[governance] Re: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research

Jaco Aizenman skorpio at gmail.com
Fri Aug 15 18:28:37 EDT 2008


Dear Lisa,

"Projection" is about your intentions or about scoring...

Let me explain it, using an analogy, made by my friend Nat Sakimura,
trustee  at www.xdi.org, an organization working on a protocol, XRI, that
may help giving users the ability to enjoy more rights on the net.

I do not know if you like soccer/football, but since you live in planet
Earth  :-) , you probably know the basics of the game (with cricket, most
people do not know...).

So, if you use your virtual personality (email, blog, phone, cellular, SMS,
database record, bank account) to get something for  your benefit, you score
a goal, but if someone else use it for something against your benefit, you
received a goal.

With this analogy you can see that people working on privacy protection, are
defenders. Trying to avoid that others do not use your virtual personality
against you.

Some people claim that the best Goal keeper may be the Constitutional Court
(US Supreme Court), specially if you give the goal keeper a "good pair of
gloves", or a specific virtual personality fundamental right, that they can
use....  (I sent a link in my last email of an example of such a test, now
being studied at the CR Congress)

And projection is mainly about scoring...

The best example of projection is projecting your intentions for your
benefit. Example of intentions can be:

A. If you are in extreme poverty, a data base record, with the consent of
the person, that shows what it needs. Also a bot (software robot) that
informs and interacts with people and entities that can help this person
(today is not operational but in a few years it will...).

B. Your CV and your requirements to change job (In the next few years people
will be able to have this available for everyone. Probably this will be done
by Google or alike, in the same way they are now having online the medical
records. So this new right will make Google and others to be more gentle in
the Terms of Service...  ;-)  ).

C. Same as B, but offering a service or product instead of your CV.

D. Same as B but about relations, including looking and searching for
friends and mate/couple.

In the future, probably, most countries  will offer to their citizens
several kinds  of projection services, because it will increase economically
and socially the quality of life of the people.

This information, *your intentions*, it is very yours, but it is also very
valuable, specially for companies like Amazon, Google and Facebook, and it
needs protection. If not, you will have not choice but to  accept  the terms
that  Corporations will offer you, for receiving those  projection related
benefits...

Sorry again for the long email, and I hope that we can exchange a lot more
in the future!.  :-)

Very best regards,

Jaco











On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 2:45 AM, Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>wrote:

>  Thanks for all of this information Jaco – it is certainly important
> progress that you're making.  I'm especially interested in the ideas of
> projection as they're quite new to me.  Please could you explain a bit more
> so that I can be sure that I fully understand?
>
>
>
> Many thanks,
>
>
>
> Lisa
>
>
>
> *From:* Jaco Aizenman [mailto:skorpio at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 14 August 2008 18:25
>
> *To:* Lisa Horner
> *Cc:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research
>
>
>
> Dear Lisa,
>
> Other options for "virtual personality" may be "virtual identity" or
> "digital identity". In Costa Rica at an early stage we first used
> "identity", but later, we changed to "personality". I understand that also
> the German Constitutional Court used "personality" or a variant of this
> term.
>
> Please also note that this new fundamental right(link below - A) protects
> not just privacy (content), but much more, including, existence, presence
> and projection:
>
> 1. Existence: It means that it is a right, and not a privilege granted by
> Corporations or Governments, to exist on the internet, or any future global
> virtual network. This virtual existence goes beyond email, blog, skype
> account or social sites, but also bank accounts, or exist on a database
> (always with the person/human agreement) that implies benefit for the
> person, for example a database of benefits that people in extreme poverty
> receives.
>
> This means that it is a human right to have a bank account!. For you and me
> it is not important, because we both have bank accounts, however for people
> in extreme poverty(B), it means a lot, because it is a tool to get funds
> that otherwise get lost.
>
> This component is strongly related with access.
>
> 2. Presence: Protects your virtual presence in all virtual networks. This
> mean that it will be unconstitutional any kind (email, SMS, fax, phone
> calls, blog, etc) of spam and of tracking (RFID, cellular) without the
> person prior consent.
>
> 3. Projection: Protects not just your content being used by others, but
> also your intentions or wills. The intentions will be strategic in the
> future, specially because of all the developments in bot´s and systems that
> help people get what they want.
>
> Like everything else, probably there is a lot of edition to make in the
> constitutional text to make it better, and any contribution from any person
> will be greatly appreciated.
>
> At least this represent a first case that will motivate other Congresses
> around the world to consider this new fundamental right, and definitely IBR
> can be the host of this process (the common shared place where all
> Congresses exchange information and communicate).
>
> Please note that Germany has the new "internet" fundamental right (which
> deals mainly about privacy, and not about presence, existence and
> projection) because of a case presented in the Constitutional Court, and not
> because of a Congress process, which takes a lot of time. This means that
> other countries, including USA, can take that "shortcut" to have this new
> fundamental right, in a much shorter time.
>
> Sorry for the long email, and I will be more than happy to comment more
> details about anything on this email.
>
> Very best regards,
>
> Jaco
>
> Some relevant links:
>
> Spanish
> http://personalidadvirtual.blogspot.com/
> http://www.asamblea.go.cr/actual/boletin/2006/oct06/24oct06.htm
> http://www.prensalibre.co.cr/2007/marzo/17/abanico08.php
>
> English (sorry, the material in English is bad translated...)
> The fundamental right text being studied by the CR Human Rights Congress
> commission:
> (A)
> http://web.archive.org/web/20070704102907/http://virtualrights.org/files/Congress%20of%20the%20Republic%20of%20Costa%20Rica.doc<http://web.archive.org/web/20070704102907/http:/virtualrights.org/files/Congress%20of%20the%20Republic%20of%20Costa%20Rica.doc>
> (B)
> More about the relation with extreme poverty eradication:
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20070704102907/http://virtualrights.org/files/project_overview_latest.pdf<http://web.archive.org/web/20070704102907/http:/virtualrights.org/files/project_overview_latest.pdf>
>
>  On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 4:01 AM, Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Jaco
>
>
>
> Thanks for your support for the FoE Project, and congratulations on the
> progress that you've made in Costa Rica around the 'virtual personality'
> right.  I think in English it's more commonly referred to as the right to
> privacy online/ the right to protect 'digital identity'?  Yes, I do think
> that the recent developments in German law are very positive and important.
> This process of adapting national legislation and constitutional protections
> to the internet age is incredibly important to watch and for rights
> activists to be involved in.  Germany's constitutional court has addressed
> directly the complications of balancing privacy rights with notions of the
> 'public interest' (eg security) – I think it would be great to have someone
> who was involved in the process on the IGF panel concerning cyber-security
> and trust.
>
>
>
> Regarding how this relates to the FoE project – in our framework we would
> see introducing protections for digital identity and privacy in national law
> as a way for governments to uphold the principle concerning privacy.
> Privacy is obviously a key principle, with an intimate relationship to
> freedom of expression.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Lisa
>
>
>
> *From:* Jaco Aizenman [mailto:skorpio at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 12 August 2008 02:32
> *To:* Lisa Horner
> *Cc:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research
>
>
>
> Dear Lisa,
>
> Thank you for the  FoE link, which is very impressive and I support. Let me
> know if I can help in any way the FoE from Costa Rica.
>
> Please also note that a new virtual personality fundamental right is
> complementary to FoE, and can enhance even more the FoE initiative. Of
> course it has to be done in the right way....
>
> If Constitutional Courts worldwide will have a clear and good virtual
> personality fundamental right (Internet rights) it will be much easier to
> implement fully the FoE initiative and vice versa.
>
> Don´ t you like or support the first, worldwide, "internet right", made a
> few months ago by the German Constitutional Court?.
>
> Thanks a lot for your time.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jaco
>
>  On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:31 AM, Lisa Horner <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Max and all
>
>
>
> Thanks for your interest in what we're doing.  I'm equally interested in
> your work and in exploring potentials for collaboration.  Maybe we could
> start a 'research ideas' and 'research in progress' page on the bill of
> rights wiki?
>
>
>
> Apologies in advance for the length of this email – those who aren't
> interested can delete email or go into skim-read mode now!
>
>
>
> The research we're doing is as part of the ongoing Freedom of Expression
> Project.  I think I've mentioned before that we're working with 6 key
> partner organizations in different countries to develop policy principles
> that, if adhered to, would shape a global communications environment that
> would support human rights and a 'public interest' communications
> environment.  They address issues spanning infrastructure, code and
> content.  The latest draft of the principles is available and open for
> comment at
> http://www.freedomofexpression.org.uk/resources/public+interest+principles+for+the+networked+communications+environment.
>
>
>
>
> The principles and values that they express are purposefully broad so that
> they can be tailored to specific contexts.  The idea is for them to provide
> an overarching framework for policy discussion and advocacy at different
> scales.  For example, our project partners are currently working to
> elaborate what they might mean in different country contexts, and this in
> turn will provide the foundations for policy work.  A major aim is to
> identify spaces where different stakeholders can agree that they share
> certain values and principles, and work to shape policy accordingly.
>
>
>
> We have been working to base all of our work so far in international human
> rights standards, in particular freedom of expression, the right to culture
> and the right to participation in government.  We've taken an expansive
> definition of freedom of expression that many (but not all) human rights
> institutions and lawyers around the world take.  This includes positive
> dimensions of freedom of expression, including the notion that governments
> are responsible for putting the necessary structures/infrastructures in
> place for the right to be realized.  Incidentally, that's why I don't
> believe that we need to be advocating for new rights such as the right to
> the internet or to communication.  The sentiments and demands expressed by
> these 'new' rights are already contained within the human rights system.  In
> my opinion, our energy should be focused on further developing and upholding
> what we have already, for example, further embedding expansive definitions
> of freedom of expression in rights and policy institutions.  And, as
> Anriette and Milton importantly pointed out, in furthering/developing
> understanding about what international rights standards and compliance with
> them actually means in practice.
>
>
>
> The research that I referred to before is intended to contribute to this
> effort, illustrating how an expansive definition of freedom of expression is
> being supported in contemporary legal and philosophical thought and case
> law, and identifying areas where further work needs to be done.  It is
> taking our policy principles framework as a starting point, ensuring that it
> is firmly rooted in the international human rights system.  In this way, if
> the framework was used as a basis for policy discussion, human rights
> standards would effectively be 'mainstreamed' within the discussions.
>
>
>
> Whilst I'm sure some would make the argument that these aren't IG issues,
> we hope that we're making a positive contribution towards ensuring that the
> 'shared norms and principles that shape the use and evolution of the
> internet' are rooted in human rights standards.  These are the most widely
> accepted and acknowledged ethical standards in the world, which (in
> reference to earlier conversations) is why it makes sense to us to work with
> them and build on them, rather than try to reinvent or disregard them.
>
>
>
> I'll leave it there for now, but I'm interested to hear anybody's thoughts
> on the work we're doing,  and am keen to explore opportunities to
> collaborate on further research on any of these issues.
>
>
>
> Many thanks,
>
>
>
> Lisa
>
>
>
> *From:* bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:
> bill-of-rights-bounces at ipjustice.org] *On Behalf Of *Max Senges
> *Sent:* 06 August 2008 17:36
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen;
> bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org
> *Subject:* [Bill-of-Rights] Rights in IG research
>
>
>
> dear lisa and all
>
> Lisa wrote:
> > We've just commissioned some research into how policy principles based
> > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, universal
> > access and content diversity can be rooted in the international human
> > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting insights...
>
> that sounds very interesting. Stanford lawschool's Center for Internet and
> Society has offered to collaborate by contributing research and i agreed to
> frame research opportunities/themes for student projects to be taken up in
> the fall.
>
> It would be great to team up or at least be aware of all the other research
> undertaken to better understand a Rights based approach to IG.
>
> Lisa could you share a bit more info about Global Partners research?
>
> Everybody else doing research work in this area is very much invited to get
> in touch so we can ensure we complement, share and avoid duplication
>
> best
> max
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:37 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
> wrote:
>
> Hallo all
>
> Lisa, you are correct in that the SA Human Rights Commission is the
> appropriate
> institution to deal with this. In fact they deal with hate speech issues
> quite often.
>
> They are under-resourced, but they do do excellent work.  Here is their URL
> http://www.sahrc.org.za/sahrc_cms/publish/cat_index_26.shtml
>
> Draft hate speech legislation has been before parlaiment a few times here
> in South
> Africa.  I am not sure what the status is. If I remember correctly the
> draft bill was badly
> not well conceived and very controversial.
>
> I certainly think that making a formal complaint to the HRC (human rights
> commission) would the way to start if the intension is to create public
> awareness of
> the issue.
>
> It will also drive lots of traffic to the site.... which is less desirable.
>  Personally, Rui, I
> would just ignore it.
>
> Lisa, I completely agree with you about the relationship between rights and
> internet
> governance. Sadly I think that we have lost ground since WSIS.  As you say
> there is a
> lot of work to be done to get beyond rights rhetoric and to work out what
> the
> implementable rights-based public policy principles are that we can work
> with on
> specific issues, e.g. those you mention, for example net-neutrality.  APC
> tries to adopt
> this approach in our access work.
>
> I also think that the mainstream human rights movement has not engaged this
> terrain
> enough, altough there are exceptions.
>
> Anriette
>
>
> Date sent:              Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:09:58 +0100
> From:                   "Lisa Horner" <lisa at global-partners.co.uk>
> To:                     <governance at lists.cpsr.org>,
>        "Rui Correia" <correia.rui at gmail.com>
> Subject:                RE: [governance] Taking down a site [was: beijing
> ticket scam]
> Send reply to:          governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Lisa Horner"
> <lisa at global-
> partners.co.uk>
>
> > Echoing Ian, I wonder if it would be worth filing a complaint with the
> > South African Human Rights Commission?  The SA bill of rights states
> > that freedom of expression doesn't extend to "advocacy of hatred that
> > is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes
> > incitement to cause harm." Is this supported by any other legislation
> > in SA?
> >
> > So many of our discussions around internet governance issues can be
> > approached from a rights perspective, but human rights lawyers and
> > institutions are usually absent from the debate.  Human rights and
> > their associated tools and mechanisms are arguably one of the only
> > global governance institutions that is 'thickening' in the current age
> > of 'globalisation'.  Human rights approaches also have an inbuilt
> > framework for balancing out tensions between different rights and
> > responsibilities.  However, there's still a lot of work to be done in
> > bringing them up to date and ensuring that they're capable of dealing
> > with new issues, including those relating to freedom of expression and
> > the internet.  I wonder if engaging directly with national human
> > rights institutions is one way of starting that process?
> >
> > In a way, this is linked to Anriette's comment that many new campaigns
> > around rights are a-historical.  Similarly, I think that they should
> > be rooted in, or at least have a firm understanding of, existing human
> > rights institutions, both formal and informal and at all scales.
> > We've just commissioned some research into how policy principles based
> > around notions such as net neutrality, interoperability, universal
> > access and content diversity can be rooted in the international human
> > rights system which will hopefully yield some interesting insights...
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Lisa
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director
> Association for Progressive Communications
> anriette at apc.org
> http://www.apc.org
> PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109
> Tel. 27 11 726 1692
> Fax 27 11 726 1692
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------
> "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong
> man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit
> belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the
> dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short
> again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and
> spends himself in a worthy cause; ... so that his place shall never be with
> those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
> - THEODORE ROOSEVELT
> (Paris Sorbonne,1910)
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Max Senges
> Stanford Post-Doc Visiting Scholar
> UOC Research Associate
> Freelance Consultant
>
> 98 Loyola Ave., Menlo Park, California 94025
>
> US-Phone: (001) 650 714 9826
>
> www.maxsenges.com
> www.knowledgeentrepreneur.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bill-of-Rights mailing list
> Bill-of-Rights at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/bill-of-rights
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jaco Aizenman L.
> My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco)
> XDI Board member - www.xdi.org
> Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570
> Costa Rica
>
> What is an i-name?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jaco Aizenman L.
> My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco)
> XDI Board member - www.xdi.org
> Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570
> Costa Rica
>
> What is an i-name?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name
>



-- 
Jaco Aizenman L.
My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco)
XDI Board member - www.xdi.org
Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570
Costa Rica

What is an i-name?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080815/c895dc3a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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


More information about the Governance mailing list