NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Pakistan access toYouTube restored after "blasphemous"vid removed
Well, I think this would be an appropriate response if a country believed
something strongly enough. After all, it is exactly what they are doing
just in the opposite direction. I wouldn't call it a death sentence, that's
a pretty strong term. I would rather term it reciprocal sanctions, or some
other similar term.
Personally, I think Google/YouTube's response WAS appropriate. They are
just following the law. Now if their system is setup in such a way that it
can't block particular content from being served to particular
jurisdictions, and this causes the content to be removed from the whole
Internet, then that is unfortunate. It would be best if they could block
such content from being delivered only to the parts of the net in that
particular country.
What should we do about it? I don't know that we can do anything about it
individually. The answer, however, is not writing Google. They can't do
anything about it, other than selectively censor content that is illegal
based upon the location of the requester. They WILL be blocked by the
countries ISP's if they don't comply with the local laws.
What we CAN do is something like you suggested - lobby our government to
take ever increasing steps to discourage and stop this type of behavior.
First make diplomatic contact and let them know of our displeasure. Then
step it up and threaten action. Finally take that action, cut them off of
the Internet, or at least from the part of the Internet that is under your
control (i.e., the ingress points in the USA, if that is the country that is
displeased with the actions of another country). I personally don't think
any further action is justified, such as sanctions on banks, partial
embargo's on computer equipment, full embargo's, or war.
I don't believe individual countries should be able to "set rules for the
whole internet." There should be some framework for resolving disputes like
these just as there is a framework for resolving any other kind of dispute.
As far as I know, no government has been involved on the "defense" side of
any of these disputes, and perhaps it was time that happened.
Fred Reimer
-----Original Message-----
From: nnsquad-bounces+freimer=ctiusa.com@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+freimer=ctiusa.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of Barry
Gold
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 4:57 PM
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Pakistan access toYouTube restored after
"blasphemous"vid removed
Fred Reimer wrote:
>...Google/YouTube may have made the decision to
> comply with the laws or regulations of Pakistan in order to continue to do
> business there, that's their prerogative.
...
> The fix for that is not net neutrality, but rather various steps that your
> government can take to change the government in other countries. This can
> be anything from a message of strong disapproval by your government
> officials, to sanctions on particular items, to a total embargo, to an
> invasion.
In this particular case, I think the appropriate response is a large
number of messages telling Google/YouTube that we think their response
was inappropriate, especially for a firm with the motto, "Don't be evil".
And, frankly, I'm starting to think that the appropriate response to
some of these pipsqueak countries -- that think they should be able to
set rules for the whole internet -- is an internet death sentence. Stop
routing packets to and from those countries. This should be led by the
US and followed by Canada, Europe and Japan. If they want their own
little internet with no "objectionable" content, let them have it, but
keep them out of the global network.
[ Now now, let's not start lobbing death sentences around like
footballs. But this story does bring together a number of
key issues that touch on network neutrality in one way or another.
I'll expand on this in the next message coming down the line ...
-- Lauren Weinstein
NNSquad Moderator ]
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature