Requirements for a Pirate Party

To discuss a manifest for PPI

Moderator: NoEwS

Requirements for a Pirate Party

Postby infinite_emma » Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:25 pm

Which issues and how, should be represented in each party internationally, in order to be a part of the PP movement. This has been discussed in various threads, and it would probably be appropriate to have one collected thought on the subject. Feel free to add your opinions in regards of this, and once debated thouroughly, we will work on a text to put on the front page.

My personal opinion is that the parties should have a basis in:
- non-commercial filesharing should be legalized.
- DRM to be abolished.
- Patents should be reworked, i.e. clean slate in order to provide a system that is fair and doesn't allow for thousands to die daily, in order to protect investments.
- Digital surveillance of all citizens, not even suspected of a crime, should be forbidden.
User avatar
infinite_emma
Site Admin
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:05 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Postby Juxi » Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:46 pm

I can only agree with those points!!
Image
User avatar
Juxi
Site Admin
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:26 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

Postby Rave » Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:59 pm

When you say 'Digital surveillance of all citizens, not even suspected of a crime' should be forbidden, you don't mean that if they have been suspected of a crime it's not ok for them to be under surveillance, do you? Does this cover camera suvellance of public areas like main streets or parks (to detect crimes, like in dangerous areas at night), or shops to deter/detect shoplifters? I think those are valid forms of suveillance - as long as they are not targeted at a single person.

Apart from that I agree. The Australian an UK PP's are including use of FOSS in public funded sectors as an issue in our manifesto. What does everyone think of PPI including this issue too?
make install -not war
User avatar
Rave
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:08 am
Location: Bordeaux, France

Postby infinite_emma » Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:02 pm

Rave wrote:When you say 'Digital surveillance of all citizens, not even suspected of a crime' should be forbidden, you don't mean that if they have been suspected of a crime it's not ok for them to be under surveillance, do you? Does this cover camera suvellance of public areas like main streets or parks (to detect crimes, like in dangerous areas at night), or shops to deter/detect shoplifters? I think those are valid forms of suveillance - as long as they are not targeted at a single person.

Apart from that I agree. The Australian an UK PP's are including use of FOSS in public funded sectors as an issue in our manifesto. What does everyone think of PPI including this issue too?


Actually, to avoid the kind of misunderstanding you just made, I put DIGITAL there, hahahaha! :D I do not, in other words, refer to camera surveillance in public places.
User avatar
infinite_emma
Site Admin
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:05 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Postby Rave » Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:08 pm

Ok good, jsut checking :) Does that mean we are okay with camera surveillance of public places? where do we draw the line? Personally, I'm ok with public camera surveillance, I think it does it's job to make people think twice about doing something and helps identify people after.
make install -not war
User avatar
Rave
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:08 am
Location: Bordeaux, France

Postby infinite_emma » Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:09 pm

Rave wrote:Ok good, jsut checking :) Does that mean we are okay with camera surveillance of public places? where do we draw the line? Personally, I'm ok with public camera surveillance, I think it does it's job to make people think twice about doing something and helps identify people after.


I'd say we're all entitled to our opinions about it, but not necessarily something that the pirate movement means to politicize.
User avatar
infinite_emma
Site Admin
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:05 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Postby Rave » Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:14 pm

Ok, so ur saying we don't have an official standpoint on this? What if it's not okay to monitor someone digitally llike their email or web activity, etc, but it's okay to set up a camera outside their house to record them, even if there hasn't been a warrant issued? I think rather than just saying we have a standpoint on digital surveillance, it would be better to say something like 'targetted surveillance' -monitoring of specific people by any means.
make install -not war
User avatar
Rave
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:08 am
Location: Bordeaux, France

Re: Requirements for a Pirate Party

Postby pan Piotr Glownia » Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:14 pm

infinite_emma wrote:My personal opinion is that the parties should have a basis in:
- non-commercial filesharing should be legalized.
- DRM to be abolished.
- Patents should be reworked, i.e. clean slate in order to provide a system that is fair and doesn't allow for thousands to die daily, in order to protect investments.
- Digital surveillance of all citizens, not even suspected of a crime, should be forbidden.


Certainly none yet corrupted Polish Pirate Party's program to exclude these issues.
Nec Hercules Contra Plures.
pan Piotr Glownia
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby SM5POR » Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:25 pm

infinite_emma wrote:Actually, to avoid the kind of misunderstanding you just made, I put DIGITAL there, hahahaha! :D I do not, in other words, refer to camera surveillance in public places.

Defending everybody's right to privacy is what I consider one of the core issues of the Swedish Pirate Party. I don't think you can characterize that as objecting to digital surveillance alone, nor is "camera surveillance in public places" the exact opposite of "digital surveillance".

The Swedish Data Inspection Board has consistently interpreted the term "automated data processing" to include any application of digital technology, such as digital cameras or word processors. Under current legislation, this means that different rules apply depending on whether you use a digital or an analog camera to take a photo of a single individual, or whether you use Microsoft Word or a plain mechanical typewriter to comment on the actions of your local politician. Note that the rules need not be very strict, but they are still quite different, as in "rules" vs "no rules".

I don't think this is a sensible interpretation of "automated data processing", as there is no automation involved in me typing a message in Microsoft Word beyond transforming my keystrokes into graphics on my screen or bits on my disk.

If I happen to work for the government, is it ok for me to spy on members of the political opposition just because I use analog cameras and a typewriter instead of their digital equivalents? If I'm a private citizen witnessing said politician accepting money from a drug trafficker, should I be effectively discouraged from reporting this to the press simply because I have Internet access but no stamps, and my only evidence is a digital photo taken using my mobile phone?

Therefore I don't think we should say that digital surveillance is the only privacy issue we need to worry about. Privacy, as a concept, was established long before digital technology was introduced in every aspect of information processing. Computers simplify breaches of privacy, but they also make it easier for individuals to protect themselves from snooping eyes (encryption) and collaborate with like minds to detect and report unlawful surveillance, so I don't think you can refer to the kind of technology used to define the limits of acceptable behaviour among the members of society.

How about referring to "private" and "public" activities instead?
Anders Andersson
User avatar
SM5POR
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 6:47 pm
Location: Uppsala, Sweden

Postby infinite_emma » Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:30 pm

I don't mean to sound like I was the one deciding what it should say. I merely brought up a few points that I think it should contain.

Feel free to make suggestions on the wording, and write a text, each and all, so we can nitpick "for real", other than nitpick on my personal not at all thought through recount of what I feel is important the article should contain.

An appropriate text, is warranted. Not my personal thoughts on the matter! :D
User avatar
infinite_emma
Site Admin
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:05 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Postby Rave » Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:33 pm

Sorry emma! Didn't mean to be attacking you personally! :wink:
make install -not war
User avatar
Rave
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:08 am
Location: Bordeaux, France

Postby Gustav Nipe » Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:33 pm

A pirate party should have atleast this three issues

legalize non-commersial filesharing
remove tha patent system
and fight for a real digital private-life

If a party doesn't have this three core issues the party can't be associated with the pirate movement.
Gustav Nipe
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:23 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby Rafe » Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:54 pm

Okay, so to clarify the surveillance issue, could this be our policy:

To prohibit law enforcement agencies from monitoring specific people, or tapping any private communication, without a warrant. To forbid such surveillance by other agencies, governmental or not. (This includes spyware, which should be punished.) To forbid subpoenaing ISPs and telecoms for their customers' usage data in civil cases.

Critique please.
Image
User avatar
Rafe
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Postby Rick Falkvinge » Sun Oct 01, 2006 10:07 pm

Rafe wrote:Okay, so to clarify the surveillance issue, could this be our policy:

To prohibit law enforcement agencies from monitoring specific people, or tapping any private communication, without a warrant. To forbid such surveillance by other agencies, governmental or not. (This includes spyware, which should be punished.) To forbid subpoenaing ISPs and telecoms for their customers' usage data in civil cases.

Critique please.


I think this is a good wording, although I think the subpoenaing part is too narrow. I'm working on assembling the combined experience of the Swedish PP so far, and that will inevitably provide some input to this process.

But your wording, save for the last sentence, is actually the most concise I have seen so far. If the last sentence... eh, it's actually redunant with the first. The first could be clarified that warrants are only applicable in criminal cases, and you're home. Actually, some more than that - that warrants may only be granted for people under direct suspicion (no 3rd party surveillance) and where the level of the crime is sufficient to warrant the intrusion in privacy (no wiretapping for jaywalking, for example).
Rick Falkvinge
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:42 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Postby Aloa5 » Mon Oct 02, 2006 2:02 pm

abolished.

Im am not sure about the terminology. DRM is bad and should not be used. But as far as I can see it is not possible to make a correct law (with enough selectivity) out of this (if this is meant).

Perhaps proscribed is another word wich fits better ?


"Patents"
This is a little bit too specialized for me-->pharma.
Perhaps we should search a more general phrase wich includes other patent problems as strategical uses of patents/patents wich are not used and only exist to hinder others.
Also pointing out that we are against software- and gen-patents.


Patent law has to be changed as it does more and more not exist to protect investments but to hinder other companys in a strategical way. We are against patent-pools with this aim and unused patents. Especially the PP-int. is against software-patents and any patent-pendings on human genoms wich is unethical.


Greetings
ALOA
Aloa5
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:34 am
Location: Germany

Next

Return to Principles of PPI

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests