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 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
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
participants (5)
-
Jeremiah A Blatz -
ph＠netcom.com -
Robert A. Hayden -
tcmay＠netcom.com -
wd6cmu＠netcom.com