Self-regulation? No, police state!

A number of articles appeared in the online press discussing
the recent meeting called by Bertelsmann Foundation in Munich.
The result of the meeting was the Memorandum that can be
found at
http://www.stiftung.bertelsmann.de/internetcontent/english/download/Memorandum.pdf
The analysis seemed very single-sided though. Everybody felt
concerned with the proposed content rating and filtering
scheme. I do not feel concerned with that part. The Memorandum
contains much more than just filtering of content. Actually,
the Memorandum contains four parts.

First part talks about some "self-regulating bodies" without
ever giving a definition of whatever they could be. These
"self-regulating bodies" would cooperate with the government
and ISPs to effectively police the Internet. This part is,
in my opinion, the most important and dangerous part of the
whole memorandum. This is the part I would like to discuss in
detail.

Second, and completely unrelated, part talks about the 
labeling and filtering of the content. The chapter 4 as
you start reading it leaves you wondering what does it
have to do with the rest of the document.  The proposed scheme
is so ridiculous I am surprised that anybody takes it
seriously. In my opinion, this part serves as a bait for
the free speech organizations so that they miss the points
put forward in the first part of the Memorandum.

Then we have the third part where the "hotlines" are discussed.
If you forget for the moment about the second part it is
quite natural that they would want to have a possibility
to enlist people as content reviewers. Otherwise the "self-
regulating bodies" would never be able to review all of the Net.
This part should be seen in the conjunction with the first part.

The fourth part comes at the end of the document and it looks
like if it was thrown in at the last moment. It appears as if
it was added to calm down some people or organizations. The
reasons are not clear, of course, but the last two chapters
of just one page are so unimpressive they can be dismissed
from any further discussion.

Really, I suggest that you just forget about parts that talk
of the content labeling, filtering and mass education. These
are chapters 4, 7 and 8 of the Memorandum. Let's concentrate
on the rest of the document. Now, what do we really have left? 
We have the part that talks about "self-regulating bodies" whose 
target is to take care of the content on the Internet and the 
"hotlines" that support those "self-regulating bodies".

How do they operate? Very simple. The page 9 of the memorandum
specifies that "Internet providers hosting content have an
obligation to remove illegal content when put on notice that
such content exists." And the procedures on how this all should
be happening will be written down in the so-called "codes of
conduct". Interesting. And who approves those? Well, the same
page 9 will tell you that "codes of conduct must be the product 
of and enforced by self-regulatory agencies." And how are those
agencies regulated? "Subject to a process of acquiescence by
public authorities." Later, on page 23 of the Memorandum, you
will find that "effective self-regulation is not possible
without the support of law making and regulation including 
legislation that embraces and empowers the self-regulatory
process."

Let me reiterate from the bottom up now. If you and everybody
keep quiet the set of policies and rules will be established
that allows creation and operation of "self-regulating bodies".
These "self-regulating bodies" will be empowered to tear down
any content they deem illegal using law enforcement where
necessary. And, nobody will control them because they are
"self-regulating". Rather, they will control it all.
Can you spell "police state"?

As a matter of fact, you should not think that you will be able
to get around this time. The Memorandum clearly specifies on
page 22 that "Another major challenge in self-regulation is
the prevention of a ''free-rider phenomenon''...". These people
will put some thought into this challenge, I am sure. The system
will be targeted to prevent any possibility of boycott. You will
be forced into the system or you stay off the Net. There are
no "free-riders", no free speech.

To finish off, I would like to comment on some of the comments
published by different people and organisations. It surprises
me that Nadine Strossen, from American Civil Liberties Union,
argues only against the content filtering.
http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/strossen_munich.html
http://www.aclu.org/features/f090999a.html
It surprises me even more that Esther Dyson, from Electronic 
Frontier Foundation, is unhappy only with content labeling
and privacy issues.
http://www.eff.org/pub/Censorship/Ratings_filters_labelling/19990910_dyson_ratings_comments.html
Global Internet Liberty Campaign issued a statement too and
it does not go any further than arguing against the content
filtering either.
http://www.gilc.org/speech/ratings/gilc-munich.html
Are they all genuinely missing the point of creation of the
international police force that will govern the content on
the Internet?

I would like to emphasize that the Bertelsmann Foundation
is busy with much more dangerous for the free speech games
than it appears to be. They count on your silence. They will
use the acquiescement of the Internet community to turn it
into a tightly controlled media.

Albert Dorofeev
14 September 1999