W3C joins the Internet Bill of Rights Bandwagon

By | March 14, 2014
The latest trend is technology companies and consortiums all wanting to motivate an "Internet Bill of Rights" to protect, among other things, the freedom to information exchange over digital media, and the right to privacy in the digital sphere. Google launched a similar campaign in celebration of the Internet's 25th anniversary recently, and the linked effort is spearheaded by the W3C.

What's missing now, of course, is getting all of these organizations to work together – and bringing governments worldwide to cooperate in the interests of their citizens. Assuming that citizen rights is still a priority.

/via +Jeff Sayre 

Web We Want | Celebrating the free, open, universal Web
Sixty-five years ago, this vision was laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Today, we can’t achieve it without an open, universal Web. The Web enables everyone on the planet to participate in a free flow of knowledge, ideas, collaboration and creativity.

7 thoughts on “W3C joins the Internet Bill of Rights Bandwagon

  1. Ryein Goddard

    +Sophie Wrobel Right, but if the government isn't listening to other rights that are already established creating a new Bill of Rights specifically for the internet which to me seems redundant.  We already have a bill of rights and for anyone not trying to circumvent it understands.

    Creating a new Bill of Rights for the internet to me just opens the door for some special laws that aren't as good as our current bill of rights, but maybe this will turn out to be more an international Bill of Rights of the Internet so I guess only time will tell.

    It is really sad America couldn't stand for something when it came to the internet.  They really let me down.

    Reply
  2. Sophie Wrobel

    +Ryein Goddard I can understand your frustration – the ineffectivity of any sort of power organizations is something as old as time itself. Yet one trend that also repeats itself, is countries dispersing an unwanted situation with blood, and then not knowing what they actually want as a replacement for the old system that didn't work. So why not sort that out ahead of the game? Then there'll be something to instantiate when we actually get there. And in case, just in case, some politicians actually listen (there are technology firms with enough cash should they choose to back an initiative like this), we'll be one step farther. Like everything in politics, a very sensitive playing field. But drawing up a charter for revolution is almost as important as 'shedding the blood' in a revolution itself, if not more so: if my recollection of history is not too far off, even the US Declaration of Independence wasn't an afterthought, but rather a forethought, preparation and rallying point.

    Here in the EU, Horizon 2020 is currently on the discussion field, and citizen consultations are taking place across Europe (the consultation in my suburb is on the coming weekend, for example). Sure, it is a long shot from feeding an idea into a citizen discussion forum and implementing change, and things are far from a golden carpet leading the way to certain and peaceful success, but raising awareness and fielding issues is a start.

    Reply
  3. Ryein Goddard

    +Sophie Wrobel I agree with what you are saying, but we have a bill of rights in the United States of America and the rules in that document aren't being followed and people just make amendments even if people don't agree.  The only way things happen is with blood.  You need to pay or it won't happen.  Am I wrong?  What has happened in history that isn't this way?  At least recently.

    Reply
  4. Sophie Wrobel

    +Ryein Goddard a bill of rights is a statement on what society holds to be an ideal world. without one, there is no baseline standard against which we can diplomatically collectively achieve. It's like asking, should you give up to achieve a better world before even trying?

    Reply
  5. Dirk Reul

    I would hope that net neutrality could be restored, however, I do not think large corps like ISPs and governments are interested in that at all. 

    Reply
  6. Allen Hildebrandt

    I doubt that any companies participating are for the restriction of megaconglomerates from policing "Their" services like they own them, even while they open these services up to the public to win success through their exploitation…

    Or I doubt that there will be any rules that prevent the curation and censorship of topics/information by companies because they "Own" their net-space.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.