Do we need a 2nd Internet?

[globefront]

With all of this discussion over censoring sensitive or anger-prone speech and ideas of the internet and even radio by governments, one must wonder if the true sense of informative freedom and news generation is in danger because of these proposed strides toward centralization. The reason that this centralization is so potentially toxic and prohibitive to the self-expressive and innovative nature that the internet provides is because that power to control content would then be in the hands of only a few. A few hands that many don’t even trust with their healthcare or tax dollars for that matter. And we all know how that quote about absolute power goes…

Organizations such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) essentially have the power to remove or reject domain names from existence if pressured enough by advisory groups of the government. ICANN’s organizational structure is comprised of many regional internet registries, but is also advised heavily by a Government Advisory Committee (GAC). So with all the talks about censoring “heated” political speech, stopping the boogeyman known as cyber terrorism, and an Identity Ecosystem ran by the Government; the pieces seem to be in place for ICANN to become a significant right hand tool used to do away with trouble makers on the internet. Further, how and who comes to categorize a trouble maker in cyberspace is where the real problems begin. They would become the “Idea Police”…

So is a Shadow Internet of some type going to be the last haven of free speech, as a government-controlled and centralized internet infrastructure that picks and chooses which companies and individuals can be assigned or keep domains? Should we go even further and develop multiple DNS systems for different purposes to avoid censorship battles like this in the first place?
Rather, who has the right to decide?

 

[dogtowner]

easier said than done. the govt owns the airwaves and controls the land based. they will kill the golden goose as they usually do.

 

[RoccoR]

globefront, dogtowner, et al,

Governments, by their very nature, are afraid of uncontrolled and unregulated free speech. With the advent of "WikiLeaks" and the recent events in Egypt, governments are becoming even more aware of the power behind the internet and unrestrained communication. They are afraid.

easier said than done. the govt owns the airwaves and controls the land based. they will kill the golden goose as they usually do.

(CONCEPT)

Freedoms Constitutionally:

• It is generally understood that the First Amendment Right (US Only) covers the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly --- and --- to petition the government for a redress of grievances, it is yet to be really and definatively answered as to whether is covers the "virtual" world.
  
• There is a question as to the courts understanding that, with the the advent of technology, there is in speech, press opinion, and assembly, a very virtual counterpart.

Freedoms in general (commerce):

• You will notice that during these most recent times, several governments in the Middle East attempted to shutdowm the access to the internet and cell phone communication. Historically, there is the freedom of commerce and trade concept:
  
  • Freedom of the Seas
    
  • Freedom of the Airlanes
• In the coming years, we will also see the concept building for the freedom of the "virtual network." This is a truly important concept, particularly in the world of commerce and trade.

(COMMENT)

We will all have to be vigilant in the this next decades that the governments of the world, articularly the US, do not use thier power to restrict these freedoms, tax or regulate them beyond that customarily associated with the "physical world" counterparts. There is little doubt in my mind that there will be an attempt.

As long as the US is the Island of Freedom in both the "physical" and "virtual" world, there will be this lane of traffic that Tunisia and Egypt found so effective in creating social change.

(ANSWER - One man's opinion

• Q: Do we need a 2nd Internet?
• A: No, we need to defend what we already have.

Most Respectfully,
R