

France attempts to "civilize" the Internet; Internet fights back - aikinai
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/france-attempts-to-civilize-the-internet-internet-fights-back.ars

======
ChuckMcM
Widespread instant communication is disruptive in a number of ways, that
disruption is also a threat.

When I was in Boy Scouts and we visited a police station (which was trying to
convince us that crime does not pay), they went to great lengths to explain
how radio, and the ability for all of the officers to communicate, gave them a
tremendous advantage over the criminal who was attempting to flee a crime
scene.

Flash forward to Napster and complaints at how difficult it was for one law
enforcement officer (or agency) to police a band of criminals with out-of-band
communications infrastructure.

Then forward slightly further to Gulf War 1 where the key targets in the
opening salvos were the communication hubs and infrastructure which enabled
Iraqi forces to communicate both with headquarters and with each other. With
communication out Iraqi units that were, on paper, 'stronger' than the
coalition forces deployed against them in parts of the battlefield
surrendering, in part because they weren't aware of supporting units nearby.

Finally Egypt, Libya, and Yemen are good examples of communication
infrastructure favoring a disperse group in their efforts to overthrow an
established presence.

It is no surprise that folks who have used communications superiority as an
advantage against their adversaries are keenly aware of the disadvantage of
_not_ having the communication 'high ground.' Those folks will work tirelessly
both in the open and underground to give themselves the advantage.

------
pnathan
One of the things that a lot of the idealistic internet people tend to forget
is that governments operate in ways that are outside the ability of normal
companies. It is doable from a governmental level to simply nationalize and
take over its country's Inter-network. Quite disruptive and would be fairly
ham-handed, I'm sure, but it is _possible_.

If the internet is to remain free, spokespeople will have to come forth and
present cogent arguments that demonstrate how it is both (1) in the interests
of the populace, corporations, and governmental elites and (2), for the
aforementioned to encounter negative impacts for the Internet not to remain
free. For individuals (e.g., Cory Doctorow) to simply abstain from this
discussion is not going to work.

I appreciate the blathering about New Democracy! Disruption! Social Media
Revolutions!, but those are not realpolitik, and, today, we need - all of us
need - realpolitikers who are committed to a free internet.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
> For individuals (e.g., Cory Doctorow) to simply abstain from this discussion
> is not going to work.

Doctorow isn't abstaining from the discussion. Far from it; he's been an early
and regular reporter and popularizer of important events and arguments related
to freedom and the internet. As I understand it, he didn't want to lend
credibility to this particular forum by attending it.

------
jrockway
I think it's ironic that France is involved. The effect their three-strikes
law has is to remove French culture from the Internet, which I was under the
impression they liked trying to spread.

~~~
Typhon
Firstly, I should say there's less to worry about than people might think. I
know how Sarkozy governs : he or his government create a big buzz. People are
obsessed over it for a few weeks and talk about nothing else. Then nothing
really happens and we move on to the next big buzz. Sarkozy's presidency can
be summed by this : much ado about nothing.

Though there are a few exceptions, and although indeed we must fight against
those who want to destroy freedom of speech on the internet, it is not as if
concrete terrifying things were about to happen.

As for French culture, there's this great obsession in american and british
media of the decline thereof and our alleged lamentation over it, but
actually, noone in France cares. (see <http://superfrenchie.com/?p=1410>)

To understand, it is important to compare french and american treatment of
culture.

France has the religion of culture. It's an exaggeration, but it's quite true.
In France, there's this idea that art and philosophy are the best, highest
things someone can do, and that art must deliver deep truths about life,
death, and choucroute. While the best artists can be good artists and manage
that, it also attracts a lot of pretentious people who have nothing to say,
like Bernard Henri Lévy.

America, on the other hand, has the worship of money. Again, an exaggeration.
Culture is treated like any other kind of product, and it works pretty well.
Hollywood is to movies as Akron is to rubber. Again, the best artists can
manage to be good and make money at the same time, but here, it attracts a lot
of greedy people who will milk money out of anything that has any kind of
success, for example through shameless plagiarising.

"Spreading" fits in the capitalist logic that prevails in America, but not in
the snob logic that prevails in France. Here, having popular success is not
important. It may even be a flaw.

~~~
noibl
Great post. Worth bearing in mind that it is a government (more than one, in
fact) that is involved, not a country.

Apparently Sarkozy now employs Orwell's ghost as a speechwriter:

\- "You have a tremendous responsibility that weighs upon you, ... The
responsibility has to be shared between you and us."

\- "behind the anonymous Internet user there is a real citizen ... and a
nation to which he or she _belongs_ "

It defies parody.

~~~
hugh3
I'd refrain from reading _too_ much into the precise word choice in the
English translations of speeches presumably made en Francais.

~~~
noibl
How would you translate the verb 'appartenir' then?

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW5Z6T9Azyg#t=10m47s>

~~~
loup-vaillant
This talk is an almost perfect example of applause light[1]. 95% of it is
either self evident or universally accepted. But in the end, there's very
little substance, if at all.

What I found most creepy about this talk is how similar it is from preaches I
used to hear for Christmas. Same tone, same use of applause lights. It really
felt _religious_. And for such important (and practical) issues, I don't take
religiosity as a good starting point.

[1]: <http://lesswrong.com/lw/jb/applause_lights/>

------
tomjen3
>Don't forget that behind the anonymous Internet user there is a real citizen
living in a real society and a real culture and a nation to which he or she
belongs

I can't say that I am at all surprised at his choice of words, but I can only
scream NO PERSON BELONGS TO ANY STATE.

Until he realize that, he has no more legitimacy than the tyrant of North
Korea.

~~~
gjm11
This assumes that "X belongs to Y" means "X is a possession of Y", but that
simply isn't the only meaning "belongs" has: it also means "is a part of", for
instance. You can belong to a club without thinking that it owns you. FWIW,
the oldest meaning of the word is more like "accompany" or "go appropriately
with".

I don't know whether _appartenir_ has a similar range of meanings, but my
guess is that it does.

~~~
demallien
It does - indeed in French the second meaning, "is a part of" is used much
more frequently than its English equivalent, and is clearly the sense of the
word that Sarko was using.

------
joshu
Fascinating. I was invited to this event and did not go. Dodged a bullet?

------
VladRussian
"national security state"

nice term.

------
kahawe
It is almost funny how the ONLY tangible, precise suggestion made is: _Artists
"must not be despoiled of the fruit of their talent. That doesn't simply ruin
them, but far worse, it enslaves them."_

And how this "would somebody PLEASE protect the artists???" lamentation can
still be pulled off in 2011 is beyond me - after countless artists spoke up on
what is really happening once they signed a deal with the record industry, how
little they are actually making on sold CDs and after several artists
successfully launched albums on their own.

Especially smug how the internet regulations should PROTECT them from becoming
"enslaved".

No matter what they are trying to say: Culture does not NEED Sony BMG Ariola
etc... because that is an industry, not (like culture) a substantial part of
what we as human beings are.

