RE: Net Control is Thought Control

["D.R.Madden" <100611.3205@compuserve.com>]

DIa!?ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyRyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyNDyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyytNSe useful to set out, as I see it anyway, the main questions that need answering. Thanks for any info/insight that you can provide.

1. How is it possible -- in a legal sense -- for the laws of one state (Germany) to
    be imposed globally.
   
   I suspect the answer to this is : it isn't -- CompuServe seems to have pulled the
   plug without recourse to any legal battle (?). This makes it's protestations that it's
   all Germany's fault a little thin.

2. Even granted that Germany can impose it's porn laws on the world, how is
    CompuServe violating German law: it is *not* the case that CompuServe is producing  
    the offending material *within* Germany. Rather , German netties are able to import 
    the offending material from outwith. Hence it is the German netties (or at most the  
    German connection banks) who are violating the pornography laws.
    Analogy: if a German stationary retailer buys a stack of smutty mags in Sweden,
    which wall foul of the German smut laws, and then brings them  into Germany for  
    resale in his store, do the Germans then have a case for closing down the Swedish 
    publisher of the mags?

   Surely it is up to the German connection banks to comply with German law.     
   CompuServe doesn't export anything -- users import. This kills the Satellite porn  
   channel analogy which some people are using (UK censors some such channels).

   The Germans no doubt will argue that the above analogy is faulty in that whereas
   the import of smutty mags is (or can be) subject to border controls, the internet
   is, well, a net -- either the offending material is pulled at source or not at all.
   Not true: the offending material could be pulled from the German net servers.
   Of course, there are ways around the ban (cf. Duncan Frissel's emails passim)
   but the number of minors capable of effecting these would be negligible -- certainly
   not enough to justify 1. above (assuming that 1 can be justified upon any principle)
   
3. Why has Germany picked on CompuServe alone -- not only is it a daft law but
    one which quite obviously fails to capture the rationale behind the law (Thankfully).
   (Possibly a case of the Bavarians blowing the puritanical horn without actually wishing
    to upset the German cyber community too much. Although, interestingly, the silence
    on this issue amongst the German PC community is deafening -- I'll see if I can garner       
    any response to this, and the other points, by sending  this email to the Max-Planck  
    Institute fuer Infomatik in Germany where I used to work).

4. 1 and 3 raise the question: why did CompuServe cave in so easily? The issue could 
     have been in the European courts for the next few aeons allowing CompuServe to 
     proceed as per normal (and since the whole of the EU is effected, surely this is                                                           
     precisely the sort of issue that should be settled by their courts).

     Can any lawyers out there give an indication of the chances CompuServe would
     have in such a case?

5. Bearing above, and previous cypherpunk emails on this issue, in mind, has anyone, or 
    group actually challenged the German decision on legal grounds (as opposed to
    just discussing it)? 

6. Has anyone heard any arguments emanating from Germany itself along the "thin end of
    the wedge" lines? There are plenty of dodgey states out there who will be only too   
    willing to point at Germany, a "civilised Western culture", as a precedent to justify the 
    removal of all sorts of  topics which do not accord with their definitions of   
    acceptability.

I initially thought that Duncan's correlation of net control with thought control (cf. his email of 10th Jan, 12.52pm) was over-stepping the mark (on the grounds that we're not yet eating Clockwork Oranges in a Brave New World). But, bearing 6. in mind, if totalitarian states are able to dictate what appears on the net (and what is read by precisely the "young minds" which Germany purports to protect) then I'm beginning to think he's accurately characterised a potential state of affairs a few years down the line.

 Food for thought control.

Peter Madden

(formally of MPI, Germany, soon to be DRA, UK).

P.S. Pity the average German nettie -- they're excruciatingly embarrassed by this whole
business.

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy