Thursday night the Senate ratified the Convention on Cybercrime, an international treaty between members of the Council of Europe. The treaty had been pushed hard by the Bush administration and major copyright holders, such as Microsoft, RIAA, et. al. The overall idea of the treaty is to create consistency between traditional laws and cybercrime law - a generally good idea. However, the treaty includes some pretty broad provisions, which will further deteriorate Americans’ rights of privacy and free speech.
The overall problem is generally referred to as a ‘lack of dual criminality’ in the treaty. It doesn’t sound so bad when phased like that, but what is means is that any nation signing the treaty can compel the US federal authorities to spy on US Internet users and aid in their prosecution — even if the crime they are charged with is NOT illegal in the US. So, for instance, a pro-democracy advocate in America can be surveilled by the FBI at the behest of the Russian government; a US organizer for gay rights in Poland could find all of their Internet traffic tapped and handed to the Polish police. Cnet summed it up by noting:
[The treaty] says Internet providers must cooperate with electronic searches and seizures without reimbursement; the FBI must conduct electronic surveillance “in real time” on behalf of another government; that U.S. businesses can be slapped with “expedited preservation” orders preventing them from routinely deleting logs or other data.
Large American Internet companies have shown that they are more then willing to turn their users over to torturers for a few pieces of silver. It now appears that they’ll have the protection and aid of the US government in deflecting criticism of these acts. For it’s part the US government can now move forward with plans to force ISPs to provide data-tapping facilities for all Internet traffic - something which both users and ISPs oppose, and which probability wouldn’t pass in congress.
For his part, US AG Alberto Gonzales said. “The Convention is in full accord with all U.S. constitutional protections, such as free speech and other civil liberties, and will require no change to U.S. laws.” This should make us all feel better though, as Mr. Gonzales has a splendid record on protecting civil rights
Gonzales,
Net Neutrality,
privacy
Timothy Lee published an Op-Ed in today’s NY Times entitled Entangling the Web in which he argues that ensuring Network Neutrality would be tantamount to big government regulation, which would lead to monopolies and corruption. Mr. Lee seems to ignore the fact that we are already there.
I have always found it, more then a little, annoying that the policy wonks and legislators who expose opinions about how the Internet should be deregulated have little to no understanding of how it, or related services, actually work. Comparing Network Neutrality to 19th C. railroad regulation, Lee states:
Unfortunately, the story is a cautionary tale. After President Grover Cleveland appointed Thomas M. Cooley, a railroad ally, as its first chairman, the commission quickly fell under the control of the railroads, gradually transforming the American transportation industry into a cartel.
I think Lee needs to check with FCC chair Martin, to confirm we already have a cartel under the control of big telecom. In the past few years the number of local exchange carriers has dwindled from dozens to three — really two (SBC/ATT & Verizon), as Qwest’s ILEC footprint is very small. These two companies control over 70% of residential and commercial infrastructure. And thanks to FCC rulings made the at the end of last year, these companies no longer have to provide access to their copper facilities to third parties at set rates.
But Lee continues his transportation analogy:
By 1935, when it was given oversight of the trucking industry, the commission was restricting competition and enabling price increases throughout virtually the entire surface transportation industry. Decades later, in 1970, a report released by a Ralph Nader group described the commission as “a forum at which transportation interests divide up the national transportation market.”
What Lee fails, somehow to grasp, is that unbridled de-regulation has allowed so much consolidation in carriers that these corporations may, at any time, ‘restrict competition and enable price increases’.
Lee, and others, continue to confuse transport with content. He suggests that the Internet is like the national highway system, and like trucking deregulation, eliminating regulation will create more competition. This only works because the highway system is publicly owned. Would this same equation yield the same results if General Motors owned say 40% of all highways? and if, say, they were going to charge an additional fee to non-GM trucks using their highways? This is the appropriate analogy for network neutrality.
ATT, Verizon, and the cable carriers are fighting to eliminate the existing network neutrality status quo not because because of current Internet use, but due to what the use will be in the future. Very soon mpeg encoding will become efficient enough to allow for competitive Internet based television content providers. When this occurs it will create a media revolution we never seen the likes of.
This Internet ‘television’ will not be regulated by the FCC, or by the big cable companies; consumers will have enormous content choices and advertisers will have thousands of options of reaching viewers. ATT, Verizon, and the cable providers are unhappy about the prospect of providing transport for content which is not theirs. It is the desire to eliminate this competition before it exists that is driving anti-neutrality forces.
By confusing transport with content Lee, who does seem to be an independent commentator, turns his argument on it’s ear. By allowing carriers to opt-out of neutrality we will quickly arrive at the place which he seems to fear - fewer consumer choices, higher prices, and a corrupt monopolistic control over Internet content.
Well it seems that the administration and pundits were just a tad wrong again. A scant nine months ago Bush argued that the Iraq War Is Good for Israel - today over 100,000 Iraqis protested, shouting ‘death to Israel; death to America’. I doubt the Israelis feel as though this is a positive turn for their security. But, hey maybe it’s just more “birth pangs” of democracy in the Middle East. I think it’s time for a C-section . . . . .
So how’s that how’s that whole peace and democracy through bombing people workin’ out for you there Bush?
It’s been nearly a year since I’ve posted here. The reasons are varied — mainly a series of bad excuses and an attempt at apathy towards the world - an attempt that I can assure you is futile given the deplorable state of the world, and our country.
So, here it is 02:20 and NWS says it’s 84f — though it feels as if it’s 95, and I am polishing off a bottle of raki - given to me by my boss after his last visit to Greece. If you’ve never had raki, it’s quite the beverage - similar to grappa, but with more of a lighter-fluid after taste.
A few days ago my wife received a visit from her parents - nice people. In their good Midwestern, protestant, way they reminded my wife, who was expressing her dismay at our president, that ‘if you can’t say something nice, you shouldn’t say anything.’ This notion stuck with me, and it reminded me that nothing was ever changed by silence or complicity. Thus, I am here at 02:00. . . .
It is nearly impossible to believe the state of our world today. In the middle east, Israel continues to pummel the people of Lebanon, and our citizens continue to be killed in the ill conceived, pointless, chaos of Iraq. Here at home, our government is worried about cutting taxes for the wealthiest, while opportunities, jobs, and income disappear for the rest of us. Meanwhile the U.S. bastion of international news is running several reoccurring ’special reports’ on the apocalypse. If all of that isn’t enough for you to drink lighter-fluid, I don’t know what is.
