Internet magna carta? Thoughts?

[LifesCompanion]

After watching the Snowden/Ted Talks video and talking to one of my lecturers at university about the proposed internet magna carta, I started to get curious what others think about it.

(Here's some reference: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26540635

 

Discuss! (keep it peaceful) 

[Dave :)]

*Replaced link as it lead to 404 error.*

[Osmium]

*Replaced link as it lead to 404 error.*

 

That is abuse of power and an invasion of human rights. We must now make a formal document in which you are forced to sign so our rights are not infringed again is this manner!

[LifesCompanion]

*Replaced link as it lead to 404 error.*

Ah thanks, didn't know - fixed before multiple WTF's came in  :3

[GeTecknics]

i think it would be good to have some set of rules for infrastructure but not for general internet use something that all the companies like verizon, at&t, and comcast  have to abide by not the general consumer. Also that content should be available everywhere not region locked

[ShadowofGhosts]

Too many governments have been overly invasive of our privacy. We need one to protect our rights from the extensive overreach of government. May the Internet be free again. 

[TheMonsterMan8]

Because internet laws really work well... (I mean, look at piracy!)

 

On the other hand, I'd like something saying that you cannot see what someone else is doing on the internet without their permission (Cough cough NSA)

[Musikman]

I think something that follows the guidelines of a Magna Carta for the Internet would be nice to have but making it a mandatory requirement would be taking it a step to far. I think it would be most effective in use when applied like the Hippocratic Oath for doctors. They aren't required to take it but it a majority do because it is an ethical and acceptable practice. 

[Norwegiantweaker]

The internet is the last bastion of real freedom of speech left to us. We need to protect that at ALL costs.

[Osmium]

     Why do people get so melodramatic over this issue? Anyway @Musikman I think that distinguishes the Magna Carta from other legal agreements was that the king was forced to sign it and that is what I think the point of this is, that people/governments have to sign it. Personally I do not think that the internet should be completely inaccessible by intelligence agencies. As harsh a reality as this is evil is real. And if the internet is completely free of being monitored then it makes it infinitely easier to do ...erm... bad things. Even the fear of being monitored I think would be sufficient of getting rid of a lot of it but if that fear or total lack of presence is in effect then I think it will cause more bad than good.

     Yes I believe in free speech and yes I do not think that everything should be monitored at all times but I think if law enforcement, counter terrorism, or intelligence agencies, just leave the internet alone it will just make it a lot harder to stop and respond to violence. I think a fair compromise would be you cannot be spied on without being notified you are being watched(in some way). Those are my thoughts which I know very few people around here agree with. But the way I see it is the NSA or the CIA do have a reason to exist and I think it is not good to forget that. A decent counter argument would be that they cause more bad than good but that is an entirely separate debate in and of itself.

[Misanthrope]

It would go well against the Internet's Manifest Destiny a.k.a. SOPA and the like.

[Musikman]

     Why do people get so melodramatic over this issue? Anyway @Musikman I think that distinguishes the Magna Carta from other legal agreements was that the king was forced to sign it and that is what I think the point of this is, that people/governments have to sign it. Personally I do not think that the internet should be completely inaccessible by intelligence agencies. As harsh a reality as this is evil is real. And if the internet is completely free of being monitored then it makes it infinitely easier to do ...erm... bad things. Even the fear of being monitored I think would be sufficient of getting rid of a lot of it but if that fear or total lack of presence is in effect then I think it will cause more bad than good.

     Yes I believe in free speech and yes I do not think that everything should be monitored at all times but I think if law enforcement, counter terrorism, or intelligence agencies, just leave the internet alone it will just make it a lot harder to stop and respond to violence. I think a fair compromise would be you cannot be spied on without being notified you are being watched(in some way). Those are my thoughts which I know very few people around here agree with. But the way I see it is the NSA or the CIA do have a reason to exist and I think it is not good to forget that. A decent counter argument would be that they cause more bad than good but that is an entirely separate debate in and of itself.

That a better statement of what I was going for. I think that the internet needs some sort of basic rule set or guiding principles to give it some kind of moral structure or guidance. An example of this might be something along the lines of "You will be polite and respectful to others and their culture". Now that might not be the best example but having something along that lines that a majority can agree upon will encourage self-policing. It doesn't necessarily need to be something that you are forced to agree to in order to use the internet but just something that you would feel pressured into following because the majority are following and assisting in its enforcement. Think of it as getting everyone to hop on the bandwagon but for a good cause. I agree with your point about the necessity of organizations such as the NSA and CIA. They are need to scourge out the "justifiably" illegal actions that take place on the internet and as a counter-terrorism effort but NOT at the expense of our Constitutional Rights. There is a fine line that they must balance on and unfortunately in recent years it seems that they have fallen of said hypothetical line. There is compromise that needs to be made and there needs to some defined ground rules for each party involved so that neither side can claim a different interpretation that accounts for a significant number of issues.