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.
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.
> 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.
I wouldn't say that non-attendance of a geopolitical summit means Doctorow is abstaining from the public debate. Part of the responsibility of people who care about the internet as a platform for free speech is to avoid unduly privileging the preferred broadcast channels of governing elites.
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.
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.
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.
"France" is not involved - the French gvt is, which is slightly different. I think few French citizens would even care about this law, and for those who do, would most likely be against it.
There is also the context of presidential elections next year in France, where Sarkozy is in a tough situation to win. Trying to win points in international summits also works well with French citizen people who have not yet realized France is a minor power for more than 50 years.
>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.
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.
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.
Wait, this is a mistranslation. He said "appartenir", which in this particular instance means "being a part of". It is a warning flag, but nothing actually controversial yet.
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.
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.