Federico Pinedo Wants To Control Internet.Saturday 6th of August 2011 10:59:57 AM
Hi folks, the step to report on one of the"serious" Federico Pinedo, the "political" here above (advertising PRO)
Pinedo, Agustín Giustiniani, counsel argued that the draft law is intended to be "a guide for judges, so that they know when wage measures precautionary". Two immediate problems appear: the power to wage measures precautionary falls within the normal activities of the judges, and it would be worrying that judges do not know when and how measures should deliver relief. The second problem is that trying to deflect the political discussions towards so-called "technical problems". That is what is holding Pinedo, for example, in this interview conducted by AM750.
Pinedo said that does not intend to blame the ISP, to say immediately after that if ISPs do not comply with the measure precautionary, they will be responsible for not complying with the measure. For Pinedo, for example, if a journal online publish something which is damaging the morale of anyone, should delete it. With this reasoning, it becomes quickly concluded then that an online diary has less authority than a paper journal, and therefore is bound to a different set of rules. Freedom of expression in digital environments would thus seem not have validity. This draft law adds restrictions limited assurances that exist to freedom of expression in the new technological environments.
And exactly at this point where Bill begins to show its limitations. The definition of "service providers" in article 1 puts in the same hierarchy to an engine search, a hosting provider, a provider of software (like MediaWiki) and platforms (such as an online chat service), a provider of content and information and a provider connection. Does not take even a specialist in the field to realize that, that would have some kind of responsibility for content, responsibilities between a company that is dedicated only to build and connect fiber optic is quantitatively different from the liability of a company that is dedicated only to index content.
In real terms, this project would be like holding accountable those who developed the Index of works banned in the middle ages indicate where was the heretic content. The definition of responsibility entails legal consequences, and it seems that the project is not seeking to absolve them of responsibility, but rather determining that, in fact, search engines or storage providers have responsibility for content generated by third parties. More clear rules of the game, this is changing game companies and services involved.
Solely responsible for content is what creates. And is evident, except for Member Pinedo, a newspaper can not delete content because "technically" the tool is so permits, in the same way that a search engine should not filter content only because it is "technically" enabled to do so. Today is the name of a famous actress, but tomorrow could propose, because technically you can do, restrict terms linked to practices that the Argentine Government considers as a criminal, for example: "perform an abortion".
The specific crimes that this law seeks to remedy the violation of the right of the image, the affront to public morality or even racial crimes Pinedo who mentions in the interview, such as child pornography, are now all regulated in specific legislation. In addition, this outside little, who most violate the rights of persons image are the major media. There are countless failures by unauthorized uses of public images, for use of content protected by copyright without the corresponding authorization, among others. The mass media are the first to systematically violate any of these two rights, but yet no one would tell the quioskero that is responsible for continue to sell the newspaper which violates the right to the image of a celebrity, even when there is an effective complaint. This, and nothing else, is what it purports to do Pinedo to your Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wanted to go back on already criticized draft law Pinedo to regulate the services of the Internet, and particularly an aspect not mentioned so far: the committees rotates the draft are communications e Informática, General legislation and justice.
It seems that even the legislators do not understand that what is at stake here is not a technical or legal issue, but that the crux of the matter is freedom of expression and that there are specialist in that Congressional committees.
The fact that the project is not given to the relevant Commission, because we imagine that a Committee on freedom of expression should, first and foremost, ensure the guarantees that basic right of democracy is not casual. Clear, to disguise the project as something technical and judicial ignores the central theme: what is at stake is the citizen's right to express themselves, to inform and be informed, to exchange information and to use new media digital as what they are, means of communication.
When we put things into perspective: Internet = media, because sounds not so democratic that penalize, trial, restrict, regulate, which aims both to the Dip. Pinedo and many other people, by the way.
Internet is our means of communication, defend it is to defend freedom of expression.
Sources:
(Source OK / OK Protocol / can not be erased)
Pinedo, Agustín Giustiniani, counsel argued that the draft law is intended to be "a guide for judges, so that they know when wage measures precautionary". Two immediate problems appear: the power to wage measures precautionary falls within the normal activities of the judges, and it would be worrying that judges do not know when and how measures should deliver relief. The second problem is that trying to deflect the political discussions towards so-called "technical problems". That is what is holding Pinedo, for example, in this interview conducted by AM750.
Pinedo said that does not intend to blame the ISP, to say immediately after that if ISPs do not comply with the measure precautionary, they will be responsible for not complying with the measure. For Pinedo, for example, if a journal online publish something which is damaging the morale of anyone, should delete it. With this reasoning, it becomes quickly concluded then that an online diary has less authority than a paper journal, and therefore is bound to a different set of rules. Freedom of expression in digital environments would thus seem not have validity. This draft law adds restrictions limited assurances that exist to freedom of expression in the new technological environments.
And exactly at this point where Bill begins to show its limitations. The definition of "service providers" in article 1 puts in the same hierarchy to an engine search, a hosting provider, a provider of software (like MediaWiki) and platforms (such as an online chat service), a provider of content and information and a provider connection. Does not take even a specialist in the field to realize that, that would have some kind of responsibility for content, responsibilities between a company that is dedicated only to build and connect fiber optic is quantitatively different from the liability of a company that is dedicated only to index content.
In real terms, this project would be like holding accountable those who developed the Index of works banned in the middle ages indicate where was the heretic content. The definition of responsibility entails legal consequences, and it seems that the project is not seeking to absolve them of responsibility, but rather determining that, in fact, search engines or storage providers have responsibility for content generated by third parties. More clear rules of the game, this is changing game companies and services involved.
Solely responsible for content is what creates. And is evident, except for Member Pinedo, a newspaper can not delete content because "technically" the tool is so permits, in the same way that a search engine should not filter content only because it is "technically" enabled to do so. Today is the name of a famous actress, but tomorrow could propose, because technically you can do, restrict terms linked to practices that the Argentine Government considers as a criminal, for example: "perform an abortion".
The specific crimes that this law seeks to remedy the violation of the right of the image, the affront to public morality or even racial crimes Pinedo who mentions in the interview, such as child pornography, are now all regulated in specific legislation. In addition, this outside little, who most violate the rights of persons image are the major media. There are countless failures by unauthorized uses of public images, for use of content protected by copyright without the corresponding authorization, among others. The mass media are the first to systematically violate any of these two rights, but yet no one would tell the quioskero that is responsible for continue to sell the newspaper which violates the right to the image of a celebrity, even when there is an effective complaint. This, and nothing else, is what it purports to do Pinedo to your Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wanted to go back on already criticized draft law Pinedo to regulate the services of the Internet, and particularly an aspect not mentioned so far: the committees rotates the draft are communications e Informática, General legislation and justice.
It seems that even the legislators do not understand that what is at stake here is not a technical or legal issue, but that the crux of the matter is freedom of expression and that there are specialist in that Congressional committees.
The fact that the project is not given to the relevant Commission, because we imagine that a Committee on freedom of expression should, first and foremost, ensure the guarantees that basic right of democracy is not casual. Clear, to disguise the project as something technical and judicial ignores the central theme: what is at stake is the citizen's right to express themselves, to inform and be informed, to exchange information and to use new media digital as what they are, means of communication.
When we put things into perspective: Internet = media, because sounds not so democratic that penalize, trial, restrict, regulate, which aims both to the Dip. Pinedo and many other people, by the way.
Internet is our means of communication, defend it is to defend freedom of expression.
Sources:
(Source OK / OK Protocol / can not be erased)