Techdirt. Stories filed under "freedom"

NYPD Sergeant Says 'Guilty Until Proven Innocent' Is Just The Price We Pay For A 'Free Society'

Tim Cushing — Wed, 8 May 2013 09:42:31 PDT

We've been dealing with the New York police department lately, thanks to the mayor and the police chief using the recent Boston bombing as an excuse to increase surveillance efforts and enact other policies to further encroach on New Yorkers' civil liberties. Whenever something terrorist-related occurs, it seems as though the NYPD's reps can't keep their opinions to themselves, even as the department itself drifts further and further away from being a sterling example of How Things Should Be Done.

In a recent Christian Science Monitor article dealing with "teenagers, terrorism and social media" (focusing on the recent Cameron D'Ambrosio arrest for making "terrorist threats" via some improvised rap lyrics posted to Facebook), Sgt. Ed Mullins of the NYPD shows up to make some very disturbing statements about your rights and responsibilities as a (mere) citizen. It starts with the worst kind of "policy" and goes downhill fast.

Using a zero tolerance approach to track domestic terrorists online is the only reasonable way to analyze online threats these days, especially after the Boston Marathon bombing and news that the suspects had subsequently planned to target Times Square in Manhattan, Mullins says. The way law enforcement agencies approach online activity that appears sinister is this: “If you’re not a terrorist, if you’re not a threat, prove it,” he says.

"Zero tolerance" is never "reasonable." It never has been and it never will be. In fact, it's the polar opposite. Zero tolerance policies simply absolve the enforcers of any responsibility for the outcome and grant them the privilege of ignoring mitigating factors. It allows them to bypass applying any sort of critical thinking skills (the "reason" part of "reasonable") and view every infractions as nothing more than a binary IF THEN equation.

Mullins goes even further than this, though, asserting that the burden of proof lies with the person charged, not the person bringing the charges. This flips our judicial system on its head (along with the judicial systems in many other countries) and, if applied the way Mullins views it, puts accused citizens in the impossible position of trying to prove a negative. This is just completely wrong, and it's a dangerously stupid thing for someone in his position to believe, much less state out loud. (Mullins also heads the Sergeants Benevolent Association, the second-largest police union in New York City.)

Believe it or not, Mullins is not done talking. What he says next doubles up on the "dangerous" and "stupid."

“This is the price you pay to live in free society right now. It’s just the way it is,” Mullins adds.

No. It isn't.

This is the price Mullins is charging to live in the NYPD's severely stunted version of a "free" society. The NYPD has been harassing young minorities at the rate of 500,000 impromptu stop-and-frisks per year for the better part of the last decade. For the past 10 years, the NYPD has been regularly trampling citizens' civil liberties simply because they attend a mosque. The NYPD and Mayor Bloomberg have worked ceaselessly to make New York the most-surveilled city in the U.S.

That's the price New Yorkers are paying. It has nothing to do with living in a free society. The NYPD takes liberties away and high-ranking cops like Mullins have the gall to suggest there's some sort of equitable exchange occurring. Mullins doesn't seem to understand (or just doesn't care) that if you take away freedom you no longer have a free society.

It has been said that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, but "eternal vigilance" isn't shorthand for oppressive surveillance and zero tolerance policies that make freedom less "free." "Eternal vigilance" isn't treating the Constitution like a relic too worn and tattered to serve any purpose in these "dangerous" times. And being an officer of the law isn't an excuse to shut your intellect off and allow your brain stem and broad policies to "work" in concert in order to treat loudmouth teens on Facebook like a guy with a trailer home full of explosives.

This "vigilance" is supposed to be put to use by citizens in order to prevent authorities like Mullins from encroaching on our liberties. It's not solely limited to a united military effort against foreign powers. There are plenty of people apparently willing to attack our freedom from the comfort of the home front.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Yes, Patents Are A Restriction On Freedom

Mike Masnick — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:57:49 PST

Tim Lee points us to an interesting blog post from a patent lawyer who tries to parse out why software patents feel so offensive to some. The lawyer, Steve Lundberg, who tends to be a software patent supporter (and whose blog posts I've strongly disagreed with in the past) does make some interesting points. Lee highlights the following:

There is one more factor that makes software very unique — because a single person can successfully develop and distribute software applications, the experience with the system is highly personalized for a large number of developers. Software patents, in a sense, and almost unlike all other technology areas, restrict what feels like our treasured personal freedom, and understandably thus generate a visceral reaction to those so affected. In almost all other mainstream industries, inventors do not act as manufacturers, but are employed by them. This decouples and depersonalizes infringement concerns from the inventor/developer. In actual practice, it is extremely rare that a small developer would ever be sued for infringement by any entity other than a direct competitor. In this instance, the developer would be able to quite easily see it coming, but there is a possibility that they could be sued and not see it coming. So, I can understand why smaller developers would feel personally threatened by software patents. And even software developers in large companies often still fancy themselves as independent souls who, in their dreams, find fame and fortune founding a start-up and striking it rich. So, they too, often can take umbrage as much as an independent developer.

Lee responds to this paragraph by almost totally agreeing with a couple of important caveats. First, he notes that Lundberg greatly underestimates how many small and indie developers are hit by patent lawsuits these days. Actually, I'd say even that massively underestimates the problem, because it doesn't take into account all of those who are never sued, but who are hit with threats that can be tremendously damaging to small companies. Lee's other point is also important:

the part about patents restricting “what feels like” freedom. There’s no “feels like” about it. Patents are a restriction on the treasured personal freedom of programmers, which is why so many of us are upset about them.

I think that's true, but again, I'd take it even further. I'm not sure I agree with Lundberg's assertion that this is somehow unique to software developers. I think it's absolutely true that we see more software developers than other patent-intensive fields, and thus we see more such activity, but any use of patents (or copyrights for that matter) are restrictions on the freedom of others by definition. Patents and copyrights are rights to exclude. That's their fundamental property. They are a government granted tool with which the holder can restrict the freedoms of others. There is a calculus involved, over whether or not that restriction on freedom is worth it in the long run. Does it incentivize more inventiveness? Does the benefit outweigh the restriction? That's what we're supposed to be determining.

The problem isn't just that indie developers feel super independent and blindsided by patent disputes, but, rather that they don't see the patents helping in any way, and thus the restriction on freedom is way too costly. A big part of the problem, of course, is that thanks (in large part) to regulatory capture, those who benefit most from patents (and copyrights) have done their best to tilt the law over time such that those key questions are never asked. They've created a world in which we are told to first assume that of course such restrictions create more incentives for invention and that of course the benefits outweigh the restrictions. People are yelled at for even suggesting otherwise, and it's rare to find a serious discussion on those topics. Instead, maybe questions are allowed at the margins about a specific part of the law that is seen as going too far. But the larger questions are never asked.

But for the people who live these things day in and day out, they know intuitively that the restrictions on their own freedoms are much much more problematic than any benefits given from patent law. And that is why they're upset. It's not just that the development and the infringement concerns are linked, but that the overall restrictions on freedom are just not seen to be worth it.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Announcing The Declaration Of Internet Freedom

Mike Masnick — Mon, 2 Jul 2012 03:05:00 PDT

A whole bunch of organizations and individuals are getting together today to launch the beginning of a process, the creation of an Internet Declaration of Freedom. We've seen how the internet has been under attack from various directions, and we recognize that it's time to make that stop. The internet is an incredible platform that we want to grow and to thrive, and thus, a very large coalition got together to produce the following document as a starting point, hoping to kick off a much larger discussion which we hope you'll join in.

We've set up our own Step2 discussion page where you can vote on the principles, discuss them, add your own ideas... whatever you'd like. You can, of course, also discuss them below in the comments. There are a number of other organizations setting up pages as well. The folks at Free Press have put up a Declaration of Internet Freedom site that lists out many of the organizations and individuals who were involved in putting this together and who are supporting the effort. There's also a subreddit and a Cheezburger page. Lots of other groups have set up action pages where you can take part as well, including EFF, Access and Free Press.

We believe that a free and open Internet can bring about a better world. But to keep the Internet free and open, we must promote these principles in every country, every industry and every community. And we believe that these freedoms will bring about more creativity, more innovation and a better society.

We are joining an international movement to defend our freedoms because we believe that they are worth fighting for.

Let’s discuss these principles — agree or disagree with them, debate them, translate them, make them your own and broaden the discussion with your community — as only the Internet can make possible.

Join us in keeping the Internet free and open.

Embed This:

In case you can't read the graphic, here's the text version:

Declaration of Internet Freedom We stand for a free and open Internet.

We support transparent and participatory processes for making Internet policy and the establishment of five basic principles:

Expression: Don't censor the Internet.

Access: Promote universal access to fast and affordable networks.

Openness: Keep the Internet an open network where everyone is free to connect, communicate, write, read, watch, speak, listen, learn, create and innovate.

Innovation: Protect the freedom to innovate and create without permission. Don’t block new technologies, and don’t punish innovators for their users' actions.

Privacy: Protect privacy and defend everyone’s ability to control how their data and devices are used.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Pirate Party Effect: German Greens Scramble To Draw Up Digital Policies To Hold On To Voters

Glyn Moody — Fri, 2 Dec 2011 12:40:00 PST

The founding of the Pirate Party in Sweden in 2006 was regarded by many as a joke. After all, the argument went, who would want to be associated with "pirates" or vote for such a narrow platform? This overlooked the fact that the traditional political parties had consistently ignored the concerns of voters who understood that the Internet raised important questions about areas such as copyright and privacy. By focusing on precisely those issues, the Pirate Party gave disaffected voters the opportunity to express their dissatisfaction with the old political parties and their outdated policies.

This they have done not just in Sweden, where two Members of the European Parliament were elected in 2009, but increasingly in Germany. In Berlin, the Pirate Party recently obtained nearly 9% of the vote in the latest Berlin state parliamentary elections, a level of support that is being mirrored across Germany if you believe the latest opinion polls.

Among those most threatened by the rise of the Pirates are the German Greens, a party which has traditionally appealed to precisely the voters that the Pirates are drawing their support from. The risk for the Greens is that the Pirates could take over as the main "alternative" option in German elections, turning the former into an anachronistic throwback to pre-digital times.

To head off this threat, the German Green party has drawn up a 16-page proposal entitled "Openness, freedom, participation – Exploiting the opportunities of the Internet – Making the shift to digital green", which aims to position the Green party as a defender of all those things that make the Pirates attractive to some voters (German original.).

There is support for a shopping list of digital-friendly ideas like Internet freedom, Net neutrality, privacy, data protection, online anonymity and pseudonymity, free software, open access, open data, open government, CC licenses – even for things like free public wifi and DDoS attacks, which the Greens regard as "civil disobedience". There's also a list of things that the Greens don't want: Net censorship, "three strike" exclusions, data retention, online surveillance, software patents and the export of surveillance tools.

That's all good stuff, but the really interesting part of the proposal concerns copyright, because it's here that the Greens are being forced by the Pirate Party to make the most radical shifts, and where the biggest battles within the Green party seem to be taking place. According to a report in the magazine Der Spiegel (original German), the "cultural" wing of the party want copyright to remain as it is, while the "Internet" wing want its term reduced to just five years.

That gulf explains the rather vague statements of the Greens' policy paper on the subject:

We Greens are committed to a modernization and reform of copyright law and to a fair balance between the interests of copyright owners and users; that is, for all Internet participants. We want to strengthen the copyright owners and artists against the exploitation and marketing of their content, but also to provide adequate financial compensation for the free use of their copyrighted content on the Internet. At the same time we want to end the criminalization of non-commercial use of copyrighted works on the Internet and facilitate access to them. If copyrighted material is offered directly on a website or platform, which has a significant (higher than cost recovery) income from contributions from members or through advertising or links, then this counts as commercial scale.

Among the concrete proposals is a right to make private copies: Private copying may not be prevented by technical measures, such as digital rights management (DRM), or by legal restrictions. Such a copy for private use and the right to copy it to personal devices, be it a laptop, an MP3 player, a tablet PC, or transferred to a smartphone, does not automatically include the right to share it with others publicly.

The proposals contained within the paper are currently just that: not official statements yet. But the fact that the party felt the need to address these issues in such detail shows that it is acutely aware of the challenge posed by the German Pirate Party, and it seems likely that many of the ideas will make it into the Greens' final platform.

Moreover, it's not just the German wing that is moving closer to the Pirates: as a Techdirt story from October reported, the European Green Party has also adopted many of the Pirate Party's key policies on copyright. Both are testimony to the impressive knock-on effects of the Pirates' appearance on the European political scene five years ago, and to the increasing importance of copyright in particular, and digital rights in general, to political platforms in the Internet age.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Free As In Freedom: But Whose Freedom?

Glyn Moody — Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:46:56 PST

It would be hard to overstate the contribution of Richard Stallman to the digital world. The founding of the GNU project and the creation of the GNU General Public License laid the foundations for a wide range of free software that permeates computing from smartphones to supercomputers. Free software has also directly inspired like-minded movements based around sharing, such as open access and open content (Wikipedia, notably).

At the heart of everything Stallman does lies a desire to promote freedom, specifically the freedom of the software user, by constraining the freedom of the developer in the way the code is distributed. That's in contrast to BSD-style licenses, say, where the developer is free to place additional restrictions on the code, thus reducing the freedom of the user.

Karl Fogel on QuestionCopyright.org recently asked why Stallman doesn't grant readers of his texts the same freedoms as for software, for example to create derivatives:

Recently we had some correspondence with an Internetizen known to us only as "openuniverse" or "libreuniverse", who resigned his membership in the Free Software Foundation over Stallman's insistence on exercising his state-granted monopoly to prevent derivative works from being made of his writings and speeches.

I phrase it that way for a reason. Elsewhere, you might see it expressed as "Stallman's insistence on using his copyright to control what can be done with his works". But Stallman himself understands these issues very well, and could easily spot the unspoken assumptions in that way of putting it. No one was asking to change his works, or to attribute to him thoughts or expressions not his. No one's existing copies of Stallman's works would be changed. Rather, openuniverse wanted to make a new work, using material from one of Stallman's books -- and Stallman quashed it.

The main GNU site explains: Works that express someone's opinion—memoirs, editorials, and so on—serve a fundamentally different purpose than works for practical use like software and documentation. Because of this, we expect them to provide recipients with a different set of permissions: just the permission to copy and distribute the work verbatim. Richard Stallman discusses this frequently in his speeches.
Here's what Stallman said: The second class of work is works whose purpose is to say what certain people think. Talking about those people is their purpose. This includes, say, memoirs, essays of opinion, scientific papers, offers to buy and sell, catalogues of goods for sale. The whole point of those works is that they tell you what somebody thinks or what somebody saw or what somebody believes. To modify them is to misrepresent the authors; so modifying these works is not a socially useful activity. And so verbatim copying is the only thing that people really need to be allowed to do.
Nina Paley, writing on the QuestionCopyright.org site, disagrees with the idea that "Works that express someone's opinion—memoirs, editorials, and so on—serve a fundamentally different purpose than works for practical use like software and documentation": The problem with this is that it is dead wrong. You do not know what purposes your works might serve others. You do not know how works might be found “practical” by others. To claim to understand the limits of “utility” of cultural works betrays an irrational bias toward software and against all other creative work. It is anti-Art, valuing software above the rest of culture. It says coders alone are entitled to Freedom, but everyone else can suck it. Use of -ND [No Derivatives] restrictions is an unjustifiable infringement on the freedom of others.
As with software licenses, the question once more comes down to: whose freedom are we talking about here? The freedom for creators to decide how their creations are to be used, or the freedom of users to do with those creations as they wish? The fact that Stallman straddles this divide shows there are no easy answers.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Shouldn't Free Mean The Same Thing Whether Followed By 'Culture' Or 'Software'?

Nina Paley — Thu, 7 Jul 2011 08:33:14 PDT

Adapted from a talk and slide show I presented at the Open Knowledge Conference in Berlin on July 1, 2011. --NP
Crossposted from ninapaley.com

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

-- The Free Software Definition

These are the Four Freedoms of Free Software. They are foundational principles, and they are exactly right. They have served and continue to serve the Free Software Movement very well. They place the user's freedom ahead of all other concerns. Free Software is a principled movement, but Free Culture is not – at least not so far. Why?

1. The No Derivatives (-ND) Restriction

If you tinker with software, you can improve it. You can also break it or make it worse, but the Freedom to Tinker is one of the foundational 4 Freedoms of Free Software. Your software may also be used for purposes you don't like, used by “bad people,” or even used against you; the Four Freedoms wisely counsel us to GET OVER IT.
Unfortunately, The Free Software Foundation does not extend “Freedom to Tinker” to Culture:

Cultural works released by the Free Software Foundation come with “No Derivatives” restrictions. They rationalize it here:

Works that express someone's opinion—memoirs, editorials, and so on—serve a fundamentally different purpose than works for practical use like software and documentation. Because of this, we expect them to provide recipients with a different set of permissions (notice how users are now called "recipients," and their Freedoms are now called "permissions" --NP): just the permission to copy and distribute the work verbatim. (link)

The problem with this is that it is dead wrong. You do not know what purposes your works might serve others. You do not know how works might be found “practical” by others. To claim to understand the limits of “utility” of cultural works betrays an irrational bias toward software and against all other creative work. It is anti-Art, valuing software above the rest of culture. It says coders alone are entitled to Freedom, but everyone else can suck it. Use of -ND restrictions is an unjustifiable infringement on the freedom of others.

For example, here I have violated the Free Software Foundation's No-Derivatives license:

The Four Freedoms of Free Culture:

1. The freedom to run, view, hear, read, play, perform, or otherwise attend to the Work;
2. The freedom to study, analyze, and dissect copies of the Work, and adapt it to your needs;
3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor;
4. The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes.
(link)

Without permission, I've created a derivative work: the Four Freedoms of Free Culture. Although I violated FSF's No-Derivatives license, they violated Freedoms # 2 and 4, so we're even.

1. The Non-Commercial (-NC) Restriction

The Freedom to Distribute Free Software is essential to its success. It has given rise to many for-profit businesses that benefit the larger community.

Red Hat, Canonical – would the world be better if such companies were forbidden? Would Free Software benefit from a ban on those businesses?

Yet the Cultural ecosystem is stunted by the prevalence of Non-Commercial restrictions. These maintain commercial monopolies around works, and – especially for vocational artists like me – are functionally as restrictive as unmodified copyright. Yet they are widely mislabeled “Free Culture,” or even “Copyleft.”

: Which of these things does not belong?

This is a still from the mostly excellent and popular documentary RiP: A Remix Manifesto. This film is many peoples' introduction to the term “Free Culture” and “Copyleft.” But as you can see, the Non-Commercial restriction is lumped in with actual Free license terms.

See that dollar sign with the slash in it? That means Non-Commercial restrictions, which are most definitely NOT Copyleft. (I've posted about Creative Commons' branding confusion before, but it's only gotten worse since then.)

: NC stands for Not Copyleft

This film is itself licensed under unFree Non-Commercial restrictions. As an artist and filmmaker, I have found confusion is rampant among my creative colleagues. Some filmmakers are beginning to think the term “Free Culture” is cool, but they still want to restrict others' freedom and impose commercial monopolies on their works.

: This doesn't help either

The book Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig its itself not Free culure, but it is widely looked up to. It sets an unfortunate and confusing example with its Non-Commercial license. It illustrates the absence of guiding principles in the Free Culture movement.

I have spoken to many artists who insist there's “no real difference” between Non-Commercial licenses and Free alternatives. Yet these differences are well known and unacceptable in Free Software, for good reason.
Calling Non-Commercial restrictions “Free Culture” neuters what could be an effective movement, if it only had principles.

So what do I want?

I want a PRINCIPLED Free Culture Movement.

I want Free Software people to take Culture seriously. I want a Free Culture movement guided by principles of Freedom, just as the Free Software movement is guided by principles of Freedom. I want a name I can use that means something – the phrase “Free Culture” is increasingly meaningless, as it is often applied to unFree practices, and is also the name of a famous book that is itself encumbered with Non-Commercial restrictions.

I want a Free Culture ecosystem that allows artists to make money. I want anyone to be able to accept money for their work of remixing and building on Culture – just as a trucker can accept money for driving on a road. I want money to be among the many incentives to participate in building culture. Without the freedoms to Tinker and Redistribute without restriction, there is little incentive to build on and improve cultural works. There is little reward to help your neighbor, when you are guaranteed to lose money doing so. “Free Culture” with non-Commercial restrictions will remain a hobby for those with a surplus of time and labor, and those who only accept money from monopolists.

I want commerce without monopolies. I want people to understand the difference.

I want a Free Culture ecosystem that includes equivalents of businesses like Red Hat and Canonical. I want cultural businesses that give back to their communities, that work with their customers instead of against them. Only if we refuse to place Non-Commercial and No-Derivatives restrictions on our works will a robust Free Culture ecosystem be able to emerge.

I want the Free Software community – those who currently best understand the Four Freedoms – to champion the rest of Culture, not just Software. I want Freedom for All.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

OECD Supports Making ISPs Copyright Cops

Mike Masnick — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:00:55 PDT

On the whole, the OECD has been pretty good about recognizing both the importance of freedom and openness of communications online and how certain industries have sought to use questionable claims and stats to push for protectionism. So, earlier this week, when the OECD put together a statement on "principles for internet policy-making," people hoped that it would follow along with the UN in focusing on protecting civil rights of individuals... not protecting outdated business models of certain companies.

And yet... it quickly came out that the OECD was considering dangerous language in the principles, seeking to cut back on important safe harbors to protect against misguided third party liability. When the draft language came out, nearly all of the "civil society" (i.e., consumer rights) groups that were a part of the discussion stated publicly that they could not endorse the language.

Tragically, the final document (pdf) did, in fact, keep the dangerous language.

To be sure, there are plenty of good things in the principles -- and even many of the "titles" for the principles sound reasonable. For example, among the principles are things like:

Promote and protect the global free flow of information
Promote the open, distributed and interconnected nature of the Internet
Promote investment and competition in high speed networks and services
Promote and Enable the Cross-Border Delivery of Services
Develop capacities to bring publicly available, reliable data into the policy-making process
Ensure transparency, fair process, and accountability
Strengthen consistency and effectiveness in privacy protection at a global level
Maximise individual empowerment
Promote Creativity and Innovation

It's tough to argue with most of those. But the devil is in the details. As KEI points out:

The Internet has actually demonstrated how much creativity is fostered without intellectual property, in fact despite IPR. Intellectual property is not a "driving" tool of the Internet. The Internet was NOT created by patents or copyright or trademark. Why would intellectual property be such a central theme for such a document? We concede that the Internet must not be a lawless "place" but this document where words such as "fair use, limitation and exception for users (it is "fixed" for the ISPs?), open source, free software, public domain, etc never appear, is wrong in tone and in its focus.

For example, just take a look at the very first item on the list: "Promote and protect the global free flow of information." Sounds good. But nearly half of the paragraph to back that up isn't about the global free flow of information, but about making sure there are ways to block the free flow of information:

While promoting the free flow of information, it is also essential for governments to work towards better protection of personal data, children online, consumers, intellectual property rights, and to address cybersecurity. In promoting the free flow of information governments should also respect fundamental rights.

Of course, countries that are blatantly censoring the internet, from China to Australia all claim that they're working towards "better protection of children online" etc. Such a statement basically undermines the entire point of the principle. The document goes on in this nature, inserting "intellectual property" in all sorts of places it doesn't belong. Perhaps most troubling is that there's a section officially on limiting third party liability, which has a whopper in the middle. Basically it talks up the importance of limiting liability to service providers to encourage innovation... and then puts a huge "but not in the case of IP" in there:

Within this context governments may choose to... identify the appropriate circumstances under which Internet intermediaries could take steps to educate users, assist rights holders in enforcing their rights or reduce illegal content....

In other words, this document is a joke, which is why civil society deserted it. It seems clear that it presents some nice principles upfront, but then undermines them in the fine print.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Hillary Clinton: We Want Journalism Innovation That Makes Info Easier To Share... Unless It's Wikileaks

Mike Masnick — Wed, 4 May 2011 13:02:15 PDT

Jeff Sonderman points us to the odd statement put out by Hilary Clinton and the State Department for World Press Freedom Day, in which she praises the internet for making info easier to share and for holding governments accountable:

We have all witnessed the power that this surge in connectivity can have in shaping society and holding governments accountable. New media empowers individuals around the world to share information and express opinions in ways unimaginable just ten years ago.

Even as we celebrate innovations that make information easier to share, we are reminded that in many places around the world, journalists are still targeted for harassment and abuse, and are sometimes killed. Today, we remember that journalism is a calling of everyday heroes. We must continue to stand up for those who speak out in perilous circumstances as they pursue, record, and report the truth.

And yet, all of this is occurring at the same time that the State Department has continued to condemn Wikileaks and has supported the treatment of folks like Bradley Manning. He doesn't qualify as someone who decided to "speak out in perilous circumstances" as he tried to "pursue, record and report the truth?"

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Sometimes 'Piracy' And Freedom Look Remarkably Similar

Mike Masnick — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:29:28 PST

I've complained in the past about The Pirate Party's name, which I think does the party a serious disservice. It may work in the short-term, but I have my doubts about its long-term efficacy. While the Pirate Party's leaders continue to defend the name, I still think it gets people focused on the issue of copyright much more than basic freedoms -- which really does seem to be the core of the Party's agenda. Still, there are times when I can see the reasoning, because all too often "piracy" looks quite a lot like "freedom." Take, for example, this nifty contrast highlighted by Casey Rae-Hunter, from the Future of Music Coalition (hardly a "piracy defender"), where he notes that two separate projects, the PirateBox and the FreedomBox appear remarkably similar.

The "PirateBox" is an open source project to build self-contained file-sharing devices that people can set down, turn on and have a remote file sharing system, totally separate from those who might seek to control it. The "FreedomBox" is a project that Eben Moglen has been pushing, which is designed to create very similar self-contained, portable servers that can be used to provide unregulated, uncontrolled internet access quickly and easily.

The similarities between the two projects are pretty obvious as you dig into both. Take, for example, the descriptions:

PirateBox utilizes Free, Libre and Open Source software (FLOSS) to create mobile wireless communications and file sharing networks where users can anonymously chat and share images, video, audio, documents, and other digital content.

And...

Freedom Box exists to provide people with privacy-respecting technology alternatives in normal times, and to offer ways to collaborate safely and securely with others in building social networks of protest, demonstration, and mobilization for political change in the not-so-normal times.

Freedom Box software is built to run on hardware that already exists, and will soon become much more widely available and much more inexpensive. "Plug servers" and other compact devices are going to become ubiquitous in the next few years, serving as "media centers," "communications centers," "wireless routers," and many other familiar and not-so-familiar roles in office and home.

It seems that there are times when "piracy" looks an awful lot like "freedom."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Three Headlines About The US Government And The Internet

Mike Masnick — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:57:00 PST

Paul Keating points us to an amusing (if somewhat disturbing) juxtaposition of three headlines -- one after the other -- on the CircleID website: In case you can't see the image, these are the three headlines:

So, yes, Homeland Security wants nearly a billion dollars for its internet activities, which involve "accidentally" removing tens of thousands of perfectly legitimate websites... while the State Department pledges a grand total of $25 million for "internet freedom." Priorities?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Hillary Clinton Talks The Talk On Internet Freedom; Will The Administration Walk The Walk?

Mike Masnick — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 06:09:34 PST

A year ago, Hillary Clinton gave a speech about the importance of "internet freedom" that many of us later pointed out appeared to be in stark contrast with the federal government's (including Secretary of State Clinton's) reaction to the publishing of various State Department cables. So a lot of folks were interested in what Clinton had planned for her followup speech on internet freedoms, which she gave yesterday. I've embedded the full speech below, but you can also read a summary of the speech at Wired.

On the whole, the speech is surprisingly good in many places. It's upfront and doesn't beat around the bush on issues that I expected she would gloss over (if she mentioned at all). It lays out some specific principles, noting that the idea that to have more security you need to sacrifice liberty is a false dilemma. It also notes that transparency and confidentiality need not be in conflict. These are a bit surprising in that the easy political win would have been to just position those as scales that need "balance." But she didn't do that, which I appreciate.

On top of that, she did not ignore or run away from the whole Wikileaks thing, but did actually address the issue head on, noting that the federal government has not officially opposed Wikileaks or put pressure on companies not to work with Wikileaks. Also, she claims that their only main concern was with the initial copying of the documents and the impact it may have on certain people's security, rather than the bigger issue of publishing the documents.

Of course, the obvious response is that these are just words, and the reality of the situation isn't quite as clear. Why the administration may not have officially put pressure on companies, many companies have said that they felt pressure from the federal government, and such pressure can be just as bad, if not worse. On top of that, as a bunch of folks at the Berkman Center laid out, it appears that the the government's actions do not live up to Secretary Clinton's words in many cases. Furthermore, there's clearly an awful lot of rationalization on the part of Clinton in trying to explain how Wikileaks is different, even though she fails to explain how it really is any different.

So, while it's nice to hear her actually take on some of these issues with forthright statements that we agree with, rather than the easy political platitudes, there remains serious problems in how the federal government fails to actually live up to what Secretary Clinton claims the US supports.

Also, as noted by Ethan Zuckerman, one major factor missing from her speech is the high level of involvement by US companies in the tools that can help censor the internet. While the speech talks about encouraging more companies to create tools for freedom, even funding companies that help create anti-censorship tools, this falls far short of making sure that US companies also are not acting as chokepoints and bottlenecks where anyone, even the US government, can seek to censor content online.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Bill Introduced To Pressure Countries That Seek To Break The Internet

Mike Masnick — Fri, 2 Jul 2010 15:48:04 PDT

Rep. Zoe Lofgren along with a list of other Congressional reps (from both parties) is introducing a new bill called the One Global Internet Act of 2010 (pdf), which is basically targeted at countries -- like Afghanistan and Pakistan -- that are seeking to block large parts of the internet from access, as well as countries like China, which for many years has tried to introduce its own, incompatible, standards for things like WiFi, DVDs, 3G cellular connections and more. The argument in the document is that for there to be a truly functioning internet, it shouldn't fragment across countries due to blockades or differing standards: I definitely appreciate the sentiment, but I do wonder how useful or effective something like this really could be. If countries want to block themselves off from the internet, or want to set up incompatible standards that break them off from cheaper technologies and more powerful connections, then, why not let them do so? It creates a lot more damage for them than it does for the rest of the internet. Yes, it may make things a bit difficult for US companies looking to work in those regions, but I'm always a little nervous about any sort of law that suggests the US can or should waltz into some other country and tell them how they need to act.

And, honestly, a lot of what it sounds like is in this bill seems to mimic what's found in copyright legislation that has turned the US into the world's copyright bully. It asks for the USTR to put together a "list" of problematic countries -- which sounds like the highly flawed and damaging USTR Special 301 process for copyright. It also talks about changing foreign government behavior through trade policy. But, again, that sounds like the disastrous setup of the USTR on copyright, where it has forced through awful "free trade" agreements that actually set up restrictive and protectionist copyright laws, and more recently has brought us ACTA.

While I do agree that these countries mucking with local internet access and standards represents a challenge, I'm not convince that appointing the US to be a standards bully necessarily is such a good idea. It seems like it could have pretty bad unintended consequences.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Lessig Gives A Well-Timed Speech To The Italian Parliament On Internet Freedom

Mike Masnick — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:00:00 PST

We have noted, recently, that Italian laws and politicians seem to have a somewhat troubling view of the internet, where they are quick to blame the internet for anything bad that happens, and then look to pass laws that would throw out plenty of good just to protect against the possibility of any bad happening. This, of course, culminated just recently in the ruling in an Italian court that three Google execs were guilty of criminal violations, over a Google-hosted video.

Given all that, it's quite interesting timing to see that Larry Lessig just gave a speech to the Italian Parliament about how Internet is Freedom. You can see it below (assuming YouTube doesn't take it down) and it runs a little over half an hour: He does not address that particular case (or, actually, any of the stories coming out of Italy concerning the internet). However, he does an excellent job setting up the issues related to regulating the internet -- detailing how there is a generational divide going on here, and how the digital generation is effectively "waiting for the dinosaurs to die off," but are still worried about the damage they might do in the meantime. And, with that, he suggests a rather gentle touch when it comes to regulations -- a "regulatory humility."

Not surprisingly, there's plenty in the video that I agree with -- but also plenty that I disagree with. While he does a great job highlighting three areas (copyright, journalism and transparency), where the internet does both good and bad, I disagree with his suggestions for "minimizing the bad." I do agree that we should always look to see if there are ways to minimize the "bad," but I'm not sure I agree with what he considers to actually be "harm" in all three of those cases. What he calls "harm," looks to me an awful lot like disruption. And you can't minimize disruption (at least not successfully).

Still, it is a worthwhile video to watch, with especially interesting timing and audience, given all that's been happening in Italy lately. It would be nice to know how the audience reacted and responded to the speech as well.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Sarkozy Talks About 3 Strikes As Defending Freedom, But Only Freedom For The Industry

Mike Masnick — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:47:00 PDT

It appears that French President Nicolas Sarkozy still cannot understand why so many people are opposed to a "three strikes" rule for cutting people off the internet. Despite it just being ruled unconstitutional in France, Sarkozy is still standing by the law fully, promising to "go all the way" in getting it implemented. His reasoning, however, is quite bizarre, and shows a very narrow view of creativity these days:

"By defending copyright I do not just defend artistic creation, I also defend my idea of a free society where everyone's freedom is based on respect for the rights of others. I am also defending the future of our culture. It is the future of creation."

That shows a massive misunderstanding of creativity, expression and freedom these days. He's basically saying that freedom of expression shall only apply to "professional" creators, who get rights. Everyone else's rights get trampled. I don't quite see how that's a "free society" at all. It sounds like a corporately owned society, where the rights of certain "professionals" outweigh the rights of individuals.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story