|
Hi all,
On 30/06/18 11:01, Bob Mottram wrote:
On Fri,
Jun 29, 2018 at 06:03:33PM +0100, Rashid Mhar wrote:
These laws are demanding pro-active
steps that aren't even technically
feasible. Such as the scanning of every upload. This means
that ISP's will
react with terms and conditions which allow them to hair
trigger ban
potential violators, or anyone that falls foul of the
recognition signals
that get shared between them as DSM directive violators.
If this goes through I think what will happen is that the ISPs
will
adopt whitelisting policies. They'll offer access to a limited
range of
systems run by the big tech companies and drop any other
unrecognised
packets. That will mean they can have full compliance while also
being
able to monetise any other requirements with additional
subscriptions
and separate terms deferring liability.
That would eliminate a lot of independent internet systems, and it
would
probably be the end of the kind of stuff I'm doing.
One possible proactive response would be to find out what it takes
to
run an ISP. Does it take massive amounts of capital investment?
What if
there were lots of little ISPs?
I'm reminded of the campaign against
Poll Tax, that
was soundly technically beaten at the time but fought back
with low level
resistance through insubordination, and complying as late as
possible with
as many complaints as possible.
I don't think the same would apply for internet regulations
though. Whereas taxation applies to everyone issues around who can
run
internet systems only affect a small minority of the population
who can
easily be ignored. Being in the Free Software realm it's easy to
underestimate just how hegemonic Facebook and Google have become
for the
average user.
If there are number of us, doing a good
piece of work, analysis and
_expression_ on this we can arrange meetings with MP's, council
leaders,
regional mayors, councillors, anchor institutions, VSCS etc to
press these
forward. The key and important step, is being able to clearly
communicate
strong principles where there is agreement supported by
democratic
evidence. It is eminently possible and necessarily doable.
One point here is that politicians aren't often persuaded by
evidence. They're much more likely to be persuaded by an
imaginative
narrative with a moralistic component which doesn't challenge
their
existing business interests.
I think Bob's email didn't show up on the ORG list, so I'm
forwarding it in full.
I've been scrabbling to catch up on this issue. Some useful links
I've found are:
the
Wikipedia overview
FSF's
explanation of the threat to software freedom
and
an
action page from which you can petition your MEP
Remember, you've got less than two days to do this! Also, for those
not on the ORG list,
there's
a video conference at 6.00pm tonight (Tuesday 3rd)
Finally, I'm making a second attempt to attach my slides from the
last meeting.
John
|
MFStalk.odp.7z