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

[Dan Krimm]

I would only add to this that spam filters are best implemented with end
users being given maximum control over their settings.

This places spam filtering as close to the "edges" as possible, in
accordance with end-user URL-blocking utilities, for example.  The point is
that the closer to the edges you can bring any content control, the better
(with allowances made for communities that have truly homogeneous cultural
norms to create more centralized local control -- and indeed, some
URL-blocking systems allow end users to choose from several
centrally-maintained block lists, which can be seen as "virtual community
norms" -- choose your cyber-tribe).

In any such case, there are tradeoffs to be made because there is no such
thing as a "perfectly targeted" content filter (as Milton notes).  Those
tradeoffs need to be judged as much as possible by the individuals affected
by them (i.e., end users).

Some users may require stronger filtering (to protect children), others may
warrant more lenient filtering (not a problem to delete a few wayward
messages that get through, to make sure that legitimate messages get
through, especially discussions of political policy addressing the
boundaries of cultural norms).


(BTW, it turned out that my long message that I thought was blocked on
Tuesday was only delayed due to a server-pool problem with my email hosting
service.  But, I *did* get a spam warning message returned to me associated
with it (perhaps it was in the outgoing direction -- the hosting service
has still not explained to me how their "antigen" setup is configured).

In any case, an email that merely discussed a spam-ish topic (rather than
advertising it or embodying it) was flagged if not blocked outright.  I'm
glad it let the message go through finally.  Had there not been a
considerable delay, the warning would have been merely annoying but not
importantly interruptive.  I blame Vittorio, since it was his example that
engaged the spam SW.  ;-)  I will refrain from a direct mention here, as an
act of personal prior restraint, but by now you all know what I'm talking
about.)


So, dealing with spam is not entirely unlike dealing with general laws that
are necessarily imperfect, given the physical architecture of the world at
large (and the impossibility of ensuring perfectly comprehensive factual
knowledge in the judicial system).  Given the specific context, one may
make a judgment to err one way or another.  But there is no option for
perfection, which is why this judgment needs to be made on a case-by-case
basis as much as feasible.

Dan



At 1:50 PM -0500 11/8/07, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>	boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C82238.380AB127"
>
>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 <<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:<mailto:vb at bertola.eu> 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?
>
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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