
Declaration of Internet Freedom - sethbannon
http://www.internetdeclaration.org/freedom
======
Gormo
If you look at a lot of old-fashioned documents like this - statements of
principle, resolutions and declarations of one sort or another - you're likely
to see a list of individual points, often making demands or other calls to
action. But this will invariably be preceded by a preamble that indicates (a)
who the specific people making the declaration are, and what their motivations
are for doing so, (b) who the intended audience is, and what action, if any,
is expected from them.

This declaration lacks both of these important bits of information. We have a
list of _imperative_ bullet points - do this, don't do that - but no
elaboration as to why these are desirable, to whom they're desirable, and who
is expected to act on the imperative instructions.

At best, it's a set of vague, aspirational intentions; at worst, it distracts
us away from developing practical strategies for actually protecting internet
freedom.

~~~
terryk88a
Vague indeed.

For example, what does "universal access" mean? How about "free to connect"?
Is this declaration demanding that access to the internet be free to all? As
in no cost?

The language "access" to this or that has been subverted in recent years to
mean that the accessed resource should be free of charge. E.G. universal
access to (free) healthcare. That is decidedly not what accessible means.

So I won't be supporting this declaration. I can't tell if it is demanding
Free Internet, which is not a universal right.

~~~
numeromancer
I would gladly sign a document that had an exhaustive and exclusive list of
declarations of what we weren't going to allow governments to do. We
implicitly give governments the rights to the use of force, and governments,
like people (to whom we don't give such rights) will, in time, see any lack of
interdiction as an implicit approval.

And positive rights, such as declaring that “all shall be provided, gratis,
access to the internet”, have an implicit coercion in them; someone must be
forced to provide it.

~~~
Gormo
> I would gladly sign a document that had an exhaustive and exclusive list of
> declarations of what we weren't going to allow governments to do.

We've got one of those already. It doesn't work as well as it was intended to,
because, despite the idealistic "rule of law, not men" rhetoric, laws are just
abstract concepts, and the world is always under the control of people, who
will game and manipulate any system of rules to their advantage. If you build
an institution and give it enough power, the people who run it will eventually
find a way around their constraints.

------
stfu
Reminds me of JPB's good old _A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace_
:

<https://projects.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html>

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Declaration_of_the_Independen...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Declaration_of_the_Independence_of_Cyberspace)

------
joelhaus
Appreciate the skepticism here, but this seems like an exceptionally well
worded pledge. Right now, it's the usual suspects (including Y Combinator and
a number of other important advocates for a better internet) that have signed
on, but it's early and hopefully this will become more main-stream.

An ideal outcome would probably require this to become a political lobbying
tool, similar to Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform "Taxpayer
Protection Pledge". It's nearly impossible to win a Republican election these
days unless you sign-on: _96% of all Republicans in Congress_ have signed the
pledge to never increase taxes[0].

To address a few detractors in this thread, please don't be confused when the
word "free" is used. It's in reference to freedom, not cost. However, cost is
specifically addressed:

    
    
      Access: 
      Promote universal access to fast and affordable networks.
    

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Tax_Reform#Taxpay...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Tax_Reform#Taxpayer_Protection_Pledge)

------
lukifer
One of the things I like about this declaration compared to other similar ones
(Declaration of Independence, UDHR, Stallman) is that it makes no mention of
intrinsic rights. It clearly states its objectives as goals to work towards,
rather attempting to frame an imaginary natural law by which these conditions
already automagically apply to the human animal.

That said, it seems to me that there is a potential conflict between #3
(Openness) and #4 (Innovation). It is the same as the conflict between
capitalism and democratic socialism: if you don't allow people a certain
amount of economic tyranny in exchange for their work, the work won't happen,
and civilization atrophies.

This is intuitive with physical goods: people won't make shoes if someone can
just take them, so we back up the concept of ownership with state violence,
and that allows people to make a living cobbling. The same phenomenon happens
in computing, be it through copyright, vendor lock-in, or walled gardens, and
this is always going to create an incentive to block #3 (or, the lack of such
incentive will inhibit #4).

While I believe copyright/patent reform is deeply necessary, including the
consideration that they might stymie more innovation than they create, this
zero-sum conflict should be at the heart of it, and should be kept in mind
when pursuing lofty goals of digital justice.

~~~
joelhaus
Don't see the same conflict in this declaration. Assuming that you interpret
#3 (Openness) as a call to not enforce property rights, but I don't see it
that way.

#3 is somewhat vague, but this principle seems most closely aligned with
traditional net neutrality principles. Perhaps they felt that the phrase "net
neutrality" was too prescriptive, and I agree. Markets with sufficient
competition have no need for net neutrality regulations, unfortunately,
broadband competition in the U.S. is severely lacking.

~~~
lukifer
I'm thinking of ecosystems rather than products; app stores vs. web, etc. It's
easy to vilify rent-seeking behavior that drives closed systems, but without
that lure, fewer platforms get built, and progress slows down. It's the kind
of thing that Charlie Stross calls a Wicked Problem.

Admittedly, this all depends on one's interpretation of "Openness".

------
tokenadult
This kind of effort might have been more credible from the beginning if the
initial text were simultaneously composed in both Chinese and English. China
leads the world in restricting the freedom of the Internet, and shows other
countries by example how to do that. I MIGHT sign a thoughtfully composed
statement about Internet freedom written in Chinese (which I would be able to
read in Chinese), but yet another precatory statement in English mostly for
the English-speaking world really doesn't motivate me to action, because it
doesn't address the toughest set of problems.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Peop...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China)

[http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%8D%8E%E4%BA%BA%E6%...](http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%8D%8E%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E5%85%B1%E5%92%8C%E5%9B%BD%E7%BD%91%E7%BB%9C%E5%AE%A1%E6%9F%A5)

AFTER EDIT: Seriously, if you want to campaign for better openness and freedom
on the Internet, the people to get advice from on how to write your
declaration are people who are attempting to use the Internet to circumvent
regimes that have never had free and fair elections and that have never
tolerated a free press.

------
lavametender
Did not sign. This is technological challenge, not political. Statements will
get you nowhere. We need cold hard code (software) and balls (hardware).

~~~
lumberjack
We can't keep ignoring politics or we'll end up with laws so invasive that not
even hardware and software can overcome them. And more importantly we can't
let them gain any legislative precedence. It's much easier to fight now than
in five years.

And further more I don't see how we have any advantages in the realms of
hardware were we would afford to fight.

~~~
tomjen3
Normally I would agree with you, but the pace at which computers and the
internet improves is now so high, and congress is so gridlocked that I do
believe that we have left them behind, permantly.

~~~
hobin
I believe this is where I point out that the USA is not the only developed
country in the world worth fighting for.

~~~
tomjen3
I wouldn't fight for any other, with the possible exception of Germany, Spain
or Austria.

France is too egocentrical, Britain (as much as I love the country) has a
government hell-bent on recreating 1984, the Scandinavian countries are dying
a slow death of too many paper-pushers and most of Eastern-Europe cannot
rightly be called developed.

But none of that matters as realistically the US is the only country powerful
enough to cause sufficient damaged to be worth worring about.

I should note that I am not American and so this is not a matter of
nationalism.

~~~
hobin
"France is too egocentrical, Britain (as much as I love the country) has a
government hell-bent on recreating 1984, the Scandinavian countries are dying
a slow death of too many paper-pushers and most of Eastern-Europe cannot
rightly be called developed."

Ignoring for the moment that much of that sounds overly cynical and is
definitely an overgeneralisation, which part of 'fight' did you miss? The very
reason we're fighting is to do away with many of these problems and improve
the situation! For some reason, you think this applies to the USA and a few
other countries, but when it comes to other countries, what you say comes down
to "Now, listen, I really want to solve these problems. Really, I do. But
listen, you guys have problems, so now I can't help you." How does that make
sense?

"But none of that matters as realistically the US is the only country powerful
enough to cause sufficient damaged to be worth worring about."

I think you would be surprised. The USA is still only one country. It's a very
powerful one, of course, I'm glad we agree on that part. But you can't focus
on one country to the exclusion of almost everything else. (Well, you can, but
that would not be very smart.)

Also, you forgot the Benelux, but I suspect you would also consider these
countries too small to be considered.

------
BrennanCheung
Free needs to be defined more. Obviously there are costs associated with
maintaining the Internet; it can't be free. Also, open needs to be defined
more. You can't be fully open and have privacy as well: privacy is a form of
censorship. Also, this is one sided, and doesn't take into consideration the
ISP's position as well. Too vague to mean anything.

------
bnchdrff
some background:
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/07/02/declarati...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/07/02/declaration_of_internet_freedom_calls_for_digital_rights_.html)

------
derpmeister
Organisation is a mandatory field? Lolcats united, then?

~~~
JOfferijns
The form on that page is meant for organizations, read what it says:

"Individuals: Go to the action pages at Access, CREDO, EFF and Free Press to
add your name."

~~~
dbaupp
For the lazy: :)

Access: <https://www.accessnow.org/page/s/internetdeclaration>

CREDO:
[http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/internetfreedom/?rc=inte...](http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/internetfreedom/?rc=internetdeclaration)

EFF:
[https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KE...](https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8750)

FreePress:
[http://act.freepress.net/sign/internetdeclaration?source=web...](http://act.freepress.net/sign/internetdeclaration?source=website_dif_home)

------
fallenhitokiri
Is this just a "We support this" or "Later, in a few years we will call / mail
you for your donation"?

The pages lacks some informations, at least IMHO. Some contact details would
also be great, not just a "site maintained by Free Press".

IMHO a good idea but a bit more informations would not hurt credibility.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
I was expecting an Anders Breivik-style 1000-page rant about "the enemies" or
some such nonsense.

Much more tame than expected.

------
adnam
I love the smell of astroturf

