Subject: [Raven] FW: Motion concerning "an Internet that promotes non-commercial interests and solidarity" (fwd)

From: "P.J. Ponder" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 18:33:51 -0500 (EST)

The following lengthy message may be of interest to some members of the
list. It is the text, translated from the original French, of a
declaration made at a recent symposium on promoting non-commercial
interests and solidarity in the Internet.  This message was sent to the
mailing list for the Internet Societal Task Force (ISTF). 

Section 3, "Concerning the confidentiality and protection of personal
data:" may be of particular interest to the discussion on whether or not
the IETF should be involved in designing tapping protocols.
--
ponder

<address headers removed>
------------------- forwarded message ----------------
FYI

Mark Perkins
Librarian (acting)
Secretariat of the Pacific Community Library
BP D5, 98848 Noumea Cedex
New Caledonia, South Pacific
Tel: 00 687 262000  Fax: 00 687 263818
email: [email-masked] / web: http://www.spc.org.nc

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Oram [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 10 December 1999 03:48
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Motion concerning "an Internet that promotes non-commercial
interests and solidarity"

The following  statement, which can be freely redistributed, is on the
Web in English at:

    http://www.assises.sgdg.org/motion-assises99-en.html

and in the original French at:

    http://www.assises.sgdg.org/motion-finale-assises99.html

--------------------------

Two years in a row, representatives from a number of "groups,
associations, and trade unions" have met in Paris under the
sponsorship of a group called IRIS (http://www.iris.sgdg.org/) to
discuss policies that would create and preserve an "Internet that
promotes non-commercial interests and solidarity." The final motion
passed by the second forum, which took place on November 27, 1999,
appears below. This document should interest people around the world
who are concerned with access to information for all, even though a
few of the statements touch on particular French laws. Some specific
concepts are explained in notes.

Supplementary statements and a description of the forum itself (with
photos) are available at http://www.assises.sgdg.org/ in French. Also
of interest to those who read French are a set of  "85 recommendations
for a democratic Internet in the year 2000"
(http://www.iris.sgdg.org/documents/rapport-lsi/) which range from
"Assure the liberty of online communications while clarifying each
individual's rights and responsibilities" to "Prevent electronic
commerce from escaping public financial responsibilites."

Andy Oram (CPSR: http://www.cpsr.org).
-----

Motion of the participants at the second forum on an Internet that
promotes non-commercial interests and solidarity

Adopted in Paris on November 27, 1999

(Translated into English by Andy Oram, CPSR. Reviewed by Meryem
Marzouki, IRIS. CPSR and IRIS are GILC members).

The assembly of groups, associations, and trade unions represented on
November 27, 1999 in Paris at the second forum on an Internet that
promotes non-commercial interests and solidarity, at their working
session on the implementation of the recent law "concerning the
information society," conclude the following:

- We observe that current government policies fail to deal with many
societal aspects.

- We declare our attachment to the following principles.

1. Concerning online users' responsibility:

- Respect for individual and public liberties, guaranteed by the
fundamental texts of national and international bodies, should prevail
over all other considerations.

- The legal doctrine of "responsabilite en cascade" [1] is not
applicable to public communication on the Internet. The authors of
such communication are equally its editors on the Internet, outside of
professional contributors where their employers are the editors.

- Only a judicial authority can determine the illegal character of
content on the Internet. Outside of questions relevant to the
protection of personal data, any other form of control should not be
allowed, a priori or a posteriori, by technical intermediaries or by
private or public organizations. The principle stated here rules out
the idea of "autoregulation" or "coregulation."

2. Concerning the regulation of content on the Internet:

- The notion of the "moral obligation of content" (deontology) [2]
makes no sense: there is no deontology except along the lines of a
person's occupation, and such obligation is already exercized by
professionals.

- The regulation of public content on the Internet should remain under
the common rule of law, which guarantees liberty of expression and
enumerates potential abuses precisely and in a strictly limited
sense.

- Content labelling cannot be accepted except in a voluntary and
positive manner. It cannot be imposed on the authors of Internet
sites.

- The filtering of this content should remain the responsibility of
the end users, or of their guardians in cases where the end users are
not legally responsible.

3. Concerning the confidentiality and protection of personal data:

- The protection of fundamental rights of citizens takes place through
the guarantee of confidentiality -- which includes the total
liberalization of cryptography and the non-traceability of messages --
as well as by the strictest protection of their personal data.

- Each individual should have the power to use any means that he or
she finds convenient to protect the confidentiality of his or her
communications, without escrow of private encryption keys.

- No personal data should be stored without the knowledge of the
parties concerned, or used without their express consent.

- The storage of data relating to individuals should not exceed one
month in duration, like in the current case of video surveillance tape
storage.

4. Concerning democratic control over police investigations:

- The fight against crime at the national, European, or international
level should not be a pretext for weakening the fundamental rights of
citizens.

- A parliamentary commission of inquiry, together with the European
Parliament, should examine every organization and/or decree that can
potentially weaken the protection of privacy and personal data. A body
responsible for oversight should be put in place to assure follow-up
for the results of the inquiry. In particular, the activities of
Europol, such as systems for the interception of communications like
ECHELON, should be subject to examination.

5. Concerning trade union rights and worker rights:

- Any illegitimate surveillance of workers should be heavily punished.
The rights to exchange correspondence and to the privacy of this
correspondence should be explicitely upheld.

- Trade union rights should be extended to the use of the Internet
within enterprises and establishments, on the basis of the law of
December 27, 1968 [3].

- A national debate should be opened over changes in working
conditions caused by telecommuting and the information-driven
transformation of society.

6. Concerning controls on advertising and unsolicited communications:

- Every message that is an advertisement or is prodominated by
advertising should be clearly marked as such.

- The reception of unsolicited communications should be subject to the
express consent of the end users.

- Invasive forms of advertisement that disturb the reading of a site's
editorial content should be prohibited.

7. Concerning traditional author's rights and the right to
information:

- Traditional "author's rights" [4] should be preserved and respected.

- The right to information should be exercized through the concept of
private copy, and the extension of this concept to that of fair use,
or use for non-commercial purposes, education, and research.

- Access to public data without charge and to teleprocedures for
conducting public services online should be extended.

- It should not be possible to patent ideas, which we define to
include programming methods and algorithms [5].

- The production and use of free and open content and software should
be encouraged and covered by public policy.

8. Concerning the democratization of Internet access:

- Universal service in telecommunications should be extended to
include Internet access for all, along with a drastic reduction of
local communciation costs. Permanent, "always-on" connections should
be promoted, with each individual capable of acting as an information
provider.

- The assignment of domain names within ccTLDs controlled in France
(such as .fr) and within authorized gTLDs (such as .org, .com, and
net) should be a public service, sold on a non-profit basis at rates
affordable by individuals as well as groups.

- The democratization of Internet access requires the acquisition of a
basic information and electronic education by all, so that each
individual is competent to master social transformations in all their
practical and civic aspects. This goal should be entered into the
mission of public education, which can delegate it under certain
circumstances to non-profit institutions having the same goal.

9. Concerning the struggle against commercialization:

- The exception to trade rules for cultural activities should be
extended to all multifunctional [6] sectors, such as education and
culture.

- The availability of services, utilities, and content for
non-commercial use on the Internet contribute to this
multifunctionality and to cultural diversity.

- The development of electronic commerce should not serve as a pretext
for abandoning public services and the sovereignty of the state,
notably in terms of fiscal revenues.

Notes :

[1] "Responsabilite en cascade" or "chain liability" is a legal
doctrine in the French Press law. Under this law, a publisher who
publishes illegal statements (e.g., in case of defamation or libel)
must be sued before the journalist who wrote the statements. The
journalist cannot be the sole target of a lawsuit, and in some cases
he cannot be made liable at all). The publishing editor assumes
responsibility in any case. This doctrine is different from "vicarious
liability", in that it is specific to the Press law, and in that it
protects journalists and Freedom of Press.

[2] Deontology is the legal term for the ethical or moral obligations
that certain professions impose on their practitioners; such
requirements always depend on the particular conditions under which a
profession does its work. But some legislators have been trying to
extend the concept very broadly so as to create moral requirements for
anyone putting content online.

[3] This law defines trade union rights and worker rights, like the
right to meet and disseminate information inside company buildings,
with special rooms set aside for workers' organizing work.

[4] Author's right is the principle behind French literary and
artistic property. It differs from copyright in that moral and
patrimonial rights rest with the author. Note: The concept of fair use
isn't recognized in the French law.

[5] Algorithmic methods are theoretically unpatentable in Europe under
the Munich Convention. In pratice, software can be patented in some
cases where they are considered processes.

[6] Multifunctionaly is said to be a "European concept", which has
been highlighted for the first time in the United States by NGOs who
met in Seattle to stop WTO Millenium Round. Some sectors of activity
are multifunctional in that they not only produce some commercial
goods or services, but also ensure social cohesion, quality of life
(taking care of environment), civic education, etc.: they are a
social/political project as a whole, thus their multifunctionality.
Examples of multifunctional sectors are Education, Culture,
Agriculture, and Health.

===============================================
Information on how to subscribe and unsubscribe to the cyber-rights-UK 
mailing list is at <http://www.cyber-rights.org/mailing.htm>.
===============================================

_______________________________________________
raven mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/raven

---

From: "Lyal Collins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 22:47:44 +1100

Parts of Section 3 have to be a joke.

Business are by required to keep their records, including interactions with
customers, generally for up to 7 years.
Who would want to deal with a company that deliberately forgets your name?

No single technology guarnatees confidentiality, or privacy.  Encryption
with secure operating systems and secure filesystems go a long way toward
it - but as less than 1% of us are capable of being perfect security
manager/administrators these steps fail sooner or later.

To me, there appears to be some disconnect from reality in this
"declaration".
And yes - both it and my commetns are probably well off topic.

Regards,
Lyal