Today Consumers International (CI) and the Web Foundation have announced a partnership to advance the rights of internet users everywhere and create a People’s Charter for the Internet. The initiative comes in response to Web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee’s call for a Magna Carta for the Internet, and follows a global survey which found that 76% of all CI members felt consumer protection was ineffective in the digital economy.
Based on broad expert and public consultation, this Charter will establish clear international principles for a free, empowering, and open Web. Then, CI and the Web Foundation will combine the Charter with the expertise and influence of their more than 400 member and partner organisations across 120 countries to drive positive changes for consumers in law, regulation, and corporate practice.
More than three billion people are expected to be online by the end of 2015, while the Internet economy will reach $4.2 trillion in G20 countries. However, consumer organisations around the world feel that “the rapid evolution of the digital economy is outmoding and outpacing consumer protection”. There are increasing concerns that businesses and governments are centralising control over the Web and are not being held accountable for the way their policies impact Internet users.
Amanda Long, Director General of Consumers International, is adamant this will be a very positive step for consumer empowerment. “The World Wide Web is increasingly the medium through which consumers communicate with each other and with providers across many markets, consume products and services and access information.
“Given its central importance, we urgently need to understand consumer aspirations and concerns in relation to these technologies and the increasingly ‘connected lives’ they give rise to – both in relation to current experiences and future developments. A People’s Charter for the Internet will aim to reflect and give voice to consumers’ concerns and needs and give a unique insight into what consumers really think about the Internet and how they want it to develop in the future.”
Anne Jellema, CEO of the Web Foundation added:
“The Web has become as indispensable to our lives as electricity and transport. So we need to claim the Web as a people’s space, not a money-making machine or a spying machine. Our personal data belongs to us, and we should be able to tell governments and companies when and under what circumstances they can appropriate it. The Web Foundation and Consumers International are joining hands to fight for our rights as consumers and citizens online.”
The Web Foundation looks forward to getting this project started, and we invite you to sign up for our newsletter to receive updates on the project.
Open Sourcerer
December 8, 2015
A GLOBAL CYBERSECURITY AGENCYAbove and beyond the ranking of ICT sector companies with regard to their ICT commissions and/ or omissions (with the hope of their future embarrassment!... and that should include-- for me, and primarily!-- the commissions and/ or omissions surrounding FOSS and FOSH!... i.e., Free and Open Source Software, and Free and Open Source Hardware violations!) initiated by Rebecca MacKinnon, of the Ranking Digital Rights Project, is the need to hold these (and more) to account through criminal and/ or civil measures (in "REAL TIME"!), for their immediate criminal and/ or civil ICT injustices! And yes, the commissions and/ or omissions against FOSS and FOSH, are deserving of both criminal and civil measures!... albeit, in a "CONSCIONABLE WORLD"! But, even effecting "MY" preferred ICT accountability over simple ranking, neglects the millions of lesser websites throughout cyberspace (whether business, NGO+ NPO, or bureaucratic... and whether run by groups, or by individuals), wherein, Digital Rights commissions and/ or omissions (directly and/ or indirectly evidenced) are (and will be) equally guilty of immediate/ ACTIVE criminal and/ or civil injustices (and which includes, and will include, the ICT "things"/ devices that will compose/ comprise the pending ubiquitous "INTERNET- OF- THINGS"!... and the which, victims will have little time, and resource, to remedy!)! And, for which, "REAL TIME" accountability (criminal, civil, and technical measures), is ESSENTIAL (i.e., by way of both "REAL TIME" reporting, assessment, and intervention!... although, and in the case of the commissions and/ or omissions surrounding FOSS and FOSH Digital... and Human... Rights injustices, a more fundamental, and all- encompassing approach, is required!... inasmuch, as the scope and scale of the injustices, warrants a unique global remedy!)!So... how does one effect "REAL TIME" reporting-- to start-- of immediate/ ACTIVE ICT commissions and/ or omissions (directly, and/ or indirectly evidenced)? And then, once reported, and confirmed, how can a victim receive "REAL TIME" ACTION re a confirmed immediate breach, of one's Digital (and Human) Rights (whether an Internet breach, and/ or, one involving some thing/ device associated with the pending "IoT")? Simply, what we need is a GLOBAL, POLITICALLY MANDATED, and AI-based, Digital Rights menu option (in the form of a globally recognized "Digital Rights Icon") within every Proprietary and Non- proprietary Operating System (AND EMBEDDED WITHIN ICT FIRMWARE/ MICROCODE)... OPERATING IN "REAL TIME"... AND OVERSEEN BY THE "FREE AND OPEN SOURCE DIGITAL RIGHTS GOVERNANCES, AND THE FOS ICT COMMUNITIES (the latter, not to be confused with the 'Open Source community'... see, Why Open Source Misses The Point)"!... that will facilitate "REAL TIME" victim report gathering, assessment, and intervention, on behalf of any internet user, and/ or user of an internet linked thing/ device, who believes that a Digital (and Human) Rights breach, is in play! And afterupon "REAL TIME" confirmation of the reported breach, or breaches, a "REAL TIME" remedy, or remedies (whether criminal, civil, or technical... or a combination of these), will then be invoked! And so... if a main internet player (e.g., a corporation, a main designer of an ICT thing/ device, governance, or NGO+ NPO advocacy), or a lesser website, has been confirmed breaching a Digital (and Human) Right, such a player, or website, could receive IMMEDIATE ACTION concerning the confirmed breach... through a global network of ICT report gathering, assessment, and intervention... and, which could involve a remote "REAL TIME" "INTERRUPTION" of the player's, or website's, confirmed Digital (and Human) Rights injustices (and just like the disputed remote actions of those applying "Digital Rights Management"/ DRM... for now!... to hapless internet users/ victims!... and-- of course-- DRM, not to be confused with "Digital Rights"!... see, "Digital Rights", under Wikipedia!)! Think of it as a kind of "Digital Rights 911" for netizens, and mandated "Digital Airbag" for all "Cybercars"!But, just as exciting as these measures are in addressing immediate/ ACTIVE commissions and/ or omissions (directly, and/ or indirectly evidenced) of Digital (and Human) Rights by main ICT players, and lesser websites, is a new direction concerning the future course of current FOSS and FOSH technical developments!... the which, I have recently communicated to various key developers, in these areas!It has recently donned on me, that an even more important state- of- the- art Digital Rights supporting benchmark for personal computers... beyond FOSS and FOSH!... is FOSS and FOSH, written in a Non- proprietary Computer Programming Language!A five- time winner of local, national and international technology awards, the Oregon Helps website provides a screening tool in several different languages for 28 programs in the areas of food and nutrition, health care, housing, children, and family resources, financial benefits, and veteran’s services. By answering a few questions at the beginning of the screening tool, the website directs individuals to more specific questions... depending on age, disability, household composition, and county of residence. The product of an extensive collaboration between several government agencies, non- profit organizations, and a private consultant, Oregon Helps keeps tool maintenance costs under $10,000 per year by, UTILIZING NON- PROPRIETARY COMPUTER PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES (see, Improving Access To Benefits For Low- Income Families... Google cache!).Eureka!-- I thought-- we can improve on FOSS and FOSH, by extending the two notions of FOSS and FOSH, to the LANGUAGES used to create FOSS programs, and FOSH firmware! And so.... given the problems inhere in the use of Proprietary Programming Languages (see-- e.g.-- http://bytes.com/topic/c-sharp/answers/249140-c-proprietary-programming-language... see ᵃ)... let alone, the problems inhere with the "Closedware Apps, Systemware, and Firmware" these languages create!... it is vital that we now begin moving beyond merely FOSS and FOSH!... to FOSS and FOSH written in a FOS Programming Language! And so... I do herein offer up the terms, FOSP FOSS, and FOSP FOSH!... for Free and Open Source Programmed FOSS, and Free and Open Source Programmed FOSH! And the distinction being, that a FOSS program, and FOSH firmware can be prepared in either a Proprietary or Non- proprietary Programming Language, whereas a FOSP FOSS program, and FOSP FOSH firmware, necessitates the use of a Free and Open Source Programming Language!... so that any substantive, or perceived subversive Proprietary control by way of the Closedware Proprietary Programming Language the FOSS program, or FOSH firmware was written in, is eliminated!Now... this is not to suggest that FOS programming languages haven't been used to fashion Closedware programs, or firmware (although... at present!... I can't think of any!)... nevertheless, there is less recourse (leverage... moral, or otherwise!) that Proprietary Programming Language users have, if the Closedware program, or firmware, is designed through the use of a CPPL! And so, not only is the program's or firmware's source code "out of bounds" to closedware users (if programmed using a Closedware- based PPL!), the very Programming Language that the Closedware program or firmware was written in, may also be "out of bounds"! And it's unclear to me... at this point!... whether the FSF-- at least-- is aware of this dilemma!THIS... THEN... PROVIDES PURISM, WITH A WHOLE NEW DESIGN STRATEGY FOR FUTURE PURISM LAPTOPS (IN ADDITION, TO THE NOVENA, AND THE GLUGLUG DESIGNS)!... AND, AN ENTIRELY NEW CROWDSUPPLY CAMPAIGN!-- AT LEAST! AND ONE, I'M CERTAIN, MOST FOSS AND FOSH SUPPORTERS, WILL WANT TO BACK!Lastly, in addition to the inherent robust Digital Rights support that FOSS and FOSH represent, several initiatives have already been in the works... for years!... which have been providing-- and are providing!-- this ESSENTIAL ICT SECURITY to millions of the world's poorest netizens (and e.g., through efforts of such groups as the "Free Geek movement"!)!... not to mention, the provision of FREE WIFI, by way of groups such as the Media Development Investment Fund!So... and simply said... thanks!... "Security Gatekeepers!"... but!... NO THANKS! Your technomae doesn't cut it!... on the security front-- at least!... and, inasmuch, as better technoma currently exists to get the job done!... and!... gratis!... and, for everyone!... equally!And on a Wiki theme, I note with interest-- and extreme prejudice-- the absence within (a) Wikipedia's "List of Programming Languages" (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages); (b) Wikipedia's "List of Programming Languages by Type" (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages_by_type); and (c) Wikipedia's "Comparison of programming languages" (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages) of a distinction/ demarcation between CPPLs, and FOS PPLs. And so, given what I've just relayed concerning FOSP FOSS and FOSP FOSH, it's essential that Wikipedia be "encouraged" to provide this added designation/ elaboration, so that the whole of the collective Free and Open Source community, can-- soon-- begin to focus on these FOS PPLs, in the creation of a new generation, of FOSS programs, and FOSH firmware! And thanx!ᵃ http://opensource.com/business/15/9/free-software-foundation-30-years#comment-83746.Please!... no emails!... or email publication!
Reply
Open Sourcerer
December 8, 2015
In the URL, http://www.iorg.com/papers/iw/19981019-advisor.html, and in an article titled, "The Difference Between Internet, Intranet, and Extranet", Steven L. Telleen offers up the following insights, re what constitutes the Internet, Intranets, and Extranets... and, the relationship these have, to the World Wide Web. He begins, by asking... Q:How does one distinguish between an intranet and an extranet? When I access company- only information over the Internet, is that an intranet or an extranet? A: The term "intranet" is somewhat misleading, conceptually, because it invites a contrast to the term "Internet." The real contrast is with the World Wide Web-- an important distinction, because "Internet" focuses on physical and technical networks, while the Web focuses on the set of content accessible on that physical and technical infrastructure. When I coined the term "IntraNet" at Amdahl Corp. in the summer of 1994, it did have the connotation of an internal Web rather than just an internal Internet. In fact, the term we used internally before this, was the too- cumbersome "Enterprise- Wide Web." So, while the ambiguity of "intranet" was apparent even back then, for lack of a better alternative, it caught on. In the early days, I defined an intranet as "An infrastructure based on Internet standards and technologies that supports sharing of content within a limited and well- defined group." The "infrastructure" referred to the organizational and management infrastructure that created, managed, and shared the content. The only technical constraint was that the physical network be based on the Internetworking Protocol (IP). You might notice that this definition encompasses what we call extranets today, because the defining factor is a "limited and well- defined group," and does not specify any official organizational affiliation. The Web, in contrast, is an unlimited group. Today I think of intranets, extranets, and the Web as collections of content. An intranet is a set of content shared by a well- defined group within a single organization. An extranet is a set of content shared by a well- defined group, but one that crosses enterprise boundaries. These access distinctions are important, because Web- based content uses the same technical infrastructure regardless of access decisions. This means it is much easier to change access to specific content than it was in the old proprietary world, where making something more widely available often entailed a major conversion effort. As technical infrastructure becomes less of a barrier to accessing specific content, it becomes important to pay attention to how, or if, we want to restrict access. The terms "intranet" and "extranet," as imperfect as they are, provide us with conceptual and pragmatic tools for discussing to whom we want to make specific content available. These terms may continue to evolve in meaning. For now, a set of content accessed by members of a single organization is an intranet, even if the information travels across the public Internet infrastructure.________________________________To sum up, I have recently come to the realization that we are missing a few concepts-- and expressions-- with regard to the evolution of the World Wide Web... and, we're missing a key body, with regard to the evolution of the Internet, Intranets, and Extranets (i.e., based on my new notion of what these are... and, must be!).Therefore... I have come up with the expressions, InterWeb, IntraWebs, and ExtraWebs, to delineate/ demarcate the "content areas"-- ONLY!-- of the World Wide Web, as outlined (though, confusingly!) by Steven L. Telleen. And, I've begun referring to the Internet, Intranets, and Extranets, as pertaining to the "physical areas" (and human... i.e., "management"!)-- ONLY!-- that delineate/ demarcate the "World Wide Net" or "Netscape"! And last of all, I have come to the conclusion, that we are in need of an Internet, Intranets, and Extranets Consortium (or IIEC)... and on par with the W3C... to properly address the three fundamental components that compose/ comprise the "physical areas"-- ONLY!-- of the WWN or Netscape. And although groups such as the IETF, Internet Society... and the like... assist in our understanding, and treatment of the physical needs of the Net, a proper approach to the denoted areas, is yet to be realized. And further, allowing the W3C to virtually replicate the work done by sundry groups on the "physical areas" of the Net... and to the neglect (in certain areas) of the "content areas" of the WWW (specifically), is to "muddle" an efficient and effective approach to the evolution of both the WWW, and, the WWN! It's time to "redefine" terms!... and approaches! Please!... no emails!... or email publication!
Reply