Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 12 Sep 1999 08:40:38 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: David Farber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: IP: "The Regulatory Ratchet" and Interception Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: list Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 21:38:12 -0400 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: "David P. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: "The Regulatory Ratchet" and Interception > >Dave - thanks for the pointer to the "consultation paper" on intercepts in >the UK. It was interesting, as you say. > >One portion of the paper uses a rhetorical technique that a friend, with >many years of experience in regulated industries (power and medicine), used >to call the "regulatory ratchet". The "ratchet" is when a regulator makes >a claim that a proposed rule is no more than the generally accepted >practice in other jurisdictions. (the discussion of the government's >requirements on CSPs makes such a claim). But even without specific >intent, the rule tends to be slightly more restrictive, or enforced by >penalties that are more powerful, than in the other referenced jurisdictions. > >Other jurisdictions then use the same logic to bring their regulations up >to the severity of that slightly more powerful rule. > >The resulting regulatory system in the presence of such a "ratchet" becomes >a positive feedback loop, with each step forward by one regulator >justifying the next by another. > >The "regulatory ratchet" is hard to fight, because no regulator wants to >look "softer" than its peers with regard to a problem, and the incremental >losses are tiny, but irreversible. > >Damping the positive feedback loop requires cross-jurisdictional >cooperation, and perhaps in some cases, the establishment of a >countervailing ratchet. > >Perhaps now is the time to form an international committee on Human >Communication Rights that transcends jurisdiction. The international >bodies that regulate communications are all focused on the rights of >governments and on the rights of non-human legal persons (corporations, >etc.). There appears to be no one who stands for the rights of individuals >to communicate (which includes, but is not limited to, free speech rights >of the traditional sort). >- David >-------------------------------------------- >WWW Page: http://www.reed.com/dpr.html **************************************************************** The COOK Report on Internet Index to seven years of the COOK Report 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) ICANN: The Internet's Oversight Board - [EMAIL PROTECTED] NEW - Incompetence or Duplicity? ICANN and it Allies' Stealth Agenda http://cookreport.com/isoccontrol.shtml ****************************************************************
