[governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg

michael gurstein gurstein at gmail.com
Sat Nov 17 16:47:41 EST 2012


Those are good points and serious issues Pranesh.

I think what this discussion indicates is that there is a need for a nuanced approach to the issue of standard setting/regulation at the global level including taking into consideration how this will (or could) impact at the national level.  What is not needed and particularly from CS is an uncritical adherence to the "hands off the Internet/free the Internet" position being advocated by some governments and many (self-interested) corporations, ignoring the need for various kinds of interventions as a support to various issues of significance from the perspective of a  global public interest.

A problem with the approach currently being advocated by many is that there is no opportunity for reflection as to what issues could and should be addressed and in what fora, and which should not.  Being stampeded over an anti-governance "no-regulation" libertarian cliff  is not I think, in the interests of most whether in Developed or in Less Developed Countries.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Pranesh Prakash [mailto:pranesh at cis-india.org] 
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:18 PM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein
Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [MobileActive Discuss] Why Cell Phones Went Dead After Hurricane Sandy- Bloomberg

michael gurstein [2012-11-17 19:30]:
> Who can we rely on to act in support of the (global) public 
> interest--IBM, Google, Facebook, AT&T, the USG, "the market"..?

In India we face the opposite problem of that described by Susan Crawford.  Through the ISP Licence, the UAS Licence, the Telecom licence, the government has armed itself with powers against the ISPs and telecom companies that it does not have under any law.

For instance, there is a stricture in those licences against "bulk encryption" of more than 40bits without key escrow, despite the government requiring 128 bit encryption by all banks in another law. 
There is a requirement of having a black box room on their premises with access to all communications, though blanket surveillance (under some readings of Indian law and the judicial interpretation of the right to privacy as a fundamental right) is not permissible.  Importantly, if it doesn't harm their bottom line, these companies have no incentive to not cooperate.

While we should avoid moving to a state of 'no regulation' (competition law, consumer law, etc., should apply), in many countries, especially LDCs and developing countries, we are on the opposite side of the spectrum.  Please spare a thought for developing countries too ;)

--
Pranesh Prakash
Policy Director
Centre for Internet and Society
T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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


More information about the Governance mailing list