[governance] The Internet (as we know it) can never be "private"

[Daniel Kalchev]

On 16.07.11 23:18, Paul Lehto wrote:
> The Washington Post takes as a truism this statement it published today:
>
> "The Internet is a powerful tool for innovation and expression because
> it allows information and ideas to flow freely."

This statement is very much correct and constitutes the primary problem 
current 'lawmaking' has with Internet. Laws are all about control and 
restriction and you cannot control something intrinsically 'free'. In 
order to control Internet, you need to remove the 'free for all' bit.

> Information and ideas do not "flow freely" on anything that is plainly
> and simply "private property."

Can you prove this?

> Even private property owned by a single individual can, by the choice
> of the owner, be operated as a commons or like a commons.  (An
> individual can make a park on her own land and invite all to use it
> for free.)  It's nice if someone chooses to do this, but we can't rely
> on the largesse of private individuals if we wish to keep a commons
> going because they can change their mind at any time, and close the
> gates of the park for any reason.

This is what the current Internet is. A collection of many, many private 
places, made accessible to the public. We have relied on this for few 
decades already, how came we can no longer rely on this? Do you know 
something that none of us knows, that makes it impossible for the 
Internet to continue to operate as it always did?

There are many places, where the land is private. The roads are private. 
Yet nobody will prohibit you from driving there, nor will they ask you 
for a fee or anything like that. In many places in the world, you can 
build your house on someone else's private land and in most cases that 
will not cost you anything (but the cost of constructing your house). In 
some of these places the government will come along and lay 
infrastructure for you, 'for free'. (well, considering you continue to 
be citizen of that country, obey laws, pay taxes and work for its 
prosperity etc)

By the way, I first saw, ever, an "no trespassing, private property" 
sign in the US.

> This doesn't mean that the Internet *could not* be made much more
> private.  Just recently, I've pointed to examples of just such a
> development, where public law-making authority about the internet is
> delegated to a private corporation.

That law-making authority, was it before that "public property"?

How does any property become "public"?

Most likely, before being granted to the new 'private' entity, that 
power just belonged to a different private entity.

An interesting though, if my word would be considered "law" in my 
family, does that mean, that the public needs to take over and decide 
what the "law" in my family will be? That will not fly in many cultures, 
to say it mildly.

By the way, we seem to have different interpretation of the "public" and 
"private" terms.

> And, the
> more we tolerate or implement exclusion, or the more we give power to
> forms of governance like corporations that, being property interests
> themselves, have exclusion as part of their structural essence, the
> more we kill the Internet as the open marketplace of friendship,
> communication and commerce that is what most people think is the
> greatest thing about it.
>
Can we stop equating "private" with "corporate" please? Nobody argues 
that large corporations are evil. But replacing large corporations with 
governments does not make things better or even different.

Daniel
____________________________________________________________
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