1 / 14

Agenda

Høring om censur på internettet Timme Bisgaard Munk ph.d. Europa-huset Torsdag d. 14. november 2013. Agenda. Hvem er jeg? Hvordan ser jeg den aktuelle konflikt med Apple & Facebook versus ytringsfriheden? Hvorfor censur Hvad er problemet? Hvad spørgsmålet? Hvad er løsningen & svaret?.

tamyra
Download Presentation

Agenda

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Høring om censur på internettetTimme Bisgaard Munkph.d.Europa-husetTorsdag d. 14. november 2013

  2. Agenda • Hvem er jeg? • Hvordan ser jeg den aktuelle konflikt med Apple & Facebook versus ytringsfriheden? • Hvorfor censur • Hvad er problemet? • Hvad spørgsmålet? • Hvad er løsningen & svaret?

  3. Hvem er jeg? Redaktør af onlinemediet Kommunikationsforum. Skrevet en ph.d.-afhandling om sociale medier og forsket i Wikipedia, sociale netværk og social bookmarking.

  4. Hvor mange her har læst Facebooks Term of Use? Ræk fingeren op?

  5. “agree” or not – that is the choice As consumer advocate Doc Searls likes to say: “We have a submissive relationship with services.” Internet and telecommunications services and platforms dictate the terms. We have no role in the conception or formulation of the terms; we are merely offered the choice of clicking “agree” or not.

  6. Hvordan ser jeg den aktuelle konflikt med Apple & Facebook versus ytringsfriheden? Et sammenstød mellem retten til at censurere og den uerkendte underkastelse under denne ret til censur. Et sammenstød mellem en kommerciel diskurs versus en demokratisk diskurs. Et sammenstød mellem en liberal frigjort skandinavisme versus en amerikansk middelklasse puritanisme. Et sammenstød mellem en virksomheds forsøg på at beskytte brugerne og sit brand mod pornografi versus brugernes forsøg på at bruge virksomheden som medie for kreativ, kunstnerisk og visuel historieformidling med erotiske billeder. Et sammenstød mellem en ny virtuel offentlighed udenfor demokratisk og politisk kontrol og en grundlæggende oplevelse af retten til at ytre sig og retten til ikke at blive censureret er beskyttet og kontrolleret af staten. Et sammenstød mellem hvad brugerne har skrevet under på som brugsbetingelser versus hvad de tror og forventer er tilladt i brugen af de sociale medier. Et sammenstød mellem hvad brugerne har forpligtet sig til kontraktligt i de sociale medier versus deres forventning til at denne kontrakt kan omstødes eller underkendes af staten.

  7. Hvorfor opstår censur på internettet? Hvad er motivet? • Beskytttelse af den nationale sikkerhed • Beskyttelse af børn • Beskyttelsen af ære og værdighed • Beskyttelse mod tyveri • Beskyttelse mod informationstyveri • Beskyttelse af privatlivet • Beskyttelse af omdømme for virksomheder • Beskyttelse af intellektuelle rettigheder

  8. Hvad er problemet? En offentlighed uden ansvar udenfor lov og ret “Facebook is now a semi-public space in which political and other potentially controversial views are expressed. Amazon is well on its way to becoming a dominant publisher. Google has the power to render any website effectively invisible. Given that freedom of speech is important for democracy, that means that these giant companies are now effectively part of our political system. But the power they wield is– power without responsibility.” John Naughton is professor of the public understanding of technology at the Open University in the Guardian ”Det er en ny form for amerikansk kulturimperialisme. Vi har mistet kontrollen over en væsentlig del af samfundet. Offentligheden eller samfundsdebatten har traditionelt set ligget hos nogle institutioner, vi har brugt mange år på at bygge op, men er nu flyttet til Silicon Valley, i et juridisk ingenmandsland, drevet frem af økonomiske interesser.” Timme Bisgaard Munk, ph.d. i sociale medier.

  9. Hvad er problemet? Uden for demokratisk kontrol? “The reality is that the corporations and governments that build, operate, and govern cyberspace are not being held sufficiently accountable for their exercise of power over the lives and identities of people who use digital networks. They are sovereigns operating without the consent of the networked.” In the long run, if social networking services are going to be compatible with democracy, activism, and human rights, their approach to governance must evolve. Right now, for all their many differences, both Google Plus and Facebook share a Hobbesian approach to governance in which people agree to relinquish a certain amount of freedom to a benevolent sovereign who in turn provides security and other services. …The modern sovereign—otherwise known as government—derives authority even to some extent beyond the community of parliamentary democracies, from varying forms and degrees of consent. It is time for the new digital sovereigns to recognize that their own legitimacy—their social if not legal license to operate—depends on whether they too will sufficiently respect citizens’ rights. Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom by Rebecca MacKinno

  10. Hvad er problemet? Den primitive kontrakt No company will ever be perfect—just as no sovereign will ever be perfect no matter how well intentioned and virtuous a king, queen, or benevolent dictator might be. But that is the point: right now our social contract with the digital sovereigns is at a primitive, Hobbesian, royalist level. If we are lucky we get a good sovereign, and we pray that his son or chosen successor is not evil. There is a reason most people no longer accept that sort of sovereignty. It is time to upgrade the social contract over the governance of our digital lives to a Lockean level, so that the management of our identities and our access to information can more genuinely and sincerely reflect the consent of the networked. What we are witnessing now is the emergence of a new social contract, in which individ- uals give the state (and, frequently, many other actors as facebook) power over in- formation in exchange for security and the conveniences of living in the modern world.” In the Internet age, it is inevitable that corporations and government agencies have access to detailed information about people’s lives. Without transparency and accountability in the use of this information, democracy will be eroded. Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom by Rebecca MacKinno

  11. Hvad er spørgsmålet? Hvordan sikre vi som borgere at private interesser og jagten på profit truer og/eller svækker vores muligheder for at træffe oplyste valg og udtrykke os i demokratiet? Hvem er Facebook & Google ansvarlige overfor? Hvem bestemmer deres politik? brugerne? aktionærerne? offentligheden? ytringsfriheden som ideal? EU? Staten? Hvad bør vi kræve som samfundsborgere?

  12. Hvad er løsningen & svaret? Udarbejde og udmønte digitale mennesker rettigheder og stille krav på internationalt / EU niveau om ytringsfrihed. Udarbejde og udmønte digitale forbruger rettigheder på eu- niveau. Udarbejde og udmønte bindende retningslinjer, krav og regler for censur som kan overvåges. Udvikle et gennemsigtigt framework / proces beskrivelse for hvordan censur gennemføres på nettet. Arbejde med CSR og etiske retningslinjer med uafhængig tredjepart om retningslinjer for immunitet, rettigheder, censur og ytringsfrihed på internettet. Øge den politiske bevidsthed om digitale rettigheder, digital ytringsfrihed og digital censur. Internet værter / cloud / big data aggregatorer burde muligvis følge samme etiske retningslinjer og regler som gælder for resten af offentligheden og de traditionelle presseetiske regler for aviser for eksempel.

  13. Mod en Borger centriske og borge dreven digital verden - et bud på rettigheder • Provide tools for individuals to manage relationships with organizations. • Make individuals the collection centers for their own data, so that transaction histories, health records, membership details, service contracts, and other forms of personal data aren’t scattered throughout a forest of silos. • Give individuals the ability to share data selectively, without dis- closing more personal information than the individual allows. • Give individuals the ability to control how their data is used by others, and for how long. This will include agreements requiring others to delete the individual’s data when the relationship ends. • Give individuals the ability to assert their own terms of service, reducing or eliminating the need for organization-written terms of service that nobody reads and everybody has to “accept” anyway. • Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom by Rebecca MacKinno

  14. Mod de digitale menneskerettigheder Universality and Equality Rights and Social Justice Accessibility Expression and Association Privacy and Data Protection  Life, Liberty, and Security Diversity Network Equality Standards and Regulation Governance

More Related