TechSpot

Internet "Bill of Rights" proposed by anti-SOPA lawmakers

By Rick
Jun 11, 2012
Post New Reply
  1. Congress critter and California republican Darrell Issa is working on the first draft of what may eventually become the "Digital Bill of Rights" -- legislation which could possibly shape online...

    Read the whole story
     
  2. Scshadow

    Scshadow TS Maniac Posts: 357   +40

    Sweet. Its what we need. Its simply unsustainable for the masses to always get up in arms everytime they try to sneak one through. They're going to win one day simply because its going to seem inevitable someday. Just stomp it all out now.
     
  3. Nima304

    Nima304 TS Enthusiast Posts: 300   +36

    I like this idea. It'll stop horrifying legislation like CISPA, ACTA, SOPA, and PIPA from ever being passed.
     
  4. Scshadow

    Scshadow TS Maniac Posts: 357   +40

    I would like to clarify my last post. They can still pass something like this and create hidden loopholes that totally destroy the purpose but the idea is on point of what we need.
     
  5. PinothyJ

    PinothyJ TS Enthusiast Posts: 429   +15

    Does anyone cringe at that image on this page of "We the People," sans comma...
     
  6. 3DCGMODELER

    3DCGMODELER TS Enthusiast Posts: 307   +18

    "I would like to clarify my last post. They can still pass something like this and create hidden loopholes that totally destroy the purpose but the idea is on point of what we need."
    ~
    hmmmm
    ~
    "Does anyone cringe at that image on this page of "We the People,"
    ~
    It Does not say "We The People", Oh there will be loop holes the size of Alaska... forsure
     
  7. PinothyJ

    PinothyJ TS Enthusiast Posts: 429   +15

    Yes it does...
     
  8. Cringe at the Constitution's preamble? Explain please.
     
  9. cliffordcooley

    cliffordcooley TechSpot Paladin Posts: 6,004   +1,503

    For me it was the flag used. That flag does not represent the world as a whole. There are some that may not support a concept when presented with a single nations flag. In a way I suppose the wording could also be seen as equally disturbing.
     
  10. PinothyJ

    PinothyJ TS Enthusiast Posts: 429   +15

    The problem is nothing to do with the flag but with the phrase "We the People" which is missing a comma after "we" which makes it incorrect...
     
  11. citizens should be replaced with "individuals"
    citizens are childs of the state all laws apply to that title
    individuals are childs of god and all laws apply to that title
     
     
  12. Doctor John

    Doctor John TS Enthusiast Posts: 247   +15

    Never mind PinothyJ, I understand (see how I used MY comma earlier!). :)
     
  13. wiyosaya

    wiyosaya TS Enthusiast Posts: 233   +29

    It is correct as it is. Why? Because a comma after "We" would make "the people of the United States" an unnecessary clause. That particular clause is a necessary modifier of "We". As it is, the preamble is written as "We the people of the United States," - note the comma after "States". If there were a comma after "We" and after "States," then the sentence would have to be correct with out all that is in between those two commas. So, "We in order to form a more perfect union" Instead of "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,"

    Have a look at an image of the original from the US Archives. There is no comma after "We" www.archives.gov/global-pages/larger-image.html?I=/historical-docs/doc-content/images/constitution-l.jpg&c=/historical-docs/doc-content/images/constitution.caption.html
     
  14. Doctor John

    Doctor John TS Enthusiast Posts: 247   +15

  15. MilwaukeeMike

    MilwaukeeMike TS Evangelist Posts: 2,088   +716

    Stuff like this scares me. Assuming the govt has our best interest in mind is a huge mistake. They have their own constituents in mind, and the lobbyists who help pay for their campaigns. This 'Bill of right's in a joke. The internet is communication, how can you draw a circle around it and decide what's ok and not ok all in a single list. Digital citizens are created equal? So a country is the same as a person is the same as a computer who acts like a person?

    The internet should be policed slowly and as issues arise, just like everything else. When the govt sticks their hands into something in an undefineable and obscure way, they end up restricting honest use and protecting criminals. Politicians have an endless ability to screw things up and accomplish exactly the opposite of what they intend.

    How exactly like a democrat to try to make some more laws to protect us. He's going to guarantee freedom and privacy huh?
     
  16. davislane1

    davislane1 TS Guru Posts: 1,338   +494

    To me, this sounds like the government has wised up to the fact that marching a regulatory army to the doorsteps of their constituents isn't going to fly, so they've opted for the cloak-and-dagger approach: give the people what they want, structure it to the government's advantage.

    "3. Equality - all digital citizens are created equal on the internet"

    "7. Accessibility - digital citizens have a right to access the internet equally, regardless of who they are or where they are"

    These two items right here are the government's primary doorways to major internet regulation. Once we start talking about internet in terms of rights (rather than a form of communication, which is already protected) we effectively open up Pandora's Box in the form of rights violations. Those violations inevitably lead to additional regulations and/or interventions to protect equality and accessibility, and suddenly you've got a government policed web.

    "10. Property - digital citizens have a right to benefit from what they create, and be secure in their intellectual property on the internet"

    Same deal here. ACTA & friends failed miserably in round one. Repackage copyrights legislation in a more human rights type package, on the other hand, and suddenly you're cooking with fire.
     
    cliffordcooley likes this.
  17. Number 9 and 10 are already in conflict with each other.

    10 is scary in it's wording, and can be used as a constitutional backdoor to overriding 9's privacy rights.

    It is in early stages, but I suspect most people would sign off on something titled "internet bill of rights" without even reading and thinking about it.
     
  18. davislane1

    davislane1 TS Guru Posts: 1,338   +494

    Exactly.
     
  19. TJGeezer

    TJGeezer TS Enthusiast Posts: 385   +10

    Yup, anything that tries to protect people from the unscrupulous and the greedy is doomed to fail, and those durned Democrats like Issa should leave well enough alone. Wait - didn't someone say Issa is a Republican? What the heck kind of Republican is HE, trying to help people?! He should be out passing laws to help corporations make their owners richer, like all the other Republicans do! /s
     
  20. cmbjive

    cmbjive TS Enthusiast Posts: 511   +84

    Digital citizens? What exactly is a "digital citizen"? The only Bill of Rights that should ever be respected is the one in the Constitution. Any other "Bill of Rights" that is going to protect consumers always end up doing more harm than good.

    "He should be out passing laws to help corporations make their owners richer, like all the other Republicans do! /s"

    Yeah! Like what Obama did when it invited PhrMa to the table to help draft Obamacare! Oh wait...
     
  21. Whats wrong with the way it is now its been going strong for the normal user for years any the only reason to pass any type of bill is to help companies and governments have more control
     
  22. MilwaukeeMike

    MilwaukeeMike TS Evangelist Posts: 2,088   +716

    Wyden was the Democrat, Issa is a republican. And it doesn't invalidate my point. The intention of the bill doesn't make it doomed to fail, the fact that the govt is trying to write a few simple rules to govern something extremely complicated makes it doomed to fail. Politicians' goal is too look good, not do good. Look at No Child Left Behind. Almost everyone voted for it, but they left out huge details that made it worthless.

    They will screw it up because how well it works is a distant 2nd to how good it looks when it passes.
     
  23. PinothyJ

    PinothyJ TS Enthusiast Posts: 429   +15

    You have it wrong. The comma in the middle of the unnecessary clause has thrown you -- "...the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." -- and is the reason that it appears to be even more incorrect with the extra comma.


    Hmmmm...
     
  24. It is correct as it is. Why? Because a comma after "We" would make "the people of the United States" an unnecessary clause. That particular clause is a necessary modifier of "We". As it is, the preamble is written as "We the people of the United States," - note the comma after "States". If there were a comma after "We" and after "States," then the sentence would have to be correct with out all that is in between those two commas. So, "We in order to form a more perfect union" Instead of "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,"
    Wrong! There should be a comma, you're confused!
     
  25. What a load of meaningless bombastic rubbish. "Citizens are created as equal" - in what sense? In sense of rights or in sense of abilities? The connection speed is different, depending on your connection type, ISP, chosen plan, etc. Information accessibility is different, depending on the security admittance. Employees of ISPs or Facebook or whatever have access to information other users don't. Some Internet resources are forcefully localized, so depending on which country you are, you see different content or different language or have different prices and can't change it unless you cheat with proxies (I.e. Steam, Apple Store). Certain software that might be required to access certain content is not available to certain countries. Just like people are not created as equal, nor treated as equal in reality, we are not equal on the Internet, and to create equality of Internet law, we would first need to create a Worldwide law base that would be the same in all countries. Unless dear Americans again forget about the 95% of the planet's population and only talk about themselves again.
     


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.