• Communication commission discussion

  • After NetMundial

    from book on Apr 26, 2014 12:11 PM 
    Danny O'Brien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) makes 
two critical points about the recent NetMundial conference on Internet 
Governance in Sao Paulo, Brazil:

First point: "The NETmundial document may not be binding, but the ability 
of right holder lobbyists in inserting language that has been previously 
been used to terminate users' Internet connections, commandeer ISPs 
[Internet Service Providers, often big telecoms -mb] to be the copyright 
police of their own customers, and censor and filter the Internet 
demonstrates just how swiftly even novel and apparently open deliberation 
of online rights can be steered into dangerous territory. While NETmundial 
was far more open than other lobbying venues, such as the ultra-secretive 
Trans-Pacific Partnership, the resources of big business to wordsmith away 
and influence drafters, compared to the relatively small ability for 
advocacy groups and individual net users to influence the process, still 
shows in the final text."

Second: "NETmundial's most re-iterated point, and ultimately its entire 
reason for existing -- to make a strong statement against mass 
surveillancewas -- also diminished by the process. For all its commitment 
to transparency and openness, governments, including the United States 
government, had the last say in a closed meeting at the very end of 
NETmundial. Even before then, the targets of [President Dilma] Rousseff's 
and the Internet technical community's ire set about weakening an initial 
strong draft document, as obtained by WikiLeaks before the public 
consultation."

"But Internet governance forums are not the only place where the 
surveillance state can be challenged", O'Brien adds.

Was he thinking specifically of the World Social Forum? I do not know, but 
I did, while I was reading his article. The article is here:

https://www.eff.org/node/80046

Cheers,

Mikael

Mikael Böök * book@... * gsm +358(0)-44 5511 324 *
http://www.kaapeli.fi/book/  * http://blogi.kaapeli.fi/book/ *
http://blog.spinellisfootsteps.info/
    Thread Outline:

  • Re: [Wsfic_fsmci] After NetMundial

    from Rita Freire on Apr 26, 2014 01:41 PM 
    Thanks, Mikael. Very accurate article by Danny O'Brien, and the intervention of
corporations is cause for concern. To the dismay of all, the word NEUTRALITY
was cut from the final document of the World NET, something the Brazilian
Law (Civil Marco Internet) ensures. But Article 15 of the Civil Framework
Internet in Brazil, which requires data guard, was not vetoed by President
Dilma despite the clamor of society. The president Dilma said to have been
an agreement in order to pass the law. The fight continues.
The WSF really need to focus on the discussion of the freedoms of the
internet, and this could be one of the axes of the next edition. The World
Forum of Free Media could help. Library as well.
Regards
Rita


On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Mikael Book <book@...> wrote:

>
> Danny O'Brien of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) makes two
> critical points about the recent NetMundial conference on Internet
> Governance in Sao Paulo, Brazil:
>
> First point: "The NETmundial document may not be binding, but the ability
> of right holder lobbyists in inserting language that has been previously
> been used to terminate users' Internet connections, commandeer ISPs
> [Internet Service Providers, often big telecoms -mb] to be the copyright
> police of their own customers, and censor and filter the Internet
> demonstrates just how swiftly even novel and apparently open deliberation
> of online rights can be steered into dangerous territory. While NETmundial
> was far more open than other lobbying venues, such as the ultra-secretive
> Trans-Pacific Partnership, the resources of big business to wordsmith away
> and influence drafters, compared to the relatively small ability for
> advocacy groups and individual net users to influence the process, still
> shows in the final text."
>
> Second: "NETmundial's most re-iterated point, and ultimately its entire
> reason for existing -- to make a strong statement against mass
> surveillancewas -- also diminished by the process. For all its commitment
> to transparency and openness, governments, including the United States
> government, had the last say in a closed meeting at the very end of
> NETmundial. Even before then, the targets of [President Dilma] Rousseff's
> and the Internet technical community's ire set about weakening an initial
> strong draft document, as obtained by WikiLeaks before the public
> consultation."
>
> "But Internet governance forums are not the only place where the
> surveillance state can be challenged", O'Brien adds.
>
> Was he thinking specifically of the World Social Forum? I do not know, but
> I did, while I was reading his article. The article is here:
>
> https://www.eff.org/node/80046
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mikael
>
> Mikael Böök * book@... * gsm +358(0)-44 5511 324 *
> http://www.kaapeli.fi/book/  * http://blogi.kaapeli.fi/book/ *
> http://blog.spinellisfootsteps.info/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wsfic_fsmci mailing list
> Wsfic_fsmci@...
> http://listas.tiwa.net.br/listinfo/wsfic_fsmci
>
>
Return to conversation view