<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Thanks, Nuno.<br>
<br>
<br>
Norbert Klein<br>
Cambodia<br>
<br>
<br>
On 07/22/2011 10:38 PM, Nuno Garcia wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALbrTwBqqMP1hOxAOH8KSuizHRDvbZOwTWyLM+fQkPR1fc2bGQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Hi all, hi Timothe,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Allow me to disagree with some of the things you say bellow,
mostly because I think the comparison you chose is not adequate.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In the Information Society we are all trying to build, to
prevent someone from accessing information in the manner it is
published is a violation of some of the basic Human Rights (and
I mean the ones from the charter of rights published some 50
years ago by the UN).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Let me explain: some governenments and almost all companies
publish information that is critical to a responsible
citizenship in the web, sometimes only in the web, many times
free on the web but payable everywhere else.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To put it bluntly, in Europe, the access to Internet is view
by legislators as as important as the access to electricity,
water and health.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please don't get me wrong, I too am a strong advocate of
responsible citizenship. <br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Yet I am not ever in favou that this group takes on the
responsabilities or tries to impose or define responsabilities
onto its represented elements. There are authorities for that
and that would be way out of our powers. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I propose that if that is the case, we build a charter of
rights and responsabilities for a responsible cyber-citizenship
(or whatever name you find more suitable).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Let me know explain why the example you chose is ill formed.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If a driver misbehaves you may prevent him from driving, not
as a punishment, but as a mean to safeguard all other users of
public roads.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Again, the government may prevent him from driving, but
unless the offense was a crime, it cannot prevent him from using
public transportation, or walking. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What you propose is somehow similar to put the citizen in a
jail where he cannot move or has limited movements.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On another aspect, the Internet (capital I), is a privilede,
and a right. A right that derives from the fact that the
information it contains is public domain. A right like reading a
newspaper, or listening to the news and the music in the radio
or watching TV.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The Internet is the mean through which many of the rights
described in the Human Rights Charter are made available to us.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And may I add, even risking to be one of the "crooks" you
mention: we should never take this discussion to the point where
we define who is a crook and who isn't. This is a very very very
dangerous path and this is not the way we should go. In no time
we will be discussing religion, moral, and other extremely
personal and subjective things.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I hope to have contributed to this discussion.</div>
<div>Warm regards from Portugal,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Nuno Garcia</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">2011/7/22 Timothe Litt <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:litt@acm.org">litt@acm.org</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt
0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
padding-left: 1ex;">At the risk of becoming even less
popular, let's see where your analogy<br>
takes us:<br>
<br>
Like driving, a network presence, including a domain name,
is a privilege<br>
and not an absolute right.<br>
<br>
On the roads, there are standards of behavior that are
enforced for the<br>
safety and convenience of all. And vehicles must have tags
that identify<br>
the owner/operator. An unidentified vehicle strewing sharp
objects (or<br>
explosives) down the road is a problem for everyone. While
it will<br>
eventually be stopped, the damage it causes is amplified by
the amount of<br>
time that it takes to identify it. So we have registration
tags... And<br>
those who drive sufficiently irresponsibly have their
privilege revoked -<br>
even if it means they lose their livelihood.<br>
<br>
The internet is a far more complex machine. With the
privilege of becoming<br>
a part of that machine come some responsibilities. Being
able to be<br>
contacted when, through error, malfunction, or malicious
intent one has a<br>
negative impact on the machine and/or its users is a basic
responsibility.<br>
And those "network operators" aren't (just) some big
anonymous corporation<br>
staffed by paid technicians; they're also individuals with
their one PC<br>
running their own mail/web/dns server - because they don't
want to entrust<br>
their personal data to the whims of some ISP. Burdening
"them" is burdening<br>
"us". And it's hard enough for "us" to get "them" to take
action against<br>
bad actors when we can identify them - when we can't, it's
virtually<br>
impossible.<br>
<br>
Reachability via proxy provides anonymity sufficient for
protecting the<br>
privacy needs of virtually anyone who needs to be part of
the network. Just<br>
like the vehicle whose registration address is a trust or
corporation's<br>
attorney. That scheme protects those with the need (or
simply desire) for<br>
privacy. The strength of the proxy can be adjusted to need
- providing it<br>
still provides access. So maybe you trust your
government-run ISP to proxy<br>
your contact information - or maybe you employ an attorney
in a state on the<br>
other side of the world with different privacy laws and a
private army. I<br>
don't care which - as long as I can communicate thru the
proxy to someone<br>
who can fix or diagnose a problem. And as long as failure
to<br>
respond/cooperate allows the privilege of being part of the
network to be<br>
terminated - with due process (and lots of "reasonable" in
the definitions).<br>
<br>
Providing fraudulent/no contact information is not
consistent with being a<br>
good citizen. Proxies provide an adequate alternative, with
sufficient<br>
privacy protection for those who need/desire it.<br>
<br>
We (NCUC) can't be just about "rights"; responsibilities are
part of<br>
citizenship too. We should not be advocating bad
citizenship, or making it<br>
"officially acceptable". It's bad for the network. It's
bad for our<br>
credibility as an organization of responsible people. It's
even bad for<br>
good people who think it in their interest to be unreachable
- because they<br>
can lose domain names, connectivity and operational help.
The only people<br>
it's good for are the crooks/bad actors. And NCUC should
not be helping to<br>
make their lives easier.<br>
<br>
It's a choice to be part of the network, just as it's a
choice to become a<br>
licensed driver. Those who can't/won't accept the rules of
good citizenship<br>
can employ others to network - or drive - for them. (Yes,
bad/unreasonable<br>
rules can/should be fought. This isn't one.)<br>
<br>
We don't tolerate unlicensed drivers or unregistered
vehicles - or vandalism<br>
of others' vehicles and roads. And while we allow proxy
registration of<br>
vehicles, driver's licenses have a verifiable name, contact
address and<br>
photo. Perhaps that's a sacrifice of some absolutist sense
of "liberty",<br>
but it does make our transportation system work (more or
less). I don't<br>
think it unreasonable to expect the same of those on the
network of<br>
electrons as of those on the network of roads.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
Timothe Litt<br>
ACM Distinguished Engineer<br>
---------------------------------------------------------<br>
This communication may not represent the ACM or my
employer's views,<br>
if any, on the matters discussed.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
A while ago, I started a new blog:
...thinking it over... after 21 years in Cambodia
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thinking21.org/">http://www.thinking21.org/</a>
continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia.
Norbert Klein
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:nhklein@gmx.net">nhklein@gmx.net</a>
Phnom Penh / Cambodia
</pre>
</body>
</html>