illegal postings (child porn and alia).
> 
> See :
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9003739
> 
> By the way, Orkut servers are hosted in the US, not Brazil. And Google
> finally complied, apparently after threats from the Brazilian authorities to
> close Google's activities. I suppose Rio will be an interesting place to
> discuss the issue and get the two sides of the story, for instance in the
> workshop on "Privacy in new internet services."
> 
> Best
> 
> B.
> 
> 
> On 11/7/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu> wrote:
>> 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
>>
> 
> 
> 


____________________________________________________________
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