US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty

[Marc Perkel]

I am 100% certain it is a trap.

On 12/15/2012 8:44 AM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote:
> I have a feeling that this is a trap.
>
> Baudouin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Amr
> Elsadr
> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 4:30 PM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet
> treaty
>
> Thanks Marc. Couldn't agree more.
>
> Amr
>
> On Dec 15, 2012, at 3:26 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
>> My problem is that no matter how benign a treaty might sound in the
> beginning it would lead to the creation of an infrastructure to allow
> enforcement. Once you have an international infrastructure of control who is
> to say the rules might change? So something might start out as the society
> for the protection of cute kittens organizing to stop child porn and end up
> with the thought police installing chips in your brain.
>> And you can imagine where this would go when it comes to "religiously
> offensive" materials sent across the internet. There are many countries
> where not believing in God caries the death penalty, as well as believing in
> God the wrong way. I can imagine what would happen between Christians and
> Muslims on an Internet with a central control infrastructure. There was a
> story recently where a man who was a non-believer determined that a crying
> statue of the Virgin Mary was caused by a leaky sewer pipe and he's being
> prosecuted for it. Imagine what a threat it would be to realists if those
> views could be enforced across international borders.
>> And what about uprisings? The Arab Spring was organized online. Would we
> be obligated to censor the cries of the oppressed and tortured because of
> treaty obligations of the oppressing country?
>> The bottom line for me is that some criminality is the price we pay for
> freedom and it's worth it. Once you put in an infrastructure to stop the bad
> guys then that infrastructure can, and most certainly will, be used against
> the rest of us. So I support our resistance to any treaty or domestic law to
> centrally control the internet.
>