Let's imagine a hypothetical telecommunications regulator is chosen as new leader ICANN and the consequences it could have. ICANN is the organization regulating many critical infrastructure of the Internet, and there was an ongoing power struggle between the values of Internet transparency and openness against the values dinosaur wall Telecommunications gardens, monopolization and monitoring.
Imagine a telecommunications regulator directs the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority in a small country that is so small and insignificant most people on the net just world-politics ignore. Therefore, this particular controller is able to claim all the CV he loves, as nobody checks the claims with the real Internet community in this small country, and would be able to apply - say - a job directs the work more important, it is defend the values of the Internet, which is the head of ICANN.
Imagine this particular controller turns a blind eye to its completely mobile operator zero-tight selection of streaming music services, despite the European Parliament demanding net neutrality throughout Europe and ban completely this practice, how "Basics Free" was recently killed in India and the neutrality of the net retained. This kind of eyes is quite unusual for a telecommunications regulator -. At least one carrying values of the Internet seriously and proudly
Imagine this particular regulator blindly adhere to the hated data retention on ISPs in the small country, despite highly questionable legal basis and completely contradicts the core values of the Internet, to stop the implementation of the monitoring moment when the European Supreme Court found the practice quite illegal, commissioning of its own assessment, then immediately require the same ISP to start mass surveillance. Why?
Imagine regulator hate transparency so that they would prefer illegally disappear evaluating their own authority on the legality of the monitoring and conservation of mass data when the report found mass surveillance was very probably illegal under European protection of human rights:
Director of Post and Telecom Authority, Göran Marby, said it was "inappropriate" to file the assessment of authority of the decision of the European Supreme Court against data retention with the Parliamentary Committee on legal Affairs. If the assessment has been made correctly, it would become public, which Marby did not happen.
Imagine it takes a court in the small country for this particular telecommunications regulation to comply with the very constitution of requirements for transparency documents of authority
Every citizen has the right to access public folders by [paragraph in the Constitution]. […] According to the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal, evaluation [of the legality of data retention] is completed, and thus a uniform document. Therefore, it is a public record. It is so ordered ...
After this decision, two things happen with the hypothetical telecoms regulator: decision authority over mass surveillance is challenged on two accounts, the once on the overall legality and previous Supreme Court precedents on European conservation hated data apply only to very serious crimes -. which means six months in prison or more, and the data is delivered only after a sort of formal legal assessment
first, the general challenge is expected to be called all the way to the Supreme European Court (Court European Court of justice, Court of justice), which has already once said that the practice is illegal, which makes many people consider some exercise and waste time - especially considering our hypothetical own regulatory assessment telecommunications in their own authority has already said the same thing.
The second challenge on the retention of data for serious crimes only, and be opened only after a judicial evaluation has already been decided in the Court of Justice. That did not stop this particular regulator to require ISPs to comply by force, anyway -. Try to bypass due process only by using the superior strength of the blunt authority
"Post and Telecom Authority requires the ISP under threat of heavy fines to ... hand over to the police monitoring data or any other authority where there is a suspicion of crime, regardless of the penalty, if any, for such a crime. "
"this is a typical slippery slope. Initially we were told was the retention of data on terrorism and serious crime. Now the Post and Telecom Authority wants to open this monitoring to various authorities and solitary police officers the request authority and require almost anything they want, "said Jon Karlung, head of ISP Bahnhof.
in summary, imagine that particular regulator in the small country has been completely disagree with the Internet community in that country and the Internet values for their entire career as a telecommunications regulator. Imagine they are so against transparency when it works against them, they prefer removal of documents and reports; imagine they are so unconcerned about due process, they use their power of authority to refine the FAI who banged on their own clients before the court case challenging their right to do all this is even decided. Do you see such a person from head to ICANN of all organizations?
There's just one catch to this scenario. The person in question is not hypothetical.
His name is Göran Marby, and it starts ICANN CEO position in a month, unless ICANN changes his mind by then.
Life under such ICANN, would certainly remain your own responsibility.
0 Komentar