[governance] regulating the digital space - whose laws apply, and whose do not

[Daniel Kalchev]

On 30.8.2011 ?. 21:27 ?., Paul Lehto wrote:
> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote/replied:
>> I think you missed my point.  TCP/IP is ~40 years old.  It has never
>> been enshrined in any laws AFAIK.  Would you seek to regulate it now?
>   TCP/IP is useless without the computer networks attached to it which
> it allows to communicate with each other, so it is misleading to call
> TCP/IP standing alone as the "heart" of the internet.
There have been other networks, besides the Internet based on different 
protocols, without regulation or government imposed laws.
TCP/IP as such is of course regulated. Just not by governments.
It is regulated more or less by consent and agreement. Which is cast in 
many  protocol specifications, the low-level laws of the Internet. In 
order to create these protocols, one needs understanding and vision.
The network, based on TCP/IP that we know as the Internet is regulated 
too. At higher level.
What regulates the Internet is the law of Common Sense.

No Government regulates the Common Sense, because it is incompatible 
with Governments.
It is a private thing. Shared by billions of humans.



> Communication has always been regulated, and its regulation supported
> EVEN by the vast majority of "free speech" advocates.
Not neccesarily by Governments. Not neccesarily by public law.

Most people do not care about these things (communication), and 
therefore do not see a poin tto have laws regulating them.

If you trully believe in democracy, you need to recognize that those 
elected are in fact servants of the people who elected them. In an ideal 
democracy, laws are created to regulate the areas that concern most people.
If say, I have an argument with my neighbor Paul Letho, do you consider 
it appropriate for the government to step in and regulate our 
relationip? Pass a specific Paul-Daniel law? (*) <- read this at the end :)

> The reason regulatory issues concern "epiphenomenon" and not TCP/IP itself is
> that TCP/IP is irrelevant and useless without the *communicating*
> computer networks it connects.
There is no point for government imposed law to regulate computers. Laws 
exists to regulate humans.

By the way, in your previous example, with the Guttenberg press, no law 
regulated the press, as such. All related laws regulated the human's use 
of the press and the products of that use.

By the way, none of the 'copyright' laws has nothing to do with the 
printing press as such, but more with the preserving of the status quo 
and protecting the investment --- 'folow the money'.

Then, I am curious how one prosecutes a Guttenberg press. Burn it in 
fire? Chip it in pieces? Or order the press to produce prints for free 
for the rest of it's life? Or pay one print to the government for every 
five prints it produces?

How one prosecutes an immaterial subject like the Internet, for not 
obeying the law someone made?

> And regulation of communication has always been supported by even free speech advocates, the issue being one of how much regulation is appropriate, not IF there should be
> regulation at all.

There is fundamental conflict between 'free speech' and 'regulation'.

Reminds me of

*Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.  ~Abbott 
Joseph Liebling, "Do You Belong in Journalism?" New Yorker, 4 May 1960
*
> In fact, even where free speech advocates *win* they still claim the
> law should be involved in regulation in the broadest sense because
> free speech advocates invoke the *protection* of the law to insist
> that courts enforce limits on governmental action where the limits are
> exceeded.*But courts are government, too.*

Very interesting revelation.

Daniel

(*) Here is a true case of the first 'road law' in Bulgaria. As you 
probably know, in he beginnig of 20th century Bulgaria was a monarchy. 
At that time in Sofia there were exactly two cars. The car of the Tzar 
and the car of the richest banker. One day, in a funny twist of fate, 
both cars collided at the center of the town. The Tzar was very angry, 
and forced the 'Parliament' to pass a law, that amounted to: "When the 
car of the Tzar is on the road, the car of mr. Burov stays at it's garage."

Was it a law? Yes. Was it made by the Government? Definitely. Was is 
'democratic' -- well, that depends -- those who voted the law, were in 
fact 'democratically' elected by the people -- they only chose to obey 
the desire of the more powerful party (after all, mr. Burov did not have 
his own private army).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110830/403cf98d/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, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t