Feedback to Mr. Mark Zuckerberg   (Published: 31.03.2019)

Dear Mark,

Yesterday, you took on the worldwide development of Internet gaming rules as part of your company's adversity. The internet platform is what it has been from the beginning. Its top decision-making body is ISOC, not the United Nations or the governments of different countries.

The Internet is a platform whose problems are different from those of the social media you represent. Social media management has not been transparent since the inception of the operation.

I believe that the motivation behind Facebook was the pursuit of profit by some unusual means. The action was not based on the realization of human equality, justice and the virtues of individuals in the world.

The first experience was related to East-West computing and related software copyright protection. In the former Soviet Union, western investors did not require software protection legislation. Leading western IT companies created such an ad-hoc standard in 1989 even before the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Another experience relates to fifteen years ago the worst spam noise on the Internet. The Internet community and the governments of the countries were powerless to eliminate. I proposed an international Internet declaration that would have been ad-hoc to control this issue. My relevant article spread widely among international decision-makers (UN / ITU and EU). Nothing happened when the institutional bodies and the Internet community created by governments found a common language.

I recommend looking at the mirror and asking yourself about the motives for starting the action. When social media responsibilities and financial consequences are brought to control by all parties, the "win-win" principle is realized in the realization of social media. There is another new American success story in the mirror, for example, for other countries and future generations.


Is privacy more important than entrepreneurship on the Information Highway?

Operations that are incompatible with good commercial practice and which have gained a hold in the Internet have nothing in common with the purposes for which the Internet was originally created. Can the Internet be cleaned up using administrative means? Would an international declaration help?

Despite firewalls and filters, every day we are forced to receive undesirable messages. The Internet Society, which operates in more than 180 countries, and which bases its activities on openness and communality, is also conscious of the problem. Communality also demands that problems that arise be taken care of inside the community itself.

Openness is a value

As the amount of spam has increased, the principle of openness has lost ground. In its place, closed networks have appeared. Companies’ websites are ’closed’. Anyone wishing to make contact must first of all demonstrate that they are ‘worthy to communicate’ with the company.

Openness and free exchange can also be ensured by technical means. Already in the 1990s, it was noted in connection with hackers and data burglary that the primary approach to the problem could not be an arms race with the troublemakers. The alternative is administrative means.

An outline of approaches

Trade and communications are activities that are both regulated by their own special legislation. The ease of use and non-existent costs of e-mail create an illusion of an opportunity for rapid enrichment with the aid of sales operations extending abroad. There is no exact information of the total amount of this kind of trade. If such information existed, it could by itself dampen the enthusiasm of new entrepreneurs to enter the sector.

A solution to the problem could be the regulation of operations, based on the following principles:

1) The inviolability of the dialogic principle

When someone who is conscious of the environment moves in nature without leaving a trace, they are in a dialogic relationship with nature. People who spread litter and damage nature do not have such a relationship. In the Internet, a contact is dialogic when both parties desire it. A data connection is based on a telecommunications connection, so that the secrecy of telephone and telecommunications can be applied to it. A third party cannot participate in an Internet connection between two others.

2) The contents of human rights must be extended

Everyone has their own inviolable territory. In the case of people walking along a street past shops, this principle of physical inviolability works. In the case of electronic communications, on the other hand, it is now possible to offend people and impute various shortcomings to them. Human rights must be extended to protect the intangible self as well. It must be possible to apply the norms of libel that apply to the press and electronic communications to Internet operations too.

3) Additional legal responsibility for the sender

Legislation governing the freedom of the press emphasizes responsibility for the correctness and integrity of published information. Media must have editors who are also responsible for their content. The Internet network is also a medium and can be regulated in the same way. A spammer who sends mail to innumerable addresses can be identified in the Internet. It is publication comparable to free newspapers, in which the sender often commits solicitation and misdemeanours.

4) Extraterritorial application of the law must be promoted

The ETYK conference held in Helsinki in 1975 was a significant step forward in the regulation of human rights and the press. International trade treaties give way to the extraterritorial application of the law, in which a commitment is made to common legal norms and to the right to institute criminal proceedings over frontiers. Thus, if certain goods are subject to licence in the receiving country, they are also so when offered for sale from outside that country. In Internet commerce, it must be possible to prosecute, in both the sender and recipient countries, those in breach of permit procedures.

5) Officials to issue user identifiers

Internet service providers are both commercial enterprises and the supervisors of network operations. The fact that a seller hides behind an assumed name does not remove their responsibility for their goods and deliveries. When the Internet becomes filled with information on vague goods and even more vague suppliers, questions arise as to the functioning of the supervision. The transfer to public officials of the issuing of user identifiers (communications passports) should therefore be considered, in order to ensure better data protection for real users.

An international Internet declaration

International treaties and national laws separately regulate parts of Internet operations, but there is no intergovernmental treaty on the totality. Based on the principles of the Internet community, it would be possible to make a general international ‘Code of Conduct’ declaration concerning the use of the Internet. Its signatories could be international organizations, governments, corporations, and associations, as well as individual users. A widely based declaration would give a new point of departure for the regulation of activities. It would also give individual users a categorical imperative for themselves!



« Back
News & Commentaries
17.05.2020 At the Red Square after Victory Day celebration More >>
04.05.2020 Time, space, and movement with SDGs More >>
01.03.2020 Knowledge in Russian Society More >>
27.01.2020 Integrity as a starting point for sustainable development More >>
10.01.2020 Open letter to university principals in Finland More >>

Archive >>

Asumer Oy, Espoo, Finland   e-mail address:  Telephone + 358 400 638 660



©2020 Heikki K. Auvinen - Development Consultant - Asumer Oy