THOUGHT: International Electronic Declaration of Rights

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hi everyone.  This is a fairly involved piece, so forgive me if I ramble 
a bit.

I just finished reading Sterling's The Hacker Crackdown, and one of the 
statements he said in there struck a chord with me and got me to thinking.

Paraphrasing, Bruce said soemthing along the lines of 'Cyberspace is a 
world unto itself, without borders or national identity.'  Why is this 
important?

Because at the same time we are witnessing the birth of Cyberspace (an 
archaic, and almost vulgar term, yet also most appropriate), we are also 
witnessing a terrifying and growing movement towards the heavy-handed 
regulation of this new world. 

In cyberspace, national borders are merely annoyances on the Information
Superhighway, much like that one pothole you manage to hit every morning
on your way to work or school.  Yet, as the information future comes into
existance, governments will seek to put up checkpoints and roadblocks to
make sure information does not propogate. 

Thus, I had a thought.

What if we took it upon ourselves to write an International Electronic 
Declaration of Rights?  A single body of ideas (not necessarily founded 
upon the U.S. Bill of Rights) that will seek to define the underlying 
tone of this non-existant cyberspace.  It would have to be no more that a 
few statements about what ideals and freedoms we feel are not only 
important, but also granted to us on the basis of being living beings.

Hang on, don't run away yet. :-)

What to do with it, you ask?  How do we get a bunch of geek-written 
libertarian ideals to mean somehting?

Well, assuming we come up with our Electrion Declaration of Rights, the 
next step would be to get various civil-liberty organizations (such as 
EFF, ACLU, CPSR, and others outside the US) to sign on as supporters.  
Then we pitch it to corporations and universities world-wide, and get 
them to sign on.  Soon, public pressure would force governments to look 
at it as a Rights issue, and perhaps we get it adopted as bodies of law 
or some such (a UN resolution?).

Ok ok, I'm _obviously_ getting quite ahead of myself, and I apologize.

But think about it, I do not know of a single resolution or declaration 
of the rights a citizen of Cyberspace is granted.  Yes, each country has 
their own rules, but cyberspace doesn't understand the concept of 
borders, and perhaps it never will.

Furthermore, there is precedent for International declarations of this 
sort.  The United Nations has a Declaration of Human Rights (ftp.eff.org 
:/pub/CAF/civil-liberty/human-rights.un) [Note, though, that I avoided 
the use of the term 'human' above' for reasons that any avid sci-fi 
reader should recognize :-)].  If we based our declaration on THAT 
declaration, as opposed to basing it on the U.S. Bill of Rights, it would 
be less likely to meet objections from people outside of the United 
States. 

In any case, among the rights I think that need to be established (and 
this is by no means a complete list, jsut what I came up with in the last 
few hours)
	Freedom to say what you wish without fear of retaliation
	Freedom to participate in any forum without fear of retaliation
	Fundamental right to personal privacy both in storage and in 
		communication (therein lies the right to cryptography)
	Freedom to hold any religious views your wish, including no 
		religion
	Freedom from having religious views the basis of policy
	Access will not be denied to a person without due process 
	Policies will not be implemented on the basis of race, colour,
		creed, gender, sexual orientation, language, religion, 
		political or other opinion, national or social status, 
		property, birth, or other status. 

Oops, sorry, went a little overboard, but you get the point (actually, I 
like the 'access' one.  It's actually pretty important.)

In any case, we are on the esge of a new world here, and I fear that 
reactionary regulation will make it into a dreadful world to live in.  
Perhaps something like the above, coupled with a grassroots 
organizational effort that we have shown to be so successful in 
cyberspace will perhaps slow the regulational onslaught, or perhaps even 
turn it to freedoms advantage.

I'd really like to hear your opinions on this.

(BTW:  I did not bring this up in EFF forums because I was concerned with 
'Americanizing' this idea too much.  Instead, it is my belief that if 
this was a more international effort, with US and other civil-liberty 
groups signing on AFTER, it may be more successful.  Perhaps I'm wrong 
which case I will repost this into other forums).

I appreciate your time.


____        Robert A. Hayden          <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
\  /__          -=-=-=-=-             <=>          -=-=-=-=-
 \/  /   Finger for Geek Code Info    <=> Political Correctness is
   \/  Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police"
- - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1)  GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
		       n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.3a

iQCVAgUBLZ8siZ3BsrEqkf9NAQGTQQP+IjRM5BAUWY6sVYIAOoiZgHSlOzS327Ap
CMnJ2ngMNQdtHN3S7kMkatrb9QA/W4H/tKTsQRTjVz4wR9OKO4R1KwDKMBpOfDGk
Y95hUbWlnpcZwuS2g2cvOqY+yfHyazbI34VrnU8jFA0jd4vNLxL5hILyNQR3RaOS
FjiGtJy0LPI=
=ToZ2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Robert Hayden proposes:

> Because at the same time we are witnessing the birth of Cyberspace (an 
> archaic, and almost vulgar term, yet also most appropriate), we are also 
> witnessing a terrifying and growing movement towards the heavy-handed 
> regulation of this new world. 

Think "absence of centralized law," not "what new laws and "rights"
can we think up?" 

> What if we took it upon ourselves to write an International Electronic 
> Declaration of Rights?  A single body of ideas (not necessarily founded 
> upon the U.S. Bill of Rights) that will seek to define the underlying 
> tone of this non-existant cyberspace.  It would have to be no more that a 
> few statements about what ideals and freedoms we feel are not only 
> important, but also granted to us on the basis of being living beings.

A dangerous idea, and one I certainly can't support. I don't speak for
others, though, so will make my points here.

> What to do with it, you ask?  How do we get a bunch of geek-written 
> libertarian ideals to mean somehting?

As you'll see, I don't think Robert's ideal are very libertarian at
all. (The motivations may be, but anytime one speaks of a "right of
access" to something that costs money, that is the product of another
person's labor and ingenuity.....well, why not a right declaring
access to shelter and transportation, etc., shall not be denied based
on an inability to pay? And so on.

> Furthermore, there is precedent for International declarations of this 
> sort.  The United Nations has a Declaration of Human Rights (ftp.eff.org 
> :/pub/CAF/civil-liberty/human-rights.un) [Note, though, that I avoided 

Yes, the U.N. has quite a fascist declaration of rights. It includes
such chestnuts as a right to a job, a right to shelter, a right to
medical care, and the right of a country to control its press (cf. the
UNESCO fiasco). No thanks.

> 	Freedom to say what you wish without fear of retaliation

So if you are in my house or on my mailing list and you begin
detweilering, I have no recourse? I can't "retaliate" because that
would violate your rights?

> 	Freedom to participate in any forum without fear of retaliation

Again, Detweiler, Gannon, Hitler, and Rush Limbaugh *must* be
tolerated in all forums? Huh?

> 	Access will not be denied to a person without due process 

If I run a mailing list, or a service, or lease time on my networks or
computers, then I don't want any crap about "due process" to stop me
from throwing folks off who haven't paid, who haven't followed my
rules, who have been abusive beyond my threshold, etc. The "due
process" stuff has tainted what used to be a matter between buyer and
seller, between patron and owner, between agents free to make or not
make deals.

> 	Policies will not be implemented on the basis of race, colour,
> 		creed, gender, sexual orientation, language, religion, 
> 		political or other opinion, national or social status, 
> 		property, birth, or other status. 

OK, so a women's list can't exist in this Cyberspatial Utopia? What will
the prison term be for excluding straights from a gay list? How many
years in the gulag for running a cyberspace group that caters to
Catholics and excludes Satanists?

> Oops, sorry, went a little overboard, but you get the point (actually, I 
> like the 'access' one.  It's actually pretty important.)

"Access" to this list, to my list, to your list, to Fred's Network, to
a movie theater, to a concert, to a private gym, to whatever, is not a
"right."

This is your basic flaw--all later flaws flow from this error.

The good news, though, is that strong crypto will make attempts to
enforce such notions of "rights" a losing proposition.

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

On Sun, 3 Apr 1994, Timothy C. May wrote:

> Think "absence of centralized law," not "what new laws and "rights"
> can we think up?" 

Unfortunately, I don't think the anarchy of the net will work for much 
longer.  Sooner or later, cryptography issues aside, somebody is going to 
regulate access or content or both.

> As you'll see, I don't think Robert's ideal are very libertarian at
> all. (The motivations may be, but anytime one speaks of a "right of
> access" to something that costs money, that is the product of another
> person's labor and ingenuity.....well, why not a right declaring
> access to shelter and transportation, etc., shall not be denied based
> on an inability to pay? And so on.

I'll re-qualify that below.  I didn't fully explain my position.

> > 	Freedom to say what you wish without fear of retaliation
> 
> So if you are in my house or on my mailing list and you begin
> detweilering, I have no recourse? I can't "retaliate" because that
> would violate your rights?

Ok, I should have qualified this as well.  It also has to do with the proper 
'forum' as well (and I didn't want to get into specific examples in my 
original posting).  The old idea that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded 
theatre.  Not because 'Fire' is a censored word, or yelling 'fire' is bad 
in all cases, but because a crowded theatre is an improper forum.

As a list example, if you run a list about the ecology of fishes, and 
someone comes on and starts talking about women's rights issue (an actual 
example from LSTOWN-L), that is an improper forum.  You are "retaliating" 
not because of the speech itself, but because this specific forum does not 
exist FOR that speech.

I meant, I guess, that I have a right to, for example, criticize my 
government, religion, boss, etc without being fearful of real-world 
retaliation.  Why did I say this?  Because I can imagine the U.S. 
government deciding that electronic forums that aren't email, for 
example, are not protected speech, and thus if I am on IRC, and I 
and my buddys criticise Clinton, I am a candidate for arrest for 
"subversive" activity.

> > 	Freedom to participate in any forum without fear of retaliation
> 
> Again, Detweiler, Gannon, Hitler, and Rush Limbaugh *must* be
> tolerated in all forums? Huh?

Please see above.

> > 	Access will not be denied to a person without due process 
> 
> If I run a mailing list, or a service, or lease time on my networks or
> computers, then I don't want any crap about "due process" to stop me
> from throwing folks off who haven't paid, who haven't followed my
> rules, who have been abusive beyond my threshold, etc. The "due
> process" stuff has tainted what used to be a matter between buyer and
> seller, between patron and owner, between agents free to make or not
> make deals.

My initial concern, and this stems mostly from where I have encountered 
the networks, in an educational setting.  It is very common to 
arbitrarily remove a student from access with neither hearing nor even
informing of the student of why his/her access was cut.  Yes, it may have 
been justified, but it is still my opinion that a person shoudl be given 
not only a reason for denial of access, but also a chance to address 
those reasons.

As for private-oriented networks.  This is a little more sticky.  _IF_ 
they are common carrier (which is still, as I understand, being decided), 
then I feel that denying a patron, who is paying his bills, access is a 
tremendous wrong.  If computer services are NOT common carrier, than that is 
certainly a different issue, and should be a more internal matter.  As I 
understand, the telcos have a fairly established procedure of dealing 
with non-paying customers AND abusive customers.  Of course, they are 
also protected legally by common-carrier status.

Access shoudl be granted just like with a telephone.  If you can pay for 
it, you shoudl get it.  If you cannot pay for it, you don't get it.  But, 
if you can pay for it, you shoud NOT(!!!) be denied access.

> > 	Policies will not be implemented on the basis of race, colour,
> > 		creed, gender, sexual orientation, language, religion, 
> > 		political or other opinion, national or social status, 
> > 		property, birth, or other status. 
> 
> OK, so a women's list can't exist in this Cyberspatial Utopia? What will
> the prison term be for excluding straights from a gay list? How many
> years in the gulag for running a cyberspace group that caters to
> Catholics and excludes Satanists?

See above about 'forums'.  Also, my largest concern above was with access 
policies (sorry, you are the 4th born child, you cannot use the 
computer.  Sorry, you are jewish, you are not allowed access).  Remember, 
there are areas outside the US that will routinely deny rights based on 
these arbitrary classifications that we in the U.S. don't even think 
about.  

Also, the idea was that you would get access to Cyberspace.  The 
individual groups and forums exist just as they do in real life.  I find 
it doubtful that there would be many blacks clamboring to be members of 
the KKK, and few members of the KKK wanting to belong to the NAACP.  The 
same applies to cyberspace.

> "Access" to this list, to my list, to your list, to Fred's Network, to
> a movie theater, to a concert, to a private gym, to whatever, is not a
> "right."

And I fear that, even if one can pay, it will become more and more common 
to outright deny access to people.  The lifeblood of this world is the 
passing of information.  The regulations I see on the horizon look to me 
to be a tourniquet on that information.

> The good news, though, is that strong crypto will make attempts to
> enforce such notions of "rights" a losing proposition.

But even strong crypto is useless if people cannot access the information 
systems.

---------

I think fundamentally you and I agree much more that it seems, so I hope 
not to start a flamewar. :-)

____        Robert A. Hayden          <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
\  /__          -=-=-=-=-             <=>          -=-=-=-=-
 \/  /   Finger for Geek Code Info    <=> Political Correctness is
   \/  Finger for PGP 2.3a Public Key <=> P.C. for "Thought Police"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1)  GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
		       n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)

Robert Hayden writes:

(I've elided material to shorten the article, never to misrepresent
his remarks.)

> Unfortunately, I don't think the anarchy of the net will work for much 
> longer.  Sooner or later, cryptography issues aside, somebody is going to 
> regulate access or content or both.

The "anarchy of ideas," as manifested in the free market for books,
records, movies, food, lifestyles, etc., has worked pretty well for a
very long time. Most of our lives is not yet under regulated access,
and the burden of proof is clearly on Robert to explain why he thinks
cypberspace _should_ be regulated (I'm not saying he thinks it
_should_ be, but he is claiming it likely _will_ be and that
Cypherpunks should therefore help to develop the laws that will be
used).

Freedom from coercion works pretty well. 

> > person's labor and ingenuity.....well, why not a right declaring
> > access to shelter and transportation, etc., shall not be denied based
> > on an inability to pay? And so on.
> 
> I'll re-qualify that below.  I didn't fully explain my position.

This underscores the danger with most such utopian ideals. I submit
that only a minimalist set of postulates will work, and even that
causes endless problems (witness the constant debate about the meaning
of each and every clause of the U.S. Constitution).
...
> > detweilering, I have no recourse? I can't "retaliate" because that
> > would violate your rights?
> 
> Ok, I should have qualified this as well.  It also has to do with the proper 
> 'forum' as well (and I didn't want to get into specific examples in my 
> original posting).  The old idea that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded 
> theatre.  Not because 'Fire' is a censored word, or yelling 'fire' is bad 
> in all cases, but because a crowded theatre is an improper forum.

The proper solution to the "improper forum" problem is to not have
communally owned resources when privately owned facilities work. This
list, for example, is *not* a "public good*, and sufficiently
disruptive folks can be denied access. With crypto, it's much easier.

By the way, the Justice who made the "shouting 'fire'"" argument later
said he regretted ever using this line of reasoning.

> example from LSTOWN-L), that is an improper forum.  You are "retaliating" 
> not because of the speech itself, but because this specific forum does not 
> exist FOR that speech.

A distinction without a difference. Think about it.

> I meant, I guess, that I have a right to, for example, criticize my 
> government, religion, boss, etc without being fearful of real-world 
> retaliation.  Why did I say this?  Because I can imagine the U.S. 

Well, no. You don't have such a right. Imagine that I have hired you
to represent me in court. You do "your job" well enough, but then
badmouth me on the Oprah Winfrey show. I fire you. Have I violated
your right to free speech? Of course not.

Empoyees are free to leave, indentured servitude not being legal
(though it should be, but that's another debate, for another time).
Employers are free to fire employees...that's how I see things (the
courts have decided otherwise. Again, another debate_).


> My initial concern, and this stems mostly from where I have encountered 
> the networks, in an educational setting.  It is very common to 
> arbitrarily remove a student from access with neither hearing nor even
> informing of the student of why his/her access was cut.  Yes, it may have 
> been justified, but it is still my opinion that a person shoudl be given 
> not only a reason for denial of access, but also a chance to address 
> those reasons.

Most universities are scared shitless, for good reason, that a comment
like "Lesbians are pigs" will get them sued for multiple millions of
dollars. That the Womyn's Studies Department will boycott the computer
network. That the campus newspaper will denounce the university as a
hotbed of right-wing assault speech. Hence, universities adopt "speech
codes" which is a topic unto itself (cf. alt.censorship,
*.*.academic-freedom, comp.org.eff.talk, etc.).

For-profit companies, like Netcom, mostly don't _care_ what
subscribers say. Prodigy does, and Prodigy is losing.

Mandating that a network service _must be_ like Netcom, and not
allowing it to be like Prodigy or MormonNet or PeaceNet, is a cure
that is much more frightening than the disease.

> it, you shoudl get it.  If you cannot pay for it, you don't get it.  But, 
> if you can pay for it, you shoud NOT(!!!) be denied access.

If I want only Catholics to be able to use my service, what's wrong
with that? Or only crypto supporters on Cypherpunks? 

Remember, the incoming and outgoing physical lines to one's home may
presently be a potential for monopoly--potentially--but _places_ and
_channels_ in cyberspace cannot be monopolized....if you don't like
Prodigy or Compuserve, switch to Panix or Netcom. In the future,
absent government's interference, a zillion more channels will arise.

> I think fundamentally you and I agree much more that it seems, so I hope 
> not to start a flamewar. :-)

Nope, I think we're in rather sharp disagreement. 

Still, I never considered this to be any kind of flame war. (I think
too many people are using the term "flame war" loosely. Debate is not
a flame war. A flame war is when personal insults replace attention to
points, when epithets are hurled, when mailbombs are used, and when
the flamers go outside the normal channels, such as Detweiler did when
he attached my signature block to his garbage and then posted it
widely.)

Robert is right, vis-a-vis his comment about flame wars, in that I
expect to see at least several postings of the form "This is not what
I joined Cypherpunks to hear about. I joined to hear about PGP and
other K00l warez." To those who do not wish to read political
commentary, be it about Clipper or a "Cypherpunks Bill of Rights"
(ugh!), then just hit "delete" and move on.

The structures in cyberspace, and the methods for avoiding repetition
of the statist control so beloved by governments, is my main interest
in these topics, and has been for half a dozen years. I don't plan to
stop talking about these issues.

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

THis appears to have grown rather long and dry. If you have had no
interest in this thread to date, hit 'n' now.

Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 3-Apr-94 Re: THOUGHT: International
.. by Timothy C. May@netcom.co 
> For-profit companies, like Netcom, mostly don't _care_ what
> subscribers say. Prodigy does, and Prodigy is losing.

Actually, I think Netcom is the exception. A good example is AOL, which
is not losing, and is big into censorship. The small services don't
care, the big ones have a reputation to worry about, so they censor.

Timothy C. May@netcom.co 
> To those who do not wish to read political
> commentary, be it about Clipper or a "Cypherpunks Bill of Rights"
> (ugh!), then just hit "delete" and move on.

I have no objection to the current discussion, I object to "You and
liberal friends are *ssholes whose wishy-washy big government plans will
destroy freedom" and "You and your conservative friends are *ssholes
whose facist big government plans will destroy freedom" type flame wars.
The current discussion may involve some bickering, but it's at least
productive.

Back to the issue:
I think rights in cyberspace can be readily modeled on "meat" laws. For
example, take the freedom of speech. I can say what I like as long as I
don't libel someone. However, I don't have the right to say it anywhere
I choose. I can't for example, go into your house and give a
dissertation on fish euthenasia without your permission. Similarly, I
wouldn't expect the right to speak my mind on any topic on an IRC
channel that had no relation to the topic.
This is a tricky issue, though. One should definatly be able to speak
one's mind in a public place, but what defines a public place in
cyberspace? Really, no place (at the moment) is truly public. Every
computer is owned by somebody. I think this is an area where the
real-world paradigm is effective. In the real world, we have private
spaces, and government-owned public ones (parks). I think a set
government-run nodes would be a good idea. The law would require them to
be freely accessable by everyone. Of course, how they could be used
would be limited (you can't live on a park, you couldn't use an e-park
for long-term data storage). The current basic internet (netnews, irc,
anon ftp, most www) is run, more or less, how I would imagine this
e-park.

Re: right of access. I prefer some regulation, such as mandating that
everyone would have access to a reasonably prices public carrier. This
would have basic services, and would not be allowed to boot someone if
they followed the rules and payed the bills. The market would probably
create this without regulation, but some basic regulation does provide a
safeguard against the unlikely. Full service private carriers would, of
course, be created by the market.
I also agree that there should be some sort of due process for denying
someone access ONCE THEY HAVE IT. Those whose access has been withdrawn
should be presented with a reason and given an oppourtunity to appeal
the desicision, to a 3rd party (court) in the case of public carriers.

I am assuming that this future cyberspace would be organized in the
anarchistic way the internet is; many nodes, of varying freedom,
interconnected so that there are few, if any borders between them. THis,
I think, is the most important thing for preserving/attaining rights in
cyberspace. THe best way I can think to do this is to keep the influence
of government or any single large organization to a minimum.

$.02 deposited,
Jer

darklord@cmu.edu | "it's not a matter of rights  / it's just a matter of war
finger me for my |  don't have a reason to fight / they never had one before"
   Geek Code and |                                    -Ministry, "Hero"
  PGP public key | http://www.cs.cmu.edu:8001/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr25/jbde/

Jeremiah A Blatz writes:
> One should definatly be able to speak one's mind in a public place,
> but what defines a public place in cyberspace? Really, no place (at
> the moment) is truly public. Every computer is owned by somebody.  I
> think this is an area where the real-world paradigm is effective. In
> the real world, we have private spaces, and government-owned public
> ones (parks). I think a set government-run nodes would be a good
> idea. The law would require them to be freely accessable by
> everyone. Of course, how they could be used would be limited (you
> can't live on a park, you couldn't use an e-park for long-term data
> storage). The current basic internet (netnews, irc, anon ftp, most
> www) is run, more or less, how I would imagine this e-park.

The concept of a public place isn't all that useful in cyberspace
since it's easy and inexpensive for people to set up their own nodes.
If you would like to see a node created with rules about how the
participants behave, you are certainly free to set one up.  It's
pretty cheap to set up nodes now and it's going to be cheaper in the
future.  In effect, cyberspace has an unlimited area is infinitely
dimensioned; that is, every point is connectable to every other point.

> I prefer some regulation, such as mandating that everyone would have
> access to a reasonably prices public carrier...

I can't see any reason to regulate my node if you only want people to
have access to other nodes.  I would suggest that what you really want
is a subsidy system.

> For example, take the freedom of speech. I can say what I like as
> long as I don't libel someone...

I realize you are not advocating libel laws here, but I think it's
important to recognize that they are opposed to free speech and are,
in my view, unconstitional.  In the San Francisco area they have been
used in the East Bay to discourage people from speaking against, among
others, the University of California.  The problem isn't just the
possibility of losing a lawsuit, many people simple cannot afford to
defend themselves.  I suspect libel laws prevent many interesting
stories from being told.  That is unfortunate.

Peter

Robert Hayden wrote:
> Unfortunately, I don't think the anarchy of the net will work for
> much longer.  Sooner or later, cryptography issues aside, somebody
> is going to regulate access or content or both.

I think the "anarchy" of the net works just fine and can be compared
to the "anarchy" of conversation.  Would it be considered reasonable
to monitor and restrict conversations between free people?  Would it
be reasonable to regulate the friends people make or the parties they
attend?  The answer should be "no" in both cases.

> The old idea that you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.  Not
> because 'Fire' is a censored word, or yelling 'fire' is bad in all
> cases, but because a crowded theatre is an improper forum.

This analogy was originally used by Oliver Wendell Holmes to justify
the arrest and imprisonment of people who spoke against World War I in
the streets of New York City.  This analogy is almost always used to
justify repressive policies.  It is entirely inappropriate for
cyberspace anyway, since nobody is going to be trampled running to
their front yard!

I think you are well-intentioned, but I think looking to the U.N. to
protect individual rights will not work well.  Most of the governments
which belong to the U.N. are totalitarian.

I think that most of what you really want to see happen can be
summarized as: "People have the right to communicate freely and,
therefore, privately."  I wouldn't complain if this became a
Constitutional Amendment or if the U.N. adopted it, but I would prefer
to see a world where free communication is so basic to the fabric of
society that it would be difficult to do things in any other way.

Peter

> I think you are well-intentioned, but I think looking to the U.N. to
> protect individual rights will not work well.  Most of the governments
> which belong to the U.N. are totalitarian.

Doesn't the U.N. have some kind of list of basic human rights?  (Un-
enforceable, of course.)  I thought I saw it in a story about Elanor
Roosevelt.
-- 
Eric Williams  |  wd6cmu@netcom.com  |  WD6CMU@WD6CMU.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA