My point is that it does not matter to the consumer if it is first amendment speech as long as the speaker is held accountable for their speech. My second point is that the issues is very serious if Internet Service Providers attempt to have the same rights as individuals, when they obviously do not share anything related to the general user's experience.
You are correct that the law is still in flux with the users not in the game at all. Some courts are starting to see these cases and must decide who owns the input that may be converted by service providers into more profitable unrelated services. e.g. pictures loaded on the profiles of Facebook users is converted into a facial recognition applications. Where the images owned by the users or the company that provided the platform that allowed the images to be shared. The company's original terms of service claimed no such right, but it was later changed to appropriate the images and other content. User reaction posed a serious problem that an online process to allow consumer input on the drafting of the terms of service, which I would add was controlled by the company resulted in a new terms of service agreement. The power of the service provider is in the network and applications that make it possible for consumers to use computing technology in innovative ways. The questions is this legal. If we move the discussion to physical space and say how about the activity of people who enter a store, restaurant or hotel would the same power to collect retain and use consumer activity apply. It is just as intimate and likely very sensitive information. Is the consumer expectation the same in physical and virtual space? The reasonable person test is the key to what the answer will be in the long term. Shrink wrap licensing agreements support the idea that consumers are taking on the complete risk of downloading and using all software while the developer or those who configure the individual coding contributions of many programs remains free of the consequences of errors. There is a point reach in each adoption of new technology where there is no expectation that the inventor should provide a societal requirement to protect the users: automobiles, telephones, airplanes, electrical appliances until they reach a certain saturation point where their malfunction had greater consequences for society. With computing code and computerized systems could they be designed and built better -- yes. Will computing system be built better than they are is the question. The beginning of the industry there were no rules except meeting the new release deadline--the expectation was that any problems would be fixe with patches--thus "Patch Tuesday" was born. Every start-up that wanted to make it followed the same process--knowing full well that they had flaws in their software--holes that if exploited or the wrong set of circumstances occurred there would be failures. Thus the deployment of shrink wrap licenses. We know that there are better ways to build complex computing systems- e.g. larger commercial aircraft are complex computing systems. The only way these systems will be better are regulations that require that they are better. Microsoft has worked very hard to improve its software at a great cost and many of the issues around early product release practices were corrected. Later companies like Google have had a few known problems, but a lack of obligation to disclose issues means there may be more. The Internet is the ultimate mixing bowl for new software and applications and there consequences for computing devices is mixed. In secure environments there is zero tolerance for applications (apps) and small computing devices (smartphones or thumb drives) because they introduce risks. We should be very serious about how software, firmware and hardware is constructed and hold companies accountable for the functioning of their products. Further the content of users should have the same protections as personal property. The allusion of privacy and ownership should not be fostered by service providers if they have no intention of honoring it because users would not provide information they do not intend to relinquish. But there in rests the problem--is users did not believe they were in a private and controlled space for their use they would not act in certain ways which is of value to micro-targeting for marketing purposes. The value of gathering millions of users and their personal lives is not the system that attracts them, but the computing systems ability to collect user data without their knowledge that makes the online environment--the ultimate human sticky paper. There are a lot of issues that the court or policy makers must decide that will make the resolution of these issues very interesting. On Jun 23, 2012, at 10:59 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Lillie Coney" <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 9:58pm > To: [email protected] > Cc: "NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [ NNSquad ] Re: Cato / Public Citizen: Tim Wu is wrong claiming > searchengines aren't protected by the First Amendment (Lauren Weinstein) > > There is speech that is not protected--if speech causes > reputation or physical injury to another there are > consequences. > > How many courts have ruled that computer code is > a form of speech? Computing heavily relies upon > Mathematics. Mathematics is viewed as the only > universal form of speech. We know that if construction > and civil engineers who rely on mathematics are wrong > they are held accountable for their errors. > > Search engine searches should be viewed in the same > light as searching for a book in a library. But they should not > be owned by the search engine provider, but the searcher. If > it is not then this vital information resource for self and world > exploration will not be fully realized. The chilling effect on search > engine searches being treated as public information is obvious-- > seeking information regarding very private matters--medical > conditions, employment (while still employed), research > on a wide range of topics from simple curiosity to professional > or educational interest would be under a light. > > I understand why Internet Search Engine providers may > want to argue that the searches belong to them--they are valuable > commodities in micro-targeting driven online environment. These > search request are worth billions. But the company would also not > want to be responsible for searches that are deemed to be illegal > in some countries -- certain topics are criminal offenses. > > There are no real firm numbers on how much profit is in > selling data that include all forms of information on users//consumers/ > citizens, but the estimates are in the billions. If users owned > the information being sold that would present some serious > difficulty for the data broker industry. > > Computer code is copyright protected, however many > developers are moving to patents for additional protection > of their work. > > Lillie > > On Jun 23, 2012, at 11:38 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > > I have a simple question, if Cato and Public Citizen claim that > > algorithms written by humans are protected by the first amendment > > because they are authored by humans ... > > > > If the algorithm discriminates against the conversations of (say) > > black people, is it protected speech, or a violation of civil rights? > > > > The argument by Cato/Public Citizen presumes that the search results > > are spoken by the Google company. Yet Google claims that it is not > > prosecutable for libel under the laws of the UK? Yet Google claims a > > purely human *authorship*. > > > > This argument by Cato/Public Citizen includes a significant element of > > sophistry - a rhetorical equating of human voluntary speech to an > > automatic process making a decision to synthesize a result in a > > simplistic scenario - yet in contrast Tim Wu discusses the precedent > > setting nature of giving automatic processes programmed by humans a > > *First Amendment* right! > > > > Sophistry is meant to confuse and conflate. I don't know why Cato and > > Public Citizen want to confuse and conflate - perhaps merely to retain > > alignment with power? > > > > [ David, there are a number of aspects to the issues you've invoked. > > The UK view of libel, which unlike the US system does not permit > > a defense of truth, is one factor. Also, it appears to me that > > ultimately you are conflating to some degree the issues of search > > results per se vs. the contents those results refer to. > > > > But a more basic question is why you (apparently) don't feel that > > search results should have the same level of first amendment > > protection as, say, newspapers, magazines, and other media, which > > have traditionally had such protection, and also express opinions, > > make "best of" recommendations, and so on. > > > > If your concern is specifically the use of automated algorithms, > > I would suggest it is misplaced. The algorithms are merely the > > embodiment of the values and opinions of their human creators, > > and I see no reason why those opinions -- as exercised through > > algorithms -- should not have the same level of protections as > > any other opinions. > > > > The alternative, to suggest that opinions as expressed through > > algorithms should not be subject to first amendment protections, > > would seem onerous indeed. > > > > -- Lauren Weinstein > > NNSquad Moderator ] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > nnsquad mailing list > > http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad > > _______________________________________________ > nnsquad mailing list > http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad
_______________________________________________ nnsquad mailing list http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad
