Sarkozy: Countries Can Not Be Neutral About Unchecked Internet Use

May 24, 2011 -

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has opened the first e-G8 forum in Paris, with leaders in technology such as Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, Wikipedia's founder Jimmy Wales, News Corp chief executive Rupert Murdoch, BBC director general Mark Thompson, and Google's Eric Schmidt set to give talks about Internet technology.

But even as the French president is excited to be thoe host of the technology gathering, many critics have said that the gathering is more about control than internet innovation. Attempting to address some of those concerns, Sarkozy said that the Internet enables and fosters the ability to engage in revolution without all the blood and death:

"The global revolution that you incarnate is a peaceful one. It did not emerge on battlefields but on university campuses," he said.

In the very same breath Sarkozy said that countries around the wolrd could not be neutral and allow "unchecked internet use."

"The world you represent is not a parallel universe where legal and moral rules and more generally all the basic rules that govern society in democratic countries do not apply."

The French president is viewed by many Internet rights advocates as being more supportive of content creators and rights holders than Internet users. The country has one of the toughest file-sharing laws in the world - a three-strikes rule that gives stiff penalties including fines and "internet disconnection."

"I know and I understand that our French idea of copyright laws is not the same as in the United States and other countries," he said. "Nobody can have his ideas, work, imagination and intellectual property expropriated without punishment," he said.

During a Q&A with the president of France, Jeff Jarvis (associate professor and director of the interactive journalism program, CUNY Graduate School of Journalism challenged) asked the president if he would be willing to sign a "do no harm" oath related to the internet. The request was met with icy stares and mild indignation. Sarkozy said that taking control of illegal activity on the Internet could never be considered harmful.

Speaking to the BBC after the event, Jarvis said that the president's comments showed the true intentions of world leaders:

"At least Sarkozy acknowledged that he doesn't own the internet and his government doesn't own the internet. Nonetheless, he is claiming sovereignty here and so will the G8 and I have fear in that.

 

Perhaps out of best intentions they will try to change the architecture of the internet and how it operates, but we don't even know what it is yet. It is too soon to regulate the beast," he said.

Source: BBC


Comments

Re: Sarkozy: Countries Can Not Be Neutral About Unchecked ...

So far I havent heard anything I like from Sarkozy. No one country or company owns the internet. Therefore no one country or companies set of rules/beliefs should rule the internet.

Re: Sarkozy: Countries Can Not Be Neutral About Unchecked ...

Yeah... old power is waking up and realizing that new powers have started to form... and they never like that...

Re: Sarkozy: Countries Can Not Be Neutral About Unchecked ...

And rather than even attempt to adapt, they try their hardest to suppress the new, if not outright destroy it.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Mattsworknamejob they wanted without the unions getting involved. The problem is, it has some unexpected side effects, like the ones Info mentioned07/07/2015 - 8:49am
MattsworknameThe problem being, right to work states exsist specificly as a counter to Unions, as the last 20 or so years have shown, the unions have been doing this countries economoy NO favors. The right to work states came into being to allow people to work any07/07/2015 - 8:49am
Infophile(cont'd) discriminatory. This can only be done for protected classes which are outlined in law (race, sex, religion, ethnicity everywhere, sexual orientation in some states). So, a gay person could be fired because they're gay and have no recourse there.07/07/2015 - 7:27am
Infophile@Goth: See here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/firedforbeinggay.asp for a good discussion on it. Basically, the problem is that in the US, most states allow at will firing, and it's the burden of the fired person to prove the firing was ...07/07/2015 - 7:25am
Goth_SkunkAssuming that's true, then that is a fight worth fighting for.07/07/2015 - 6:58am
Yuuri@ Goth_Skunk, in many states being gay is not a protected status akin to say race or religion. It's also in the "Right to work" states. Those are the states where one can be fired for any reason (provided it isn't a "protected" one.)07/07/2015 - 6:07am
Goth_Skunkregarded as a beacon of liberty and freedom that is the envy of the world, would not have across-the-board Human Rights laws that don't at the very least equal those of my own country.07/07/2015 - 5:47am
Goth_SkunkI find that hard to believe, Infophile. I have difficulty believing employers can *still* fire people for being gay. I would need to see some evidence that this is fact, because as a Canadian, I can't believe that the United States,07/07/2015 - 5:46am
InfophileFor that matter, even women don't yet have full legal equality with men. The US government still places limits on the positions women can serve in the military. And that's just the legal side of things - the "culture wars" are more than just laws.07/07/2015 - 5:43am
InfophileAnd that's just LGB issues. Get ready for an incoming battle on rights for trans* people. And then after that, a battle for poly people.07/07/2015 - 5:41am
InfophileA battle's been won. In many states employers can still fire people for being gay. And in many states, parents can force their children into reparative therapy to try to "fix" being gay. Those battles still need to be fought.07/07/2015 - 5:40am
Goth_Skunkand now they've switched to battles that don't need to be fought.07/07/2015 - 5:37am
Goth_SkunkIn my opinion, it was the final legal hurdle denying homosexual couples final and recognized statuses as eligible spouses. But even though this war's been won, some people are still too keen to keep fighting battles,07/07/2015 - 5:28am
Goth_SkunkAnd it's a trend I don't mind seeing continue. Same-sex marriage was at long-last made definitively legal by SCOTUS, and it's about time. I'm glad it's finally happened, as it was desperately needed.07/07/2015 - 5:25am
Infophile(cont'd) It started long before that. Perhaps the American Civil War comes to mind?)07/07/2015 - 3:59am
InfophileOn Goth's linked article: Historically speaking, there may have been cycles, but remember that the left has steadily gained ground. Is there a good reason to expect that to be different this time? (Oh, and no, Culture War 1.0 wasn't with the Baby Boomers.07/07/2015 - 3:59am
Goth_Skunk"THIS VIDEO IS PROBLEMATIC:" About Social Justice Warriors, by J.T. Sexkik. Excellent video. http://ow.ly/PgGnD07/07/2015 - 3:22am
Goth_Skunkand repeats the cycle, over and over. Presently, the far left culture is overreaching, and is about to lose their stranglehold on power.07/06/2015 - 10:01pm
Goth_SkunkAs far back as the 60's, according to the writers. The culture war moves in cycles from one generation to the next. The left rebels against the right, takes over, overreaches to the point where the right rebels right back, takes over, overreaches ->07/06/2015 - 9:58pm
MattsworknameGoth, what "Comming overreach" , the media and goverment have been overreaching for years07/06/2015 - 9:34pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician