Do We Need A Technology Bill Of Rights? Or Just More Common Sense?
from the one-or-the-other... dept
A bunch of folks have sent in a proposal by Paul Venezia at Infoworld, suggesting a special "Technology Bill of Rights." While I actually tend to agree with a lot of what he talks about preserving in this Bill of Rights (online anonymity, net neutrality -- especially if there's no competition, and a right to make copies of content you bought, software used for public policy needs to have its source available, etc.) I don't see how it helps to necessarily have it set as a special "Bill of Rights" (not that anyone is seriously considering it). Instead, many of these issues seem like ones that we should strive for through good competition in the market, not enforce by any sort of law.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bill of rights, drm, net neutrality, privacy, security, technology
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like my Granddad always said...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sounds like a damned if i do damned if i dont situation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It will really take a generation or 2 of people using the internet as a tool to really understand how to us it and pass laws that make sence.
Till then we are going to fight people who dont understand the new way the world works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're wrong, Mikey
1. Second amendment rights -- You can say whatever you want about guns and ownership, the fact of the matter is that a line that anti-gun folks spew out as if fact is as wrong as could possibly be. The "2nd amendment never meant for us to own assault rifles with cop killer bullets" is a flatout lie. That amendment was put in so we could fight our govt. if it ever became tyranical. Cops/army have assault rifles, so to fight them, we would need to as well. The spirit of the amendment, whether you agree with it or not, has been completely obliterated, despite the fact that anyone w/an ounce of common sense and 10 minutes with the constitution would recognize the truth.
I know they are separate issues, but the point remains, if you right it down in a "Bill of Rights", it's something you can point the masses to. Common sense is gone, long live the blatantly obvious written law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're wrong, Mikey
I'd suggest doing a little bit of research yourself first; this has nothing to do with the original purpose of the second amendment at all; it was put in there for the purposes of the militia since there was no formalized armed service at the time, and the militia was all volunteers. Look it up in any book about the constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're wrong, Mikey
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm -- "The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution -- "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power" is from George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights. It is generally agreed that the 2nd Amendment is simply the shortened version of Mason's writings.
See, I did my homework, and it seems pretty plain that the framers/writers of the original work intended to give the people a way to fight back against "standing armies". How is their codification of longstanding common law not in keeping with my analysis?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You're wrong, Mikey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You're wrong, Mikey
and
B. The wiki article I cited includes quoted citations of the articles in question: The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and the original work it is agreed to have derived from.
I would argue that is a fairly appropriate use of Wikipedia as a citation. Did you actually look at what I quoted or the Wiki article?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're wrong, Mikey
That is what I have known about U.S. Second Amendment for years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]