International cyberspace law.

[Technosoul]

I would like to suggest a new international law.

Which is - no country can claim to have authority over cyberspace.

In the past nations have agreed that no one country can own the moon or other outerspace locations, I think they made that same rule concerning the south pole.

Cyberspace (the internet and all the webpages) should have that same international "off limits" to governmental controls agreement. Although private persons could rule over the webpages they establish in cyberspace.
But could not make rules for or collect taxes from other webpages.

If I am correct the founding forefathers of the "information highway" had that in mind, being they were mostly long haired hippy pot heads in "the valley".

However private homes could install software that would robotically monitor computers used by children.

Also no governmental agency could come into your house or office and take away your computer to see what you downloaded in order to bring criminal charges upon you. The exception of that rule would be concerning people who try to destroy other peoples webpages or computers with bugs or viruses - each country would have the right to investigate and bring such users to justice.

Those international laws would not apply to parents or guardians of children who must supervise their activities on the Net.

Whatcha think?
Technosoul.

[Compugasm]

If the communications network is owned by the government, then none of what you say is possible.

[Young]

Have You been to register.com? They have a computer playing .com Matrix buying up internet names that people may want to Own...they get them for $35 and when someone comes asking about it they want $5000 or even worse. What most of us should try to think of is reverse or parody names for certain companies or news agencies and just get another attachment like .net or .info

I was trying to think of a Parody site name for Foxnews and i was going to buy it and run a site that broadcast real news but then put some off the wall crazy response to each news story....what people would expect from Fox, including polls where like the worst possible answer for Americans is polling at 87%....but when i got ready to do that i found out that the foxnews company bought about 2000 website names in order to prevent just what i was wanting to do....Sean could be approached by TN Vol fans who want a Volconvo UT sports talk/debate zone.....anything is possible on the web....and Gov't control is the last thing we need.

[waterfalllife]

Government doesnt control cyberspace, well, at least America doesnt try to. But since the PATRIOT act, they can now do so, under the guise of "National Security". Many places like Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Iran have very enormous firewalls in place so that people cannot access any opposing viewpoints of the regime. BT in Britain blocks site, but those make sense, as they are mostly child pornography sites and things of that nature.

To refute the idea that they were all pot smoking hippies, im going to give you some background. The internet as we know it would not be possible without two main factors. The technology of the internet itself was created by DARPA, and called DARPANet, DARPA was the secret research group of the government for a long time (mainly during the Cold War).

The second factor is the man who created the World Wide Web and who now runs the W3C, or World Wide Web Consortium, Tim Berners-Lee, recently knighted in the UK. Without him and the creation of the graphic browser, we wouldnt have all the great resources available to us.

[Comrade]

I remember that Ebay or some site like that was selling Nazi antiques, and since that stuff is illegal in France but the French could still go online and see it, a French judge said that Ebay (if that's what it was) had to remove it. An American judge said, "Um, the servers are in America, you have no jurisdiction."

The "internet" is not an amorphous thing, you can have jurisdiction over it, because the internet is based off servers and computers (physical things).

Your proposed law is really worthless. You can claim jurisdiction over servers if they are in your area of jurisdiction, and that makes sense, it is essentially just like TV or radio or anything else, and Free Speech is the check on the government messing with people's webspace.

[PatrickHenry]

?Technosoul? Who's gonna pass, much less enforce yer new law? This is butterface. Address some real issues why don't you?

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, ?Technosoul? Who's gonna pass, much less enforce yer new law? This is butterface. Address some real issues why don't you?

Well they passed a law that no government can claim ownership of the moon, so what is so butterface about doing the same for cyberspace? And I would think freedom of information is more important then moon rocks. So what is so unimportant about that as a real issue. We enforce in theory all kinds of international agreements, about trade, about not having bio-chemical weapons, and other stuff - it would be enforced by some organization like the UN or whatever (and by local countries who self-regulate such agreements).

I think it is a real issue because cyberspace is a global community and should not be chopped up with boarders like some stupid world map.

Technosoul.

[bishop]

heh.. ph is a butterface.

i don't think a special law to give autonomy to cyberspace is a plausible idea.. comrade's right, the government owns it and constitutionally has the authority to regulate it. a better idea would be to return to the long forgotten 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

we could always go back to the good ol' days where government had to establish probable cause to search or spy on someone.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by bishop, heh.. ph is a butterface. i don't think a special law to give autonomy to cyberspace is a plausible idea.. comrade's right, the government owns it and constitutionally has the authority to regulate it. a better idea would be to return to the long forgotten 4th amendment: we could always go back to the good ol' days where government had to establish probable cause to search or spy on someone.

I guess when all is said and done any effort to make cyberspace a totally free zone is impossible. But I thought nothing ventured nothing gained. Too bad about that, I will send the idea into the round file along with my law to ban the bra.

However I was not just trying to waste everyone time with a non-issue topic. In my opinion.

Someone noted the forth admendment. However the FBI or whatever department wants to raid your house is under the belief that the internet communications and downloads are public and not private, because what you relate goes over this network that can be reviewed by a number of persons along the way. And now the homeland security can order any webpage to list all the e-mail addresses of anyone order whatever they have if it might have political or criminal potentials. If you order the Koran and wear a turban, the might be probable cause for some agents. But I do not give much of a hoot anyway because if someone has a hate webpage, a place to gain information about building bombs, or movies that use children for sexual perverts to get off on, then let them harrass them and get that junk out of our face. Most of the time they would have no interest in you if you are not doing such things. But the main problem is when they cause trouble for people who are just protesting the establishment or who are organizing environmental groups, or even people who are just interested in guns and stuff like without intending some sort of rampage. What you do in cyberspace is the same thing as doing it in public according to the perspectives of law enforcement, so they do not view it as spying because anyone can observe what happens in a public place - but not sure if the new stalking law can be allied to police activity or if they are immune to that law?

But for now will bow to the majority opinion that an international law to protect freedom in cyberspace is not going to happen.

Technosoul.

[bishop]

isn't that more about repealing the patriot act that anything else?

[Technosoul]

At least they should rename it - instead of calling it a patriot act they could call it the unconsitutonal act.

Technosoul,