Internet Censorship

Driver’s Licenses for the Internet: A Rebuttal

February 3, 2010

Infowars.com - I read an article today. It was published in Time magazine, written by Barbara Kiviat, and entitled, “Driver’s licenses for the Internet.” The fear-mongering in this article was unabashed, as the very first sentence stated that even just discussing the current state of Internet security was “scar-y” with a hyphenated “y.” This fear-mongering continues until the fifth paragraph, where THE solution is proposed: Internet licenses.

There is a notable absence in Barbara Kiviat’s article of one of the most important aspects of online access: freedom of expression.

Fear-mongering aside, the arguments for this solution were weak. Kiviat states that a major obstacle to implementing the licenses would be the public outcry against the loss of online anonymity. Her response is that, in the real world, your anonymity is only allowed in public; however if you were to, say, walk into a bank vault, you would need to present ID. Well, the equivalent of that structure is already in place on the Internet, so I fail to see what the issue is. I cannot enter into anyone’s bank account but my own, and even then it is required that I register my online account with the company, and am granted access each time I log in. If someone were to gain access to the online equivalent of the bank “vault,” they would certainly need to present credentials that most of us do not have.

Kiviat’s second argument is that the licenses would prevent scammers from collecting donations for fake charities, as they would have to present their true identity in order to set up such a site. Personally, I am no more likely to give my money to a non-reputable charity that I know nothing about online than I am to some random guy on the street corner with a bucket and a sign. Does that mean that some overly trusting people wouldn’t fall for the scam? No, of course not, but scammers can be prosecuted, online or off, just like someone stealing from a bank would be criminally charged whether they hacked in or walked in off the street and held the place up.

Kiviat mentions identity theft only in the fear-mongering portion of her article. She does not explain how the licensing system would prevent identity theft, perhaps because it would in fact make it easier for criminals to accomplish. Common sense tells us that, if all of our online interactions are consolidated under one license, one only needs to gain access to that license in order to learn everything about you, and to act as though they were you under false pretenses. Seeing as cyber-criminals, to date, have managed to outsmart security protocols time and again, why should we believe that this licensing system would not be vulnerable?

The fact is, right now, you do not have to put your information online. You can elect to provide personal information to certain companies for the sake of convenience, but you still reserve the right to keep any and all information about your identity offline. If these licenses are put into place, will you still be allowed that right? Or will you be required to provide your personal information in exchange for the “privilege” of accessing the Internet? ...

Time Magazine Pushes Draconian Internet Licensing Plan

February 3, 2010

Prison Planet.com - Time Magazine has enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon to back Microsoft executive Craig Mundie’s call for Internet licensing, as authorities push for a system even more stifling than in Communist China, where only people with government permission would be allowed to express free speech.

As we reported earlier this week, during a recent conference at the Davos Economic Forum, Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer for Microsoft, told fellow globalists at the summit that the Internet needed to be policed by means of introducing licenses similar to drivers licenses – in other words government permission to use the web.

His proposal was almost instantly advocated by Time Magazine, who published an article by Barbara Kiviat - one of Mundie’s fellow attendees at the elitist confab. It’s sadistically ironic that Kiviat’s columns run under the moniker “The Curious Capitalist,” since the ideas expressed in her piece go further than even the free-speech hating Communist Chinese have dared venture in terms of Internet censorship.

“Now, there are, of course, a number of obstacles to making such a scheme be reality,” writes Kiviat. “Even here in the mountains of Switzerland I can hear the worldwide scream go up: “But we’re entitled to anonymity on the Internet!” Really? Are you? Why do you think that?”

Kiviat ludicrously compares the necessity to show identification when entering a bank vault to the apparent need for authorities to know who you are when you set up a website to take credit card payments.

“The truth of the matter is, the Internet is still in its Wild West phase. To a large extent, the law hasn’t yet shown up. Yet as more and more people move to town, that lawlessness is becoming a bigger and bigger problem. As human societies grow over time they develop more rigid standards for themselves in order to handle their increased size. There is no reason to think the Internet shouldn’t follow the same pattern,” she writes.

“The people in charge—as much as anyone can be in charge when it comes to the Internet—are thinking about it,” Kiviat barks in her conclusion, seemingly comfortable with the notion that shadowy individuals and not the Constitution itself are “in charge” of deciding who is allowed free speech.

Despite Kiviat’s mealy-mouthed authoritarianism and feigned reasonableness in advocating such a system, Mundie’s proposal is little different to a similar system already considered by officials in Communist China to force bloggers to register their identities before they could post. At the time the idea was attacked by human rights advocates as an obvious ploy “by which the government could control information” and crack down on dissent ...