Who wants to control the internet?

WCIT 2012

A recent article by Violet Blue for pulp tech published in Zdnet, informs us that, next Monday, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which is the United Nations body for telecommunications, will begin in Dubai a World Conference on International Telecommunications (World Conference on International Telecommunications ), which will be in session, behind closed doors, until the 14th. In this conference, it is intended to reach an agreement on the proposed revision of the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR), with the intention of expanding its scope to supervise and regulate the internet that we know today.

It is almost certain that you have not heard anything about this conference, because unlike the rest of those held under the auspices of the United Nations, it has not been the object of any promotion in the media, not even in those subordinate to this body international. This is not a coincidence, since from the first rounds of negotiations, it has been tried to keep it as far as possible from public scrutiny, but, luckily for everyone, some information has been leaked on the claims of certain governments.

The TD-64 Document and What It Contains

Although publicly the review appears to be full of good intentions, thanks to the website WCITLeaks, created by researchers at George Mason University, the final draft of the proposed revision to the International Telecommunications Regulations, known as document TD-64, which contains, among many others, the following proposals:
A member state has the right to know where its traffic has been routed and has the right to impose any regulation on the traffic in question, for security reasons or to prevent fraud.

It grants the right to the member states to suspend the international telecommunications services, totally, partially and / or of a certain type, incoming, outgoing or in transit.
It prohibits the anonymization of traffic and makes the identification of users of telecommunications services mandatory.

Not for nothing, another document Leaked by WCITLeaks, it has revealed that the organizers are preparing a public relations campaign to avoid the more than expected rejection of public opinion in the face of these claims.

The creature's godparents

But well, who is behind these new "regulations"? Are they the usual suspects against whom it is customary to rampage when it comes to violating our rights on the Internet?
Contrary to what many expected, the main promoters of this conference and of the proposed changes are neither the CIA nor the Mossad, rather they are governments with not very good traditions in terms of free access to information. It refers, like China and Russia, backed by other regimes that share common interests in terms of control and restrictions.

In a meeting held in June last year with Dr. Hamadoun Toure, ITU Secretary General, Vladimir Putin, then Russian Prime Minister, declared Russia's intention to actively participate in "establishing international control over the Internet using ITU's monitoring and oversight capabilities. '

He had already tried it before, in September 2011, when together with China, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, they submitted for the approval of the United Nations General Assembly a proposal for the "International Code of Conduct for Information Security" with the aim of to establish "international norms and rules standardizing the behavior of countries regarding information and cyberspace", of course, as expected, under the aegis of governments and justified with a discourse of alleged supranational democratization.

Since last May we had been warned by one of the “fathers” of the internet, Vinton Cerf in his opinion piece published in the New York Times “Keep the Internet Open"(Keep the internet free), in which he accurately described the intentions of this conference and who was behind it, as well as the potential risks and threats that it implies for the future of the network, not only in terms of loss freedom of users, if not also the disappearance of the unrestricted innovation factor that has characterized the development of the network since its very creation. Given the delicate nature of this situation, Cerf demanded that the debate on internet governance should be transparent and open to all stakeholders, but the organizers have remained deaf to these claims.

Can they do it?

At the moment, it seems that everything is going to remain in the intentions, for several reasons; On the one hand, the United States, through a statement issued by the Department of State, in the voice of his representative to the conference, Ambassador Terry Kramer, has made it clear that he is firmly opposed to any attempt to put the internet under the control of the United Nations, at the same time, the European Parliament has also expressed its opposition to the proposal.

Of course, some will say, this opposition on the part of the United States is not gratuitous, because at the end of the day, it can be understood that, in a certain way, the Internet is under its control, since ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers or Internet Corporation for the Assignment of Names and Numbers), and some other related entities, are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce, which has not prevented to date, the operation of the network under standards open to all.

On the other hand, the ITU itself, according to statements by its Secretary General, has expressed that any type of decision that is adopted must have the unanimous support of all its members, as it is the normal procedure of the body and that it does not consider that matters such as this must be voted on, as they are procedures that should not be allowed within the organization and, obviously, this unanimous approval is impossible at the present time.

It depends on all of us

However, these reasons cannot constitute, by themselves, a fence against the intentions of putting the internet under the control of governments or a supposedly supranational body, since those who oppose today may not do so tomorrow and it is up to us all we, the internet users, ensure that it remains free and open to all.

That is why we must promote the proposal by all means within our reach Take Action promoted by Google, in which it says that “A free and unrestricted world depends on a free and unlimited Web. Governments should not determine the future of the Internet independently. The opinion of the billions of users around the world who use the Internet, as well as that of the experts who have created and maintain the network, should be taken into account "

I have already signed the application, I encourage you to do the same, if we keep waiting, we run the risk that when we make up our minds it will already be too late.


22 comments, leave yours

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

*

*

  1. Responsible for the data: Miguel Ángel Gatón
  2. Purpose of the data: Control SPAM, comment management.
  3. Legitimation: Your consent
  4. Communication of the data: The data will not be communicated to third parties except by legal obligation.
  5. Data storage: Database hosted by Occentus Networks (EU)
  6. Rights: At any time you can limit, recover and delete your information.

  1.   Let's use Linux said

    It is a very complicated issue.
    In principle, the vast majority will agree that "we do not want government intervention," "we want a free Internet," and so on. It is even quickly associated with the cases of Cuba, Egypt or Syria. No one can accept censorship in their right mind, be it through the Internet or any other means.
    However, the following paradox keeps calling my attention: this supposedly "progressive" argument is clearly liberal in nature, and it assumes that governments are bad and companies (Google) are good.
    I'm not saying approve of censorship in Cuba. But it does seem to me that the STATES should intervene in some questions that they do to the Internet. For example, cybercrime: identity theft, internet scam, pedophilia, etc.

    Finally, I find it interesting to clarify that many STATES (through the courts or with measures that affect Internet providers, their representation before the NIC, etc., etc.) already intervene on the Internet. On the other hand, the Internet is not as free as it is supposed to be (not precisely because of the intervention of governments but often because of the intervention of companies: let's think about internet providers that block users who use p2p, Google blocking sites, Facebook and many others who use and even sell our private data, etc, etc., etc.)

    I believe that the regulation of the Internet is NECESSARY and even, as I said, that it started a while ago (albeit in a limited way). In any case, the problem is what type of regulation is being sought: one that is universally accepted (which, in principle, would imply less "fiddling" by some governments) or one that clearly imposes North American hegemony (let's think about how ICANN works now) .

    Let us not forget that this dispute occurs in a context in which the hegemonic cultural production comes from the US and Europe (think of the movies we watch or the music we listen to) and that the Internet is considered by them as a «danger». That is why they oppose the "universal" regulation that they say would be impossible and have negotiated treaties to regulate the Internet outside the UN, such as the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime in which the pedophile is almost put in the same range and the one who download music illegally. Therein lies the danger!

    However, seen this problem from a "South" perspective, only the States can carry out this negotiation (which does not benefit only the cultural apparatus of the North) and the States are the only ones capable of exercising the control indispensable to ensure the rights to its citizens (for example, through the Justice as we saw in the cases I already mentioned). On the other hand, the problem is that the Internet is a global phenomenon and, therefore, it is much more complicated to implement these regulations (let's think that the data of an Argentine citizen who feels overwhelmed by Facebook, let's say, is in the US, not in Argentina).

    Anyway, I threw out several individual ideas but I suppose you more or less understand what I meant.

    I hope I have helped in the reflection and enrich the debate.

    Cheers! Paul.

    1.    msx said

      Very good reflection.

    2.    VaryHeavy said

      Completely agree.

    3.    diazepam said

      I leave you with a quite controversial article on pedophilia and freedom of expression (I warn you in advance that even if I am a pirate, I do not necessarily share Rick's position)

      http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/

      1.    charlie brown said

        Sorry for not having answered you before, but I have spent all day trying to open the link and it seems that the site cannot be reached ... most likely it is my connection problems; any way, without having been able to read what you mean I am going to venture a reflection based on the title contained in the link.

        I understand that the concepts of morality have been changing over time, what happens is that in this particular matter, the tendency has been a progressive increase in the age of people to consider a sexual relationship as mutually consensual; If a little over a century ago a 12 or 13-year-old adolescent was considered a "woman" suitable for marriage, today this is not the case in most "civilized" countries and I risk using this adjective. to be controversial. This process has been accepted by the majority of people and I believe that it can be considered a kind of protection for children and adolescents who are not yet in a position to make responsible decisions for themselves. I think that getting society in general to accept a change in this position will be almost impossible.

        On the other hand, I think that the de-typification as a crime of other conducts does have a chance of being achieved in the future; It is already a fact that marijuana has been legalized in some countries or states, as was alcohol in the last century, but note that these are behaviors that affect only those who practice them, while considering them criminal only serves to enrich the mafias and promote other types of criminal activities.

        Anyway, there is a lot of fabric to cut here, and don't worry, it hasn't crossed my mind that you share the position of this Rick, I also belong to the group of those who like to contrast opinions, especially with who think differently, because it is the only way to learn and understand others.

  2.   msx said

    Good thing you took the trouble to write this article @Charlie, thankful!
    Now I share it with the LUG to see if we communicate with other LUGs and associations of SL and present a formal note to the Presidency, another to NIC and finally to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship.
    Salu2

  3.   VaryHeavy said

    It is curious that it is Google, whose practices regarding respect for the privacy of users is more than dubious, who is the one who carries out the initiative to oppose the regulation of the Internet ... but it is what UsemosLinux says, it is taking for granted that States are bad and will always try to control and coerce you, while companies are good and their practices are always exemplary and respectful, and this is not the case, since States have their limits at borders while large corporations operate globally. and nobody assures us that a multinational corporation in a hegemonic position one day will not use despicable practices in the search for maximum profit at any price. In this sense, an apocalyptic world comes to mind in which all products, telecommunications, life itself, are under the control of a large macro-corporation, like Umbrella in the Resident Evil saga (although without the zombies, of course xD), and I know that now is just fiction, but imagine the danger that everything was controlled by private corporations.

    1.    msx said

      Google does not want to keep the web open because they are concerned about the social issue but because the web is their business and the air they breathe.

      By the way, and with all the accusations that can be made to the company, the reality is that they are Coca-Cola, the Latte Shake of the net: it is impressive how well their platform works that they provide for free to everyone and if it were for Yahoo !, Ask, Microsoft or Altavista we would still be in the stone age of the web.

      1.    charlie brown said

        I agree with you, but I tell you something else, it is true that Google's interest is also economical, but personally it does not bother me in the least, if they did not exist, we would still be with 250MB mailboxes, with access via the web and paying for anything else, so if Google makes money from advertisers and it doesn't come out of our pockets, welcome, in this case your interests and ours coincide, so I don't see anything wrong with that.

  4.   charlie brown said

    Let's see, as Jack the Ripper would say, we go in parts:

    The contrast "progressive" vs "liberal" does not automatically imply that governments are bad and companies are good, the point is that governments are (or at least should be) to guarantee the freedoms of citizens and establish and enforce the same rules for everyone, while the objective of companies is to create wealth (YES, although to some the mention of this word causes annoyance). I don't think there is a better example of what can be achieved without government "regulations" than the development of the internet itself. I really don't know anything more "liberal" than the internet and the growth of the global economy thanks to it. However, that governments do not fulfill their part in the "contract" is, to a large extent, the responsibility of citizens for the terrible mechanisms that exist for the exercise of their rights and also, why not, for the apathy and disinterest in These issues, if something should be legislated and changed within the framework of the UN, it is precisely that.

    The problem with companies is that they must comply with the laws, and to demand and guarantee it are the governments. What must exist is legislation that guarantees, on the one hand, "fair play" that ultimately benefits all of us and, on the other, that our rights as individuals are not violated. That companies profit from our information is the responsibility, in some cases, of the lack of legislation in this regard, since life has surpassed the always slow jurisprudence, and on the other hand it is also the responsibility of the individuals themselves who put in the hands of companies to the last detail of his life, without worrying about reading the terms of use at all. The fact that a service is "free" does not force us to use it, we do it because we choose to do so, even when we ignore the consequences.

    On the other hand, the persecution of criminals who use IT technologies to commit their crimes does not depend on supranational regulations on the operation of the network, for that it is enough that the corresponding institutions carry out their work. In fact, almost all governments have, within their police apparatus, teams dedicated to cybercrime, which, as a general rule, cooperate with each other, given the global characteristics of these crimes. Many times the deficiencies in this regard are due to legal loopholes in the laws of each country, or the lack of coordination between agencies, or lack of will of governments, not the need for a
    "Control" over the internet.

    I find it unhappy to suggest that maintaining a free internet favors the imposition of northern cultural patterns (whatever that means), since it is precisely the internet that allows the visibility of cultural phenomena until yesterday ignored by the world and those that the media traditional do not offer coverage, on the other hand, personally, I think that the dichotomy "north" vs "south" is another cliché that lacks foundation, thanks to the technology of the "north" today we can maintain this debate in the "south" .

    The particular situation of ICANN is a consequence of the emergence and spontaneous development of the network, now, I would like someone to mention a specific fact in which decision-making on core issues within ICANN has been compromised by its subordination to the Department trade. It is really impossible for me to imagine the effective and agile functioning of an organism like this under the jurisdiction of the bureaucratic apparatus of the UN organizations, which in fact, should be there to guarantee at the international level, as well as the governments at the national level.

    Understanding the particular relationship between the US and the internet is not easy, the easy thing is to repeat stereotypes. For a better understanding of the subject, I recommend reading an article by journalist Jorge Ramos, which despite having been published in 2005, still serves to illustrate a lot in this regard, here is the link: http://jorgeramos.com/el-dueno-de-la-internet/

    As for the equating of so-called content piracy with crimes such as pedophilia, it seems to me a total absurdity. I am a defender of the freedom to share knowledge as a need for human development. Now, I believe that we have reached this absurdity due to the influence of content owners on governments; in the US, the music, film and TV lobbies, in Spain the highly popular SGAE, etc., which once again demonstrates the deficiencies of the government as an impartial and effective control mechanism. If governments were dedicated to ensuring compliance with the laws by companies instead of monitoring and controlling their citizens, a good part of the problem would be solved.

    Excuse me for the billet, but I did not want to stop touching any of the topics discussed in the comments, which I greatly appreciate, especially because they allow us to have a debate that should be of interest to all but unfortunately attracts few. When I see this I always remember a phrase that I read somewhere, 'even those who are not interested in politics are condemned to suffer it'.

    Thank you very much for stopping by ...

    1.    VaryHeavy said

      The shortcomings of these governments when it comes to allowing themselves to be pressured by the big lobbies is precisely due to the interests, visible or not, that they have in the companies of those lobbies, when they are not directly part of their board of directors. These are the reasons for the favorable deals and the "hand-in-hand" that is made in Spain to organizations such as the SGAE or in the US to the lobbies of the world of cinema and music. And we are talking about liberal governments, but let's not forget that their concept of freedom is based on the freedom of economic power, even above that of the people themselves, and the non-imposition of limits on the massive accumulation of capital.

      1.    charlie brown said

        It is true what you propose about the collusion between the governments and the interests of the aforementioned groups, which are ultimately a consequence of the defective exercise of democracy. On the other hand, in my opinion, the very existence of the "freedom from economic power" that you mention is a direct consequence of the freedom of people, the very existence of the internet corroborates this, those who until yesterday were insignificant entities within the system, two simple students (the creators of Google), are today main participants in the reshaping of the future. That has not been achieved by politicians or leaders of any of the ideologies that have promised so much.

        1.    VaryHeavy said

          Certainly, economic freedom arises from the freedom of the people. The problem is when certain people benefit to such an extent from that economic freedom that they end up becoming the owners of an entire system and begin to apply rules to continue accumulating more and more power, already at the cost of freedom and the rights of the rest of the world. mortals. It is well known that for some to have much, many must have very little.

          It's true, Google started out as two "insignificant" students (I really don't like that word, I think everyone has their share of importance), and they have been able to play their tricks to climb positions by taking advantage of the functioning of the global economic system. But at that level, the thing is not simply engineering. Google has grown exponentially and gone from being the project of a couple of visionaries to being a gigantic global entity, which despite the magnitude reached, is still only in the hands of a small group of people. And it is here, when a few apply rules for the vast majority, when the distortion of democracy occurs, and as a consequence, the defective exercise of it.

          I'm just saying beware of corporatocracies.

          1.    charlie brown said

            «It is well known that for some to have a lot, many must have very little»… come on, really?… If you study a little bit of economic theory, not pamphlets or manifestos, if not true economic theory, you will see that wealth and economics of nations is NOT a zero sum; Wealth is created in production processes, whether they are materials, services, etc., so on this point I will not continue to elaborate. On this particular aspect, that of the growth of the economy from IT and the internet, I recommend reading an article recently published in Wired entitled It's a Nerd's World. We Just Work Here (http://www.wired.com/business/2012/11/tech-trickle-down/) which describes how the emergence of these "nerds" who are getting rich creates jobs, which in one way or another is a redistribution of the wealth created, in it you will also find links to others on the same topic.

            As for the second paragraph, do you know any "visionary" who does not end up overflowing his "vision" on the rest of ordinary mortals? What these two have achieved, at least so far, has contributed to improving a little this world, which unfortunately cannot be said of many others who with the imposition of their very personal "vision" have only contributed to making things worse. For my part, I fear bureaucracies and partycracies more than corporations, they have proven to be more harmful to mankind.

    2.    Pablo said

      Charlie:

      We all agree that the Internet MUST be regulated and that, in fact, it is already being regulated. A regulation that, again, we ALL agree, should seek to protect the rights of Internet users.

      However, the limitations of the currently existing regulation have their origin in the global nature of the Internet itself and in the territorial nature of the power of the States. The only way to "counter" this problem is through international cooperation and the signing of international agreements.

      In this sense, there are 2 lines: one that proposes that agreements must be reached within the framework of the UN (supposedly being the most democratic international sphere) and others that propose the signing of multilateral agreements (the case of the Convention of Budapest that I mentioned and that is being promoted by the European Union, the US and Japan).

      The "liberal" view you cite - Vint Cerf's, for example - is very common in the United States. It presupposes, as I said, that all state intervention is bad and reprehensible. To justify this way of thinking, they give as an example the "bad experiences" of Cuba, Syria, Egypt, China, and so on. Of course, they are dealing with "bad state interventions", which is aggravated, as you suggest, by the fact that the state is supposed to exist for the common good of its citizens. However, this way of thinking forgets that there are OTHER types of state intervention that are not only not harmful but are necessary for the operation of the Internet and even to defend the rights of its own citizens.

      Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the impression that you are against any kind of "international regulation" of the Internet. Yes, we are all against the censorship of the Chinese government; Yes, we are all against the Cuban government limiting Internet access. However, if there is an "Internet regulation", it NECESSARILY must be international in nature due to the very nature of the Internet and that "international regulation" can only be agreed by States.

      For example, the Brazilian justice could not apprehend a Russian hacker who hacks from China the servers (which are located in the USA) of the Spanish bank in which the Brazilian citizen had deposited his money. It is enough to multiply this by all the bank accounts that the hacker scammed to realize the magnitude of the problem. What Justice has jurisdiction: that of the country where the servers are located, that of the hacker's nationality, that of the country from which the scam was carried out, that of the affected person's nationality? What happens if the crime is not classified in that country or the regulations are not updated to include computer crimes? And so ... these are just two vertices of the problem.

      Another point of your last comment seems to me that it deserves attention. I did not say that a "free internet" (think about it: free from whom? It is clear that there is a "negative" view of the State in this view) favors the imposition of northern cultural patterns. What I wanted to say is that this "struggle" between the States to see how to "regulate" the Internet is clearly a struggle of interests (which adds to the interests of the governments of the day but also those of the companies in that country). Two of the easiest to identify are "dictatorial" governments that want to regulate the Internet to avoid being overthrown, and so on. However, some democratic countries with a better "reputation" also seek to regulate the internet in a negative sense - seeking to expand the powers of tracking, control, and censorship. The typical case is the US, which even today has a GESTAPO regulation that allows the government to track not only the Internet but the ENTIRE communications system of that country. I recommend you read the USA Patriot Act.

      The USA-Patriot Act contains numerous articles that blow up a number of established civil rights and freedoms. Many of the provisions of the law are unconstitutional, reduce the balance of power between the different government institutions, and transfer that power from the courts of justice to the security forces.

      ICANN is in that country today.

      In a similar vein, there are those who promote the Budapest Convention. It is an international treaty (which those who decide to adhere cannot modify - let us think that the original members are Europe, the United States and Japan) that mixes a series of «computer crimes», among which it typifies not only identity theft, scam, etc. but also "intellectual property crimes." Precisely, these countries seek to mask the defense of their interests - read, the interests of companies in those countries related to intellectual property "rights" - under the fantasy of fighting other crimes for which there is a greater consensus to combat (pedophilia , scam, etc.).

      It should not be forgotten that in a context of predominance of the «northern cultural apparatus» (which movies do you go to see at the cinema? What music do you listen? What books do you read? How do you dress?), Especially the North American, the «defense of property "intellectual" implies in practice the defense of the interests of those countries.

      This problem runs through the ENTIRE discussion of "Internet regulation."

      You see, there are no saints in this matter: neither Russia nor China seek innocent "regulation"; not the United States or Europe.

      The difficult question that remains in the pipeline is: if regulation is necessary and the only way to achieve that regulation is through cooperation and international agreements, what kind of intervention should our countries defend (I am talking, for example , from Latin America)?

      Cheers! Paul.

      1.    charlie brown said

        Excuse me for contradicting you, but it is clear that "We do not all agree that the Internet MUST be regulated", what IS a fact is that there are many interested in regulating the Internet, which is not the same. As for putting it in the hands of the UN, is it the same UN in which, a few years ago, Libya came to chair the Human Rights Council? If so, I say: thank you, but no ...

        Look, all the examples you put about crimes committed on the network and many more, are capable of being solved with the mechanisms currently established and with the cooperation between law enforcement agencies, there are many examples that it is possible, of course this has been achieved when there is a coincidence between the laws of the countries involved in the classification of the crime, as has happened in the dismantling of networks linked to pedophilia, which have made the news in the newspapers to which you surely had access; Now, what happens with the rest of the crimes? Well, two things, that there is no coincidence in the classification or there is no willingness on the part of the states to cooperate. In the case of the classification of an act as a crime, we have the most dangerous example in the matter of intellectual property rights and "piracy", there they intend to regulate and impose the classification of the violation of intellectual property as a crime to the measure of the interests of the groups interested in maintaining and extending its limits. I hope that on this matter we agree that regulating the Internet from these premises would be harmful for most users.

        On the other hand, a good part of the computer crimes related to identity theft and bank card numbers is currently controlled by mafias, a good part of them based in Eastern Europe, where they enjoy impunity, due to poor legislation or simply by counting on the covert protection of the law enforcement agencies of those countries, often busy monitoring journalists who are uncomfortable to the government and simple non-conforming citizens.

        Thank you for the recommendation to read me the Patriot Act, as soon as I have time I will take a look at it again, because I already read it when it was promulgated a long time ago and yes, it is true that it contravenes established rights and freedoms, but on this subject they are still A good number of appeals are in progress before the courts that have been filed by ordinary citizens or by organizations involved in these matters and on which there are still no firm pronouncements. On this matter, we all like to express our opinion and criticize the "uncomfortable" neighbor to the north, without taking into account that many times, our laws in the "south" are more absurd and harmful to civil liberties, but of course, if they are "ours " does not matter.

        Your comment contains a statement that is somewhat contradictory to the general spirit of the comment to me, since you say “As you can see, there are no saints in this matter: neither Russia nor China seeks an innocent 'regulation'; neither does the United States or Europe ", then, can we conclude that ALL those interested in regulating the internet have spurious interests? If so, then no regulation is needed.

        I think that if our countries should defend something, as you say, it is to make the internet available to everyone, without restrictions, and use the resources and efforts to control it to solve other problems that burden us more, such as technological backwardness, nineteenth-century laws that They still survive, citizen insecurity and a very long etcetera and that are our responsibility and that of no one else, to stop feeling like someone's "victims" at once and assume our responsibilities.

        And thank you very much for participating in this debate, I really do ...

        1.    Let's use Linux said

          Haha! Thank you for assuming that I defend Internet regulation through the UN. I never said something like that.

          Second, it is not true that China, Russia, the US and Europe are all. I don't know where you live, I live in another part of the world. It is in this sense that I left one last paragraph open for reflection. What position should our countries take?

          In this sense, I fully agree with what you propose in the last paragraph: «to make the internet available to everyone, without restrictions, and to use the resources and efforts to control it to solve other problems that burden us more, such as technological backwardness, Nineteenth-century laws that still survive, citizen insecurity and a very long etcetera and that are our responsibility and that of no one else, to stop feeling like someone's “victims” at once and assume our responsibilities. »

          I think our biggest disagreement is on this point: Internet regulation is not a choice. In your previous comment you yourself said that THAT ALREADY EXISTS. The Internet is ALREADY being regulated. The problem is that we are moving towards BAD regulation. Among other things, because of the interests I described.

          My proposal strives to create a third position. Simply that. If you want to live in a dream world, in which "Internet is free", then (in my view) you live confused. It is not for nothing that there are governments that permanently violate the rights of users (the clearest cases being Cuba, China, Russia, but also the US, etc.), and companies with global power even in some cases greater than that of many countries (Google, Microsoft, etc.) that have also violated many of those rights.

          If you want to follow Google's proposal, go ahead. I am not convinced by his "altruism." I'm sorry.

          Cheers! Paul.

          1.    charlie brown said

            Sorry if I did not understand you, but the first 3 paragraphs of your previous comment, which appears under the nickname of «Pablo», say precisely that, or at least, allow us to interpret it, because being your comment I suppose it expresses your opinion, if not Well, well, I said.

            On the other hand, where do I say that the internet is ALREADY being regulated? The fact that in each country there are laws or regulations in this regard does not in any way imply that the internet, the network, as a global phenomenon is regulated. And no, by no means do I live "in a dream world" although I DO consider that the internet is free, in the sense that it does not have a "government" that controls and censors it globally. Lest there be doubts about my position: I prefer a "dangerous" and "free" internet like the one that exists today rather than a more "secure" and "regulated" one by anyone, be it the UN, with its proverbial incapacity and excessive bureaucracy or group of "disinterested and impartial democratic representatives" of any organization, religion or political tendency. If these statements make me seem "politically incorrect" it doesn't matter, I really am.

            And yes, I approve of Google's proposal, if you don't, you don't do it, you are fully entitled, I don't pretend that other people think and act like me; The world would be too boring, so if I recommend you evaluate the proposals by their content more than by who formulates them, remember the phrase of Albert Camus that applies very well in this case: «One does not decide what a thought really has considering whether is right or left »

            As for the country where I live, haven't you been able to guess yet? Come on, it's VERY easy to do it ... and NO, of course it's not the US, how can you think of it? 😉

            A greeting…

  5.   jorgemanjarrezlerma said

    That such.

    Although I agree with all of you, there is something we must consider first of all. Since the internet does not have an owner itself, the information distributed and stored in the various nodes is stored for a period of time and then purged. This information is there and can be used by various public and private agents for various activities within the laws corresponding to each country and protocols signed by them. The above provides a tool that can have different uses and this can be a problem depending on the optics from the moment it is seen.

    Freedom is often confused with debauchery, but like any tool it can be used for both good and bad. A regulation is reasonable if and only if it does not go beyond limiting what can and cannot be done. The latter is a fundamental freedom that is not negotiable, it is also something that is already defined in any legislation, so that you yourself are aware if you commit an offense.

    1.    charlie brown said

      Very good your observations. As for the first, although I do not completely agree with you that the internet "has no owner", I am more than aware that all our browsing logs are stored, in one way or another, in the different nodes through which it passes information, and therefore, at the disposal of the various agents that you mention, which in any case is a price to pay for the connectivity that we enjoy, and YES, it is true that it constitutes a danger, but put to choose between the The danger represented by the use of a company and the one that a government can give it, I prefer to take the risk with the first.

      On the other hand, I understand that when you speak of "debauchery" you refer to actions that ultimately constitute crimes, and that in fact are usually ALREADY typified by the laws of most countries, regardless of the technology used for commit them; Let me explain, pedophilia predates the emergence of the internet, just like identity theft, what happens is that with IT, the means to commit them are "facilitated". Instead of establishing restrictions and controls on the network, it seems to me more effective that police agencies update their actions according to the development of technologies and persecute the criminal and do not consider all network users suspicious for the mere fact of accessing to her. Here, given the choice between the dangers of misinterpreted freedom and the control of the Internet, without a doubt I prefer the dangers of freedom, because as Manuel Azaña said «Freedom does not make men happy, it simply makes them men ».

      1.    jorgemanjarrezlerma said

        I totally agree with you, I think that it is more feasible for surveillance agencies such as the police to adapt to the instances of technology than the other way around.

  6.   Antonia said

    Will this control lead us to socialist governments?