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

[linda misek-falkoff]

Thank you and yes about the risks of censoring or not with auto filters
wherever stationed and however purposed, which I probably am reading in
here, but your post helps.  Early in the days of automated concordance
construction we had to decide whether to have "stop words," terms we wanted
to  not go forward to the next stage of processing. I guess they were 'kinda
illegal' in some ontology. But that was not intended to  stop the whole
'expurged'  concordance from being delivered.  Content analysis married with
judgment especially when automated is a 'brave venture' under governance
rubrics ; hope my "thanks" don't themselves halt delivery of this message!

Though but  a brief sidebar here, when you have inclination perhaps you can
enlighten on technical and ethical standards for spam capture (perhaps you
have written on same). I'm told there are some vendors who will sell
"rights" of access to look-see what they trapped and one never did see.
Could be from anywhere. On anything. And all that entailed.

Are there presently  regs so that spam catchers have to either preserve or
delete what they catch?  And either way then what, as to privacy, property,
right to communicate? And access?

For now, back to the education we appreciate having about Net Neutrality.
Its various construances, its possible futures.

LDMF.


On 11/8/07, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
> Spam and virus filters implemented by ISPs are a necessary evil.
> In some sense they contradict the principle but in the case of viruses
> are clearly justified as crime protection and are not discriminatory;
> spam is more difficult issue in that there is always a risk of false
> positives and there is not always a clear definition of what is spam.
>
> Milton Mueller, Professor
> Syracuse University
> School of Information Studies
> ------------------------------
> Internet Governance Project:
> http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>
> ------------------------------
> The Convergence Center:
> http://www.digitalconvergence.org <http://www.digitalconvergence.org/>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com [mailto:ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of linda misek-falkoff
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 11:31 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGP Alert: "Net Neutrality as Global Principle
> for Internet Governance"
>
>
> Educational.  Query, on a third hand ...
>
> Do multiple spam filters on intermediary systems which whittle away at
> the corpus of delivered messages fall on the ok or not-ok side?
> (Please reconstrue in any more apt terms).
>
> Best wishes, Linda D. Misek-Falkoff
> *Respectful Interfaces*.
>
>
> On 11/8/07, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>        > -----Original Message-----
>        > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto: vb at bertola.eu
> <mailto:vb at bertola.eu> ]
>        > I am just afraid of the idea of collapsing the battle for
> network
>        > neutrality with the battle for a sort of "global online first
> amendment"
>        > that says that nothing should be censored ever. It's not
> democracy
>
>        A "two-handed" answer for you, Vittorio.
>
>        On the one hand a NN policy, as Dan and I have noted repeatedly,
> does not make it impossible to declare certain kinds of content illegal,
> and to prosecute those responsible for creating, publishing or
> using/possessing it. A NN policy also does not prevent families from
> installing filters on their own terminal devices and for private web
> sites to refuse to carry certain kinds of content.
>
>        On the other hand NN does militate against systematic use of the
> network intermediary (either state-mandated blocking or private vertical
> integration) to implement content regulation goals. It also would shift
> the burden of proof against states that attempt to disguise trade
> discrimination in digital content as "public order" mandated censorship.
> In some cases it means that content people don't like will be
> accessible. (Not that it isn't already.)
>
>        As for "breaking the front," I see no "front" to be broken. Free
> expression advocacy and NN advocacy are linked closely. No, a global NN
> principle does not necessarily mean a global US-style first amendment,
> but if you're not already pretty far along on the left side of the free
> expression spectrum it's hard to understand why you'd be interested in a
> NN policy. What does it accomplish for you If not a liberalization on
> the constraints on internet expression and interaction?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071108/bbcdbdc4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20071108/bbcdbdc4/attachment.txt>