Christian Engström, Pirat

28 november 2009

Let’s write an Internet Bill of Rights

Filed under: Bill of Rights,English,informationspolitik — Christian Engström @ 9:25

for the Internet

The Pirate Party and the Green group in the European Parliament are planning to put forward an Internet Bill of Rights.

What do you think it should contain?

We haven’t written one yet, and we want to try a new way of doing so. We want to draft it together with the swarm on the Internet.

Everybody is hereby invited to participate and contribute.

We’ll start with a free form discussion, on especially two topics:

  • What should be in it?
  • What existing documents are there that we can cut and paste from?

The second question comes not just out of laziness a desire to work efficiently, but for a more fundamental reason. We don’t want to reinvent new fundamental rights, unless we absolutely have to.

We want to recognize the fact that the Internet is a central part of our society’s information infrastructure, and clarify that our fundamental human rights apply there as well, just like in the rest of society.

I will give a first draft of an answer to the first question: What sections should be in the Internet Bill of Rights?

  1. Fundamental rights. The European Convention on Human Rights should be respected on the net as well, including Article 8 (the right to privacy) and Article 10 (information freedom).
  2. Net neutrality. Internet operators should provide neutral connections without any restrictions on content, sites, platforms, or the kinds of equipment that may be attached.
  3. Mere conduit. I return for providing net neutrality, Internet operators and other suppliers of information infrastructure should not be held responsible for the information exchanged by their clients.

These are my first suggestions. Are there any other areas that ought to be covered by an Internet Bill of Rights? The floor is open, and all suggestions and comments are welcome.

Comments are even more welcome on the second question: What existing documents are there that already express things that should be in the Internet Bill of Rights?

The European Convention on Human Rights, obviously. But there are lots of other documents that are already established, that say what we want to say. The FCC definition of Net neutraly, a number of already passed EU directives, other documents by various groups or authorities…

Finding information is what the swarm is particularly good at. For that reason, I throw the question open. What is there that we should take into consideration?

The feeling I have after the successful conclusion of the Telecoms Package, is that there are many parliamentarians who agree that we need to address these issues now, and who want to be part of something good.

If we come up with a good proposal, it is not at all impossible that we will be able to build a strong political majority around it. Thing could happen here.

So let’s discuss what it is we want. The floor is open.


Andra bloggar om: , , ,

183 kommentarer

  1. Jag har inget konkret att komma med, men jag vill bara säga att det här är ett fint initiativ från PP och den Gröna Gruppen, både en Internet Bill of Rights och att ni låter medborgarna medverka. Bra jobbat Christian!

    Kommentar av erold — 28 november 2009 @ 10:09

  2. There must be a clear separation between the “the public part” and the “the private part” of the Internet. What I’m doing in the public part can be watched by others, and that is acceptable. Compare with the possibility that a camera can record me when I’m walking around in the city, or that Google can search and index my published work or data.
    But, the private part like sending/reading e-mails, searching and reading on the Internet and to use Internet as a distributed personal computer (or company system) must be private.
    I think that a fundamental problem is that a lot of people can’t see the difference between what Google are doing with public data and what the Swedish surveillance institute (FRA) are doing with booth public and private data.

    Kommentar av arnold — 28 november 2009 @ 10:38

  3. Wouldn’t it be better to simply remove the loopholes in the ECHR?

    I.e. delete 8.2, 9.2, 10.2 and 11.2 entirely.

    Kommentar av Björn Felten — 28 november 2009 @ 10:45

  4. I think it would be rather essential to state a right to anonymity for private persons. This may be the single most important ”new” fundamental right that de facto has been established in the virtual environment of the Internet. We take it for granted, but it may clearly be threatened in the future.

    Furthermore, I’d like to have a provision that guarantees the right for individuals to provide low-volume, non-commercial services on the network without the need for registration or the explicit consent of an upstream provider.

    Finally, there may be a need to explicitly state the right of an owner of a device connected to the Internet to protect this device, and its communication with the network, in any manner the owner sees fit.

    Kommentar av Per Sandström — 28 november 2009 @ 11:00

  5. One document that should be looked at is the APEC privacy framework:

    Kommentar av Niklas Vainio — 28 november 2009 @ 11:08

  6. And since we aim to forge an ”Internet Bill of Rights”, I think we might at least want to re-acquaint ourselves with John Perry Barlow’s classical (and utopian) Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace from 1996.

    Kommentar av Per Sandström — 28 november 2009 @ 11:54

  7. A few ideas:

    Precedence of internet bill of rights before national law. If the right stated in the internet bill of rights comes in conflict with national law, the rights will have precedence.

    Right to encryption. Use of encryption should always be considered justified and anybody should always have the right to use encryption of any type to protect their personal information. It should be illegal to force someone to reveal encryption keys or decrypt material.

    Limitation of juristiction. A person can never be convicted for a crime in another country for something done on the internet. For example, if someone denies the holocaust on a swedish blog (where this is legal), this person can not be considered a german crime (this is illegal in germany).

    Some kind of strong net neutrality in ISP contracts. ISP terms of service should not be allowed to contain terms that allow them to terminate a contract to a customer if the customer publishes controversial information (e.g muhammed cartoons, extremist propaganda etc).

    Also take a look at Per Ström’s manifest for intergrity:

    Kommentar av Pelpet — 28 november 2009 @ 11:57

  8. Hello !

    Digged on:

    My Digg history:

    Please Digg !

    Regards, Urban

    Kommentar av Urban Sundström — 28 november 2009 @ 11:57

  9. Ni kan inte först säga att samma regler skall gälla på nätet som livet i övrigt, bara för att därefter ropa efter en speciell ”Internet Bill of Rights”. Det resonemanget håller inte. Internet är ingen annan värld, det handlar om kommunikation i denna värld och defenitivt inte på jupiter. Sluta upp med att specialbehandla en viss typ av kommunikation.

    Någonstans tror jag att det klickar hos er, jag läste nyss på Erik Josefssons blogg där han proklamerade att ni hjälpt till med att förändra någon skrivning. Jag råder dig att läsa kommentaren av ”Prostata”, det var mitt i prick och grundorsaken ligger antagligen i samma underliga tänkande som du ger uttryck för här mellan raderna, att internet skulle vara någon annan värld som typ. katten släpat in där någon annan form av fri och rättigheter gäller.

    Fika inte efter en ”Internet Bill of Rights”, det blir lätt en grop ni själva faller i. Se istället till att avsteg från de fundamentala rättigheterna inte låter sig göras och gör livet riktigt obekvämt för internets dödgrävare. Se bara hur det blev i den där skrivningen hos Erik. Från ett proklamerande att säkerhet inte kan uppnås utan mänskliga rättigheter, till att säkerhetsåtgärder inte får bryta mot lagen. Vad säger man, Plonk?

    Jag går då inte så långt som kommentatorn hos Erik, utan skyller snarare skaen på obetänksamhet och kanske en samling gamla människor där internet inte är lika självklart som ett brev på posten.

    Kommentar av Patrik L. — 28 november 2009 @ 12:36

  10. I agree with Björn Felten.

    Kommentar av Fredrik — 28 november 2009 @ 12:43

  11. An important source of fundamental rights is the United Nations declaration on human rights, perhaps especially article no. 12 (regarding privacy), article no. 11 (regarding due process, though I think that issue is quite solved via the Telecom Package), and article no. 19 (regarding freedom of expression; ”Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through ANY MEDIA and regardless of frontiers.” clearly prevents any shut down from the Internet, as the Internet is a media where you can ”seek, receive, and impart information and ideas”).

    Kommentar av calandrella — 28 november 2009 @ 12:46

  12. Sorry for my last comment, i read in english and wrote in swedish..

    @Pelpet: ”It should be illegal to force someone to reveal encryption keys or decrypt material.”

    You have the right to remain silent, anything you say or do.. Recognize that? That is a phrase with a firm ground in UDHR. So, forcing people to reveal their information is not OK, we allready have that.

    The german example, again. We do already have UDHR, the german law do not respect UDHR. Why do you think that politicians that makes such laws all of a sudden would respect UDHR when talking about the internet?

    In an environment like that, introducing special bills regarding internet would only give them yet another opportunity to screw things up. Don’t give them that, stop them in what they allready do instead.

    Net neutrality. Yes, that was a good suggestion, but that should have been in the telecom package.

    Kommentar av Patrik L. — 28 november 2009 @ 12:54

  13. Fast, skulle det vara så enkelt så är ju allting redan klart och då borde allt vara frid och fröjd, eller? Nu är det ju tyvärr så att Internet inte betraktas som en allmän plats för kommunikation, publicering och sociala/kulturella/kunskapliga utbyten där grundläggande rättigheter normalt skulle gälla. Internet betraktas som en kommersiell tjänst eller en leksak man kan ta ifrån barnen när de inte sköter sig. Och det är själva problematiken som vi vill komma åt. Christian försöker ju t.o.m. förklara att vi inte bör återuppfinna grundläggande rättigheter om vi verkligen inte måste. Det är inte syftet med denna ”Internet Bill of Rights”.

    Det handlar om att proklamera Internet som en allmänning och gärna med en tillhörande digital allemansrätt. Det är det enda långsiktigt hållbara för att vi inte ska behöva slåss för våra rättigheter på Internet i varenda lagstiftande sammanhang som berör Internet. Eller ja, så perfekt att vi aldrig mer kommer behöva försvara våra rättigheter kan ingen lagstiftning bli, men det skulle bespara oss många hårda strider. Därför stödjer jag detta initiativ helt och fullt och ska ta mig en riktig funderare kring vad som vore bra att ha med i denna ”Internet Bill of Rights”.

    Kommentar av s4mf4c3 — 28 november 2009 @ 13:11

  14. Det jag skrev precis ovan var svar till Patrick L, btw.

    Kommentar av s4mf4c3 — 28 november 2009 @ 13:12

  15. We have to acknowledge that the new technology has not only given us good things. It has provided people with evil intent with new opportunities.

    In a time when a computer can be the target of a crime, or a tool for a crime or somehow involved in a crime, the right for all of us not to be a target of crimes is still valid, and should be the task of our governments.

    What crimes are cyber related?

    Molestations, illegal threats, slander, sexual harassment, privacy violations, fraud, unauthorized usage, sabotage, infringements is what I can come up with right now.

    These crimes are for real and the bill of right should be carefully grafted not to unnecessary impede on our governments’ ability to track down those guilty of such actions.

    Unfortunately, because of the current focus on illegal file sharing, the movement tend to be biased towards measures that would ensure the ability to share files despite the current legislation. However, this is not a good way to approach a bill of rights. Non-commercial file sharing needs to be legalized, so that we won’t have to try to enact ”rights” that will allow people to share files under cover.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 28 november 2009 @ 13:13

  16. Create an “Iran test”. If the Internet bill of rights was implemented in Iran, then it should promote a safe and constructive political discussion where the citizens can act anonymously when needed.
    I know that Iran is not a part of EU, but their young people are native Internet citizens fighting an old generation of something else. Just like we are doing…

    Kommentar av arnold — 28 november 2009 @ 13:16

  17. @Johan Tjäder:

    Kommentar av s4mf4c3 — 28 november 2009 @ 13:33

  18. If you’re looking for documents to inspire an Internet Bill of Rights, what better one to look at than the actual Bill of Rights (the American one)? The Bill is a work of art, exemplary in style and succinctness to how all legal documents should be written. For example, the 8th Amendment’s prohibition of ”cruel and unusual punishment” could be reworded to prevent people from being deprived of internet access. (More humorously, you could also rewrite the 2nd Amendment for this purpose, going alon the lines of ”A well maintained communications network, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to internet access, shall not be infringed.”)

    The right to privacy is also of vital importance of course, so if you add that to this Bill of Rights, I would suggest remixing the 4th Amendment (which deals with unreasonalbe search and seizure) to more clearly include electronic communication and media, even when you’re traveling between EU-countries (ie. customs agends don’t get to check the content on your laptop or MP3).

    The right to due process and presumtion of innocence are other things which need to be codified, and of course the right to free communication (that is, freedom from censorship).

    If the 138 for the Telecomspackage was intended as a HADOPI-killer, then this Bill of Rights should be an ACTA-killer.

    Kommentar av Nicholas Miles — 28 november 2009 @ 13:35

  19. @s4mf4c3:

    Jag tycker inte det var något särskilt klokt skrivet. Internet är inte vilket verktyg som helst. Det är ju det som är piratrörelsens grund.
    Jag kan parafrasera Al Gore.

    Gamla vanor + Gamla verktyg = Hanterbart
    Gamla vanor + Nya verktyg = Katastrof

    Slutsats: När verktygen ändras måste vanorna ändras.

    Eller mer konkret

    Människor krigar med konventionella vapen = Hanterbart
    Människor krigar med kärnvapen = Katastrof

    Slutsats: När vapnen blir för kraftiga måste vanan att gå i krig ändras

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 28 november 2009 @ 14:28

  20. About Net Neutrality:

    I think Net Neutrality needs to be defined. The FCC have listed four principles, that users should be able to

    * access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
    * run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
    * connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
    * competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

    This doesn’t say anything about what type of service level that is to be provided. I think that’s important because without it, Internet can effectively be strangled.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 28 november 2009 @ 14:36

  21. My ideas:
    1) Everybody has the right to privacy. Restricting the right to access Internet anonymously, restricting the right to use encryption or forcing the user to reveal encryption keys under threat of criminal punishment is not acceptable.
    2) Nobody can be held responsible for content they download (be it copyrighted, child porn or anything else). You have no way of knowing what you’re downloading until the download has been completed.
    3) Net neutrality must be ensured.
    4) Freedom of speech must be ensured.
    5) Freedom to create must be ensured.

    Kommentar av next_ghost — 28 november 2009 @ 15:05

  22. […] Grüne und Piraten wollen Bürgerrechte im Netz zum Thema machen. Christian Engström, MdEP, hat jetzt dazu auf seiner Seite schon ein paar Ideen für eine “Internet Bill of Rights” vorgestellt. […]

    Pingback av Internet Bill of Rights. « RaheBlog — 28 november 2009 @ 15:08

  23. @ Johan Tjäder

    I usually agree with much of what you write in comment fields, but this time I beg to differ. I believe you are the only one here who think in terms of file sharing and legal vs. illegal content.

    The topic for the rest of us is democracy and finding ways to improve the robustness of the Internet as a tool to safeguard democracy.

    I strongly second the idea of an ”Iran test” mentioned above.

    Kommentar av Anonym — 28 november 2009 @ 15:12

  24. Calandrella (#11) wrote:

    An important source of fundamental rights is the United Nations declaration on human rights, perhaps especially article no. 12 (regarding privacy), article no. 11 (regarding due process, though I think that issue is quite solved via the Telecom Package), and article no. 19 (regarding freedom of expression;

    The UN declaration on Human Rights is just a declaration that is not binding to anybody. Much better to use the European Convention on Fundamental Rights, which is already binding to all member states (and to an number of non-members as well).

    The ECHR also contains privacy (Article 8), due process (Article 6), and freedom of expression (Article 10).

    Article 10 of the ECHR says:

    Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

    Kommentar av Christian Engström — 28 november 2009 @ 15:16

  25. @Johan Tjäder

    Fast, Internet är inget kärnvapen. Internet är en teknisk revolution att liknas vid när tryckpressen kom. Och visst kan även det skrivna ordet ställa till skada, för vilket det finns det vissa undantag i pressfriheten. Men det är ju undantagen som bekräftar behovet av både pressfriheten och en framtida digital allemansrätt.

    Kommentar av s4mf4c3 — 28 november 2009 @ 15:18

  26. I think we should add that a link can’t be illegal. In other words, Google, The pirate bay, a blog, or any other homepage cannot be held responsible because they have linked material. News corp should not be able to force e.g. Google to remove links.
    But it is also important that we don’t go into this with an “everything should be legal” approach. It must be possible to prosecute people for bullying someone on the net in the same way you may prosecute people who bullies people somewhere else.

    Kommentar av stroll — 28 november 2009 @ 16:14

  27. […] MEP Christian Engström har i ett upprop på sin blogg inbjudit svärmen att spåna på en Bill Of Rights för internet. Det är förvisso ett ambitiöst […]

    Pingback av Felten Fabulerar » Blog Archive » Nej Christian, vi behöver ingen Bill Of Rights för internet — 28 november 2009 @ 16:26

  28. @Stroll

    I think the key here is to think like the freedom of the press/speech/etc, ie anything that is not allowed should be explicitly stated exception, while anything else goes.

    Kommentar av s4mf4c3 — 28 november 2009 @ 17:41

  29. It seems just logical to me to take the Charter for Innovation, Creativity and Access to Knowledge (the ”Charter of Barcelona”) as a source of inspiration in the sections dedicated to the Internet, especially ”Legal Demands”, subsection ”C. Defending access to Technological Infrastructures and Net Neutrality”, and ”Structural requirements for a knowledge society”, subsections ”Privacy” and ”Infrastructure and market regulation”.

    Most of the proposals I see written here are included and organized in the Charter.

    The Charter has been created during and after the FCForum of Barcelona by 70 organizations (representing hundred of thousands citizens) and more than a hundred of experts from all over the world.

    Members of the FCForum:

    Kommentar av Paolo Brini — 28 november 2009 @ 22:10

  30. […] Funderade och skissade tankar kring Christians Bill of Rights. […]

    Pingback av Rick Falkvinge (PP) » 28 november — 29 november 2009 @ 0:37

  31. Freedom of expression is stronger then freedom of speech. Freedom of speech (sv:”yttrandefrihet”) is a part freedom of expression (sv:”uttrycksfrihet”, but it’s mostly translated to ”yttrandefrihet”), so let’s use the stronger wording.

    Björn: Yes, we should remove the loop holes in the ECHR, but opening it up for change means opening it up for MAFIAA influence to change it.

    Net Neutrality (FCC):
    What is a ”legal device”? Does it have to support DRM? Or the other way around: What is an ”illegal device”? Is it enough by not being compliant with standards in the field? (You can always define another standard.) The list goes on. Do we want to have these questions around? And do we want to answer them?

    As always, everything is open for interpretations and compromises.

    Kommentar av Peter Eriksson — 29 november 2009 @ 4:12

  32. In response to (#24)

    It’s a fact that the police is very frustrated with all the new tools and methods appearing to avoid file sharing, because their job preventing other cyber related crime is getting that much harder because of it.

    And we should not fool ourselves by thinking that file sharing doesn’t play a role. But hey, any proposal is worth discussing.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 29 november 2009 @ 9:44

  33. @Peter Eriksson (#32)

    I don’t think it’s specified, or should be specified in a bill of rights, what a legal device is.

    We can not presume to know what types of harmful devices that may be invented in the future, so there must be a way to outlaw any such device. That is something we have to entrust with the lawmakers to make this determination.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 29 november 2009 @ 9:49

  34. @Stroll (#27)

    That’s nitpicking.

    I think the problem with linking is that the current precedent is plain wrong. Linking should be regarded as a part of free speech and therefore be allowed. You cannot get into detail in Bill of Rights document. Judges, especially in the supreme courts – and the human rights court in Europe – must be made aware of this discussion and the properties of the web, so that they know to uphold general principles of freedom of expression.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 29 november 2009 @ 9:59

  35. @Christian (#25)

    You’re right of course, but only with regard to Europe. The rest of the world does not have that kind of binding resolution, so the Bill of Right should be compatible with both set of rules – and perhaps refer to them.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 29 november 2009 @ 10:01

  36. […] Let’s write an Internet Bill of Rights « Christian Engström, Pirate MEP […]

    Pingback av jardenberg kommenterar – 2009-11-29 — jardenberg unedited — 29 november 2009 @ 11:48

  37. […] der schwedische Europaabgeordnete der Piratenpartei Christian Engström heute in seinem Blog (engl.; schwed.) bekanntgab, plant die Fraktion der Grünen und Piraten im Europaparlament, eine […]

    Pingback av Klopfzeilen » Blog Archive » Grüne und Piraten in der EU planen “Bill Of Rights” für das Internet — 29 november 2009 @ 21:44

  38. I can think of two resources that can be helpful.
    First I think that it is important to classify different types of information and having everyone speek the same language. Bruce Schneier have defined a
    taxonomy for social network data. This can serve as a starting point for a more general taxonomy.

    My second thought is that this isn’t new, it have been discussed since the birth of the internet. Cypherpunk ideas can be worth looking at. have a lot of links to different resources, unfortunately many links are dead but some searching can probably find most of it again.

    Were trying to say that the same laws must be valid online and offline, can the existing human rights documents provide some insight?

    Is there a wiki where links can be put up to and proposals can be worked on?

    Kommentar av Stefan — 29 november 2009 @ 22:28

  39. ‘A Right to Anonymity’
    ‘A Right to [not be denied] Internet Access’
    ‘A Right to no state or ISP-mandated censorship’

    just for starters.

    Kommentar av Andrew Tindall — 29 november 2009 @ 22:57

  40. The name is a bit misleading even though it actually is the point.

    However, IMHO, it’d be better with something more akin with Freedom of the press, but for communication of all forms regardless of technology, i.e. Communication Bill of Rights, or Freedom of Communication.

    The name shouldn’t matter, nor the underlaying technology that is used to communicate, since both will surly change over time.

    What is needed is a framework that can easily, and transparently, ad hoc to already existing fundamental rights, yet still be neutral in the face of the ever changing technology, and lol directives and laws. Of course it would’ve to encompass already existing directives as well, which probably would be the most time consuming part, what with all the directives that regulate even more laws concerning everything of differing communication. (I think the last part is what the commission would see as the biggest obstacle, that’s why such a bill need to be transparent, i.e. past directives shouldn’t need much reform.)

    And I hope everyone understands that any fight given to citizen will only be viable as long as it is balanced to right of the state to infringe upon that right under certain circumstances. This means that whether or not it is called Internet Bill of Rights or Communication Bill of Rights it wont pass if it isn’t abstract enough to give all parties its due rights. For instance it has to allow for member countries intelligence authorities, and the EU variant, to functioning, i.e. it has to include what the authorities can do, under what circumstances, and not just what they can’t do, (so to speak.)

    Aaargh, but if sound like a deterrent, I’m actually not. Sure it’d probably be quite a load to tackle, but in the long run, it’d at least create less bureaucracy in the future, and less problems for every one… well except perhaps for ”Hollywood”, if they don’t smarten up soon.

    Kommentar av ST — 29 november 2009 @ 23:08

  41. I wonder why we often are discussing special laws and Bills of Rights for the Internet. The Internet is not much different from the real word, from the telephone system, from the mail system, from public (free) speech. The Internet is just another communications network. So why should there be special laws for the Internet? When there are none for the telephone or mail system? Should there be a Bill of Rights for the telephone system?

    But still, most politicians and lobbyists treat the Internet different from telephone and mail. They have terrorists and pirates and child pornography on their minds when they think about the Internet. They want to control it and censor it. But why? Because the Internet is the most democratic medium, virtually every human can inform herself and make her opinion heard (in some countries like the US or EU more easily than in others like China or Iran, but the possibility still exists), the Internet does not forget (the lies of politicians for instance). So the Internet is perhaps the most dangerous tool for politicians and lobbyists. That’s because they want to control it (and not the telephone or mail system so much). And that’s the reason we seem to need a Bill of Rights for the Internet, though ideally we would not need one.


    If an Internet Bill of Rights is asked not only to contain rights for the users of the Internet, but also responsibilities of the users, we should look at RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines.

    Kommentar av Weirdo Wisp — 29 november 2009 @ 23:08

  42. Patrik L. ”You have the right to remain silent, anything you say or do.. Recognize that? That is a phrase with a firm ground in UDHR.”

    Actually that is the so called Miranda Act, which only applies for US, other countries had other rights to be informed of ones rights.

    England, Germany, Spain, and France have, or effectively had, some rights in this area, like US, but EU on a EU wide basis don’t, as far as I can understand it. (the commissions proposal of 2004 hasn’t yet come into effect as far as I know, and apparently the commission are supposed to have made a new proposal during the Swedish precedency. It’s called the letter of rights [actually there’s a project currently underway trying to surmise the effect of suspects being informed of their rights and what not, that will conclude in mid 2010].) So five years counting, and still no directive.

    Note that I said had in the first paragraph. As it is the is no longer a requirement for the police in US to inform people of their rights. They do, however, have the right to get your personal information, even if they just have a slight suspicion of you not belonging in the vicinity, whereupon you have the obligation to give it, lest you want to be arrested, whereupon you do have a right to be informed of your rights, and they have an obligation to do just so, if it’s not for suspected terrorist activity, and the like, that is, whereupon all you rights are belong to the them.

    England has about the same practical idiocy these days. France wants it. Spain was on the same road, but as far as I understand they actually did the rational thing of not becoming criminals to international conventions.

    Kommentar av ST — 29 november 2009 @ 23:43

  43. @Weirdo Wisp (#42):

    I have a real problem with your argument. The Pirate movement is seeking a change in copyright law because new technology, especially computers and Internet, has changed the preconditions upon which the current copyright law is based, i.e. Internet is not just any tool – it is a ground breaking achievement that forces us to change our habits. The Internet is the nuclear weapon equivalent to information exchange.

    Therefore I disagree that Internet should be seen as just another communications tool. It is fundamentally different, and we need to reevaluate what it should mean to our human rights.

    Another example which should be lifted is the various proposals that bloggers should be registered. Internet has truly upset the balance regarding free speech. Mass communication has always been balanced with publisher responsibility. But when anyone can be a publisher where goes responsibility? Or is it not necessary?

    Furthermore, society has come to rely on Internet services for its very functioning. Government services rely on Internet. Businesses rely on Internet. That makes it imperative to have safeguards to prevent a systematic attack on the net itself. A Bill of Right must be carefully crafted not to impede our ability to protect the net from sabotage.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 30 november 2009 @ 0:20

  44. […] his newest blog entry, Christian proposed an Internet Bill of Rights, which the European Parliament ist supposed to […]

    Pingback av Engström demands “Internet Bill of Rights” « Pirates in Parliament — 30 november 2009 @ 1:37

  45. […] seinem neusten Blogeintrag legt Christian seine Pläne offen, gemeinsam mit seinen Kollegen aus der Grün-piratigen Fraktion […]

    Pingback av Engström verlangt eine Bill of Rights für das Internet « Piraten im Parlament — 30 november 2009 @ 2:05

  46. Right to remain anonymous

    Right to use encryption

    Right to build networks (e.g. wifi or other mesh networks that lack central vulnerable points of attack etc.)

    Mere conduit protection for transmitting information

    Right to provide and use services and content on the Internet

    Network neutrality

    Kommentar av anon — 30 november 2009 @ 9:40

  47. ello,

    I would like to gain your attention on the post you sent on your blog , regarding the writing of a bill of Rights on Internet.

    May I introduce you the chart we have been working on (and still are), that might be a basis to use as well.

    We hope that you and Amelia could be interested for your sppeches and work within the Parliament,

    Best regards,

    NB : this is a Google Translate version ( I will ask for better translation ASAP)

    Since the advent of computers, an international digital community has emerged.
    All the technology and cultural diversity underpinning the Internet should be accompanied by respect for inalienable rights.
    Conscious of our responsibilities and the importance of the Internet on defense of our rights and freedoms that treaties, conventions and declarations already spend, and to guard against all attacks on them at the dawn of an era of peace and digital revolution, we, surfers, hereby declare:

    Article 0: Internet access is an inalienable right.
    Article 0.1: Each individual is free access to internet or not and to choose how to access that right.
    Article 0.2: The surfers are equal in rights and duties (on the network).

    Article 1: The Internet is a network (open) neutral and decentralized.
    Article 1.1: The data will pass equally and indiscriminately, no information has priority over another.
    Article 1.2: Only the judiciary can authorize the surveillance, interception or interdiction of a stream or a given.

    Article 2: No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of access to the Internet.
    Article 2.1: The right to communicate is an inalienable right under the freedom of expression and right to information, which guarantee the right to share knowledge, ideas and culture.
    Article 2.2: Everyone has equal protection of its rights on the Internet so that freedom of consultation and dissemination of the contents of one affects the physical or moral integrity of others.

    Article 3: The Internet is a universal space open to all, and no entity can be appropriated in its entirety.
    Article 3.1: The deployment of infrastructure must facilitate communication and exchange for all.
    Article 3.2: No entity, private or public, can capture arbitrary data or content passing through to serve its interests.

    Article 4: Each person has the right to respect for his privacy.
    Article 4.1: All electronic communications and content, except for publications, are part of privacy. No authority, whether private or public, can monitor the private communications outside the judiciary.
    Article 4.2: The data connection to the Internet and records of activity can be maintained consistently. The private or public activity which requires the retention of certain data must notify their customers and users.
    Only the judiciary can, through an investigation, require retention.
    ? -> 4.3: Where a private or public entity connected to the Internet is not the legal owner or creator of information it stores, it must obtain the consent of users before using their data.

    Article 5: Everyone has a right to anonymity.
    Article 5.1: The use of pseudonyms and identities of virtual non-crossed with the real identity is recognized as a means of protecting freedom of expression and, therefore, be entitled to the user.

    Article 6: No one can impose the use or possession of a particular digital technology, both hardware and for software.
    Article 6.1: The use of encryption methods is free under the protection of privacy.
    Article 6.2: Everyone is free to choose the degree of openness of its connection and adapted to secure a choice which seems the most appropriate without any form of restriction.
    Article 6.3: Each user has the right to information on best practices inherent in Internet use, both for its interactions with other users for their safety and that of his personal information.

    Article 7: The Internet is a common good.
    Article 7.1: The evolution of technology, resources and educational and cultural benefits that the Internet creates must benefit all.
    Article 7.2: The education system must have tools and educational, no predominance of one technology over another, to view, share and expand knowledge on the Internet.

    (Article outstanding)
    Article 8: Guarantee of Rights of the Internet is provided by the public authority.
    Article 8.1: The public authority is independent of any particular interest and act in
    everyone’s interest.
    Article 8.2: Any person or entity may enter the public authority if it considers that its rights have been violated.

    Kommentar av Cwicket — 30 november 2009 @ 12:04

  48. You should probably have a look at some of the ENISA (European Network and Information Security Agency) reports, as they touch on similar issues, albeit from a somewhat different perspective.

    Perhaps you can also find something useful in Marc Langheinrich’s more general research papers on networked privacy:

    Kommentar av Kalle — 30 november 2009 @ 18:03

  49. Tydligare än så här kan det knappast bli:

    Kommentar av infallsvinkel — 30 november 2009 @ 18:58

  50. Här är förresten en annan länk:

    Kommentar av infallsvinkel — 30 november 2009 @ 20:46

  51. Du kanske skulle kika på den Ryska konstiuitionens artikel 23:

    ”Everyone shall have the right to privacy of correspondence, of telephone conversations and of postal, telegraph and other communications. This right may be limited only on the basis of a court order.”

    Även artikel 29 innehåller lite matnyttigt under punkt 4.

    Detta skrivet med en viss.. ja vad säger man sett med lite perspektiv?

    Kommentar av Prosta — 1 december 2009 @ 0:27

  52. I think it’s important to define what the ”Internet” is.
    Is it an network of Machines, witch is used by People to communicate, or is it an network of People who use Machines to communicate.
    the different seems not big. In the first definition, the machines are the important thing in the Internet, in the second the People.
    To explain it otherwise.
    In the first definition, every connected group of Machines will be an Internet but not every group of People who communicate.
    In the second definition, every group of communicating people will be an Internet but not every group of connected machines.

    I wish i could explain it better, but my English is not good enough, i hope someone understand the idea behind that.

    Kommentar av boelwerkr — 1 december 2009 @ 4:43

  53. Hi Christian,

    I think one of the most important things you can do to dismantle the continuous threat against a free speech Internet is to work to ensure that EU will never work to ”fix” things that aren’t broken. When there isn’t a problem, but financially strong parties manipulates politicians to a ”fix”, it is the fix in itself that becomes the major issue.

    An important example is the DMCA in the USA. We don’t have DMCA over here and look at facts: There’s no need. Factual figures prove this is not only an unnecessary fix, but it is also harmful.

    Google has provided figures from a decade and the figures should frighten anyone believing in the DMCA, despite the proof from Europe that it isn’t even needed.

    In its submission, Google notes that more than half (57%) of the takedown notices it has received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998, were sent by business targeting competitors and over one third (37%) of notices were not valid copyright claims.

    The Chilling Effects web site has more details on factual takedown requests and their content.

    DMCA is nothing else than anti-competitive regulation in another package, serving large corporations with financial muscles at the cost of human rights and other legal rights.

    There is no need at looking at ”improving” DMCA to mitigate it’s shortcomings, since the regulation in itself is useless for good causes and a disaster for human rights, legal rights, fair competition and the list goes on.

    Kommentar av Jakob — 1 december 2009 @ 10:31

  54. Christian,

    I would like to add to this that American DMCA is a brilliant tool for you to go out catching new PP, simply by educating the mass on the DMCA consequences and proving that this regulation is what follows if there’s no PP pursuing legitimate justice.

    If you’re lucky, there will also be well-paid people within the EU that soon start to promote an EU DMCA. Perhaps it’s also in ACTA. This should serve as great support to you, perhaps especially Rick, in the education and winning of new, dedicated voters.

    Kommentar av Jakob — 1 december 2009 @ 10:38

  55. Frihet, men under ansvar, på Internet!

    Anonymitet kan inte accepteras,
    Internet är för kraftfullt för det, tex terrorism, barnporr och ekonomisk brottslighet omöjliggör anonymitet.

    Internet är en företeelse som kräver demokratiska rättssamhällen där laglydiga människor inte behöver vara anonyma.

    Kommentar av Thomas Wihlborg — 1 december 2009 @ 13:46

  56. @Thomas Wihlborg

    Det har alltid funnits skäl för möjligheten till anonymitet. Detta har hittills lösts med principen om ansvarig utgivare. Frågan är om den principen är möjlighet att upprätthålla och hur detta praktiskt ska lösas på webben.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 1 december 2009 @ 14:54

  57. @Thomas Wihlborg:

    Vanligtvis är man INTE anonym på Internet. I samband med en polisutredning om allvarlig brottslighet är det, i de flesta fall, en lätt sak för polisen att få fram information om vilken abonnemangsinnehavare som kan misstänkas för brottet.

    Problemet är ändamålsglidningen – bl.a. att privata företag vill utnyttja samma system för att kriminalisera en hel ungdomsgeneration i syfte att upprätthålla en föråldrad affärsmodell.

    Kommentar av infallsvinkel — 1 december 2009 @ 17:20

  58. @infallsvinkel

    Förvisso, men problemet är ju att det är brottsligt. Det är det som måste ändras.

    En rättighetskatalog för internet kan man absolut skapa, men att göra det för att motverka ålderdomliga fildelningslagar är inte rätt skäl. Då är det bättre att ändra upphovsrätten så att den blir modern.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 1 december 2009 @ 17:36

  59. I want to return to the issue of net neutrality.

    I see a big problem with absolute net neutrality, because it seriously affects the possibility to create services with hard real time properties. Today real time services rely on the fact that there is heavy over provisioning in the network. That means we’re all of us paying for the infrastructure necessary to provide real time properties to the net, without prioritizing.

    Should this be written of as an exception to a net netutrality rule?

    Other types of prioritizing is to let through emergency calls before other calls. Should prioritizing a voice service be allowed, and should be allowed to prioritize calls to or from a certain subscriber?

    Is that an exception?

    Does net neutrality fit to be in an Internet Bill of Rights, if it’s going to end up with a lot of exceptions? Perhaps, perhaps not…

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 1 december 2009 @ 17:46

  60. OK this is cool in a major way. Damn you guys are good! 🙂

    Kommentar av Rick — 2 december 2009 @ 0:27

  61. Här har Spanska aktivister något som kanske går inkorporera i detta:

    Jag undrar: Kanske är det klokt att försöka göra en teknikneutral ”Bill of Rights”, så att den gäller för Internet nu, men om något nytt medium eller whatnot kommer om några år, och som ersätter Internet som vi känner det i dag, så gäller denna ”Bill of Rights” även där?

    F.ö. tycker jag att FNs deklaration om de mänskliga rättigheterna är ett bra dokument att utgå ifrån. Då går det även hänvisa dit för att få mer tyngd bakom denna ”Bill of Rights”.

    Kommentar av Tommy — 2 december 2009 @ 10:57

  62. I think you need to define why mere conduit is so important, and instead of writing mere conduit you list the things that could otherwise be blocked, such as Open source programs and forums.

    The right to use hyperlinks, within as well as out from any domain, essential for source listing and distribution of ideas.

    The right to distribute your own creative material in accordance with freedom of speech with the protocol of your choise and without fear of illegal takedown notices.

    The right to receive reparation if exposed to illegal take down notices.

    The right to access any, file, be it webpage, program or otherwise, made available for free on the internet by the creators, without limitation, including but not limited too Open source and Creative commons works.

    And, since it seems like ACTA is trying to put a lid on any kind of independently created culture:
    The right to use, create or manufacture and obtain devices and programs that allow creative work such as, but not limited too, film making and editing, sound recording and editing.

    Kommentar av David´ — 2 december 2009 @ 19:09

  63. Oh, yes, there needs to be something about the right to validity in a court of law when licensing under Creative Commons or GNU.

    Kommentar av David — 2 december 2009 @ 19:11

  64. Christian,

    Threats to effective and productive use of the worlds collective human capital needs to be dismantled at the core. For example, threats we’ve seen in the past applying to knowledge and content of DeCSS to decrypt DVD’s needs to be prevented from ever happening again. It’s not a clever use of world’s human resources to threat people from sharing knowledge of how DVD’s can be decrypted and played also on non-commercial platforms. This only means that the wheel needs to be reinvented again and again, instead of having people focus on constructive work. And the idea to penalize the process of circumventing technical obstacles and reverse-engineering is outright silly. It’s understandable that no person respects such a law. So protect human resource capital and make anti-circumvention and anti-reverse-engineering measures illegal. Make it a Right to Collaborate and Protect People from Intellectual Censorship.

    Using a monopoly position or threats to enforce anti-competitive measures is as far as I understand it already illegal. EU needs to put weight behind it’s words and start prosecuting companies for the DVD Region Code scheme. Your Bill of Rights could contribute as an attack vector to this end. People have a Right to a market Free of Anti-Competitive measures.

    I also concur with the statement to, in the atmosphere of Free Expression, the Right to Protection against takedown notices and cease and desist letters.

    People also have a Right to Regulation that is based on Independent Factual Findings and Thorough Independent Evaluation to avoid mistakes like DMCA, Ipred, Hadopi, etc.

    Kommentar av Jakob — 2 december 2009 @ 20:46

  65. @David’ (#62)

    Mere conduit is a principle already defined by the EU, which however could be improved by some little tweaks.

    The principle is important because internet operators today, and owners of printing presses yesterday, have no vested interest in defending you as a publisher of information. Therefore repressive governments have always tried to enforce censorship by striking at the middleman. A commercial evaluation would be to drop you as a customer at the first sight of problem. That’s now how we defend free speech.

    The importance of the mere conduit principle is already well recognized. However, not every judge in Europe pay concern to important principles. And that’s a problem we’re not getting rid of by establishing new rights. That needs a reform of the court system. In the U.S. everyone has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers. Well there were no peers sitting in judgement of The Pirate Bay founders in the Stockholm circuit court, and there is certainly no peers waiting in the court of appeal either.

    Take down notices aren’t exactly illegal. They may be invalid, but anyone should be able to make the claim. And in principle you are entitled to compensation for any expenses you might have during the trial. The problem is that the industry can afford to loose, while you as an individual usually can’t. That needs fixing. If you as an individual gets sued by a large corporation you should be entitled to a defense paid by the state – as in criminal proceedings. If you loose you’ll have to pay damages of course, but the cost of the trial should be covered by the state. If you win, the company pays trial costs to the state and not to you.

    The state doesn’t have to be neutral. We, the people, can decide it should be on our side.

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 2 december 2009 @ 23:48

  66. @Johan Tjäder
    Today the internet works by best effort, that is a packet will be sent as soon as possible but without any guarantees of when (or even if) it will be sent. This works if the network always have more capacity than the traffic sent on it requires. Internet was never supposed to handle real-time traffic. Quality of Service was invented as a method to prioritize traffic but this is only a bandaid, it may get close but a packet coupled network will never support strong guaranteed real-time properties as a circuit coupled network can.

    I see two reasons that ISP:s want to prioritize different forms of traffic. One is for marketing and economic reasons. Either to have ”guaranteed” capacity to a profile service such as spotify or prioritize traffic to content providers that pays enough. This will not work, in the first case customers that get their traffic delayed will find the service useless, in the second case different content providers will start to compete to survive ending in that everyone pays to be ”priotized” and everything will be back where it started.

    The other is for purely technical reasons. Voice is one obvious application that depends on true real-time properties. It is absolutely necessary that each packet is received in order and within a very narrow timeslot or there will be distortion and gaps. These problems can be somewhat mitigated using error correcting codes at the expense of higher bandwidth demands. Quality of Service can be used in this case to achieve close to realtime if and only if there already are overcapacity in the network. In which case QoS isn’t really needed as it will work anyway just without the more or less worthless ”guarantee”.

    After all this rambling I can arrive at my conclusion.
    * It must be allowed to prioritize traffic for technical reasons, if and only if it is necessary for important real-time protocols.
    * It must be forbidden to prioritize traffic based on bandwidth shortage or for marketing/economic reasons.
    * It must be forbidden to throttle specific protocols.
    * An ISP must always tell the customers which traffic gets priority.

    Kommentar av Stefan — 2 december 2009 @ 23:56

  67. @Stefan (#66)

    Then we get to the next question. If traffic is to be prioritized for technical reasons, who gets to decided that? Would there be preference only to one voice service provider (the operator’s own voice service that is)? Or should Skype or other voice services get preferential treatment? And shouldn’t they pay for it in that case? And if voice service can pay for it, shouldn’t other services be able to pay for preferential treatment? And is the net still neutral then?

    Kommentar av Johan Tjäder — 3 december 2009 @ 0:51

  68. Ars Technica has a good write up on the importance of net neutrality, showing what has historically happened when when it is not enforced:


    Kommentar av P — 3 december 2009 @ 11:06

  69. @Johan Tjäder (#67)
    If traffic prioritization is to be used it must be used without discrimination. If you prioritize voice traffic you assign the same priority to all voice traffic only based on the used protocol regardless of the operator. Quality of service can never be used as a competitive measure!
    Who gets to decide? Well, I am 🙂 or rather people like me, this is an engineering and operational decision to make some sensitive protocols work. QoS must be used sparingly as it taxes network equipment and other protocols. I would say that in most cases it is not even necessary but in some circumstances, a guess is for example high latency connections, it makes voice communication feasible when it is otherwise impossible.

    Your example is the typical case where things break down and shows why it is necessary to be very careful when using QoS.

    Kommentar av Stefan — 3 december 2009 @ 11:16

  70. Christian: I would like to direct you towards which is an international and multi-leveled initiativ working for somethin similar to what you are trying to build here.

    Kommentar av Marcin de Kaminski — 4 december 2009 @ 11:04

  71. […] cu aceastǎ temǎ, unde oricine poate contribui, sau de asemenea, puteţi lǎsa comentarii pe blogul lui Christian Engström, europarlamentarul nostru din partea PP Suedia. Comments […]

    Pingback av Carta Drepturilor Fundamentale pe Intenet – un proiect ambitios a PP | Partidul Piratilor — 4 december 2009 @ 17:26

  72. Hej!

    UN have arranged Internet Governance Forums (IGF) every year since 2006.
    A coalition formed in the first forum in Athens.
    This coalition is drafting an Internet Bill of Rights too and the discussion is open.

    This is their official site:

    Here you can find the first draft:

    Kommentar av Aino — 6 december 2009 @ 13:09

  73. […] document – an “Internet swarm”. Comments, suggestions and questions are all welcomed via his website, to contribute to the development of the […]

    Pingback av Pirate Party MEP Proposes ‘Internet Bill of Rights’ - P2P Talk? — 9 december 2009 @ 20:02

  74. […] document – an “Internet swarm”. Comments, suggestions and questions are all welcomed via his website, to contribute to the development of the […]

    Pingback av Pirate Party MEP Proposes ‘Internet Bill of Rights’ | We R Pirates — 9 december 2009 @ 20:20

  75. I would like to see something that guarantees complete freedom of speech, to prevent (among other things) possible future dictatorial/oppresive governments silencing any form of dissent or political opposition. Whilst we may not like the things some people may say, the Internets must be a neutral place for humans to communicate without fear.

    Kommentar av Jan Mendle — 9 december 2009 @ 20:35

  76. In my ignorant mind, I think the Internet, shouldn’t be handled like any other media stream. This means: you, as yourself, on the Internet, can yell anything you want, say ANYTHING you want, and PUBLISH anything you want. HOWEVER, you may not publish works of others (text, images, music, etc.) unless you do it for free, or you have the proper consent.

    Let’s explain myself. If I want to say: America is a wasteland; no mattering I’m on the middle of New York, I can say it, without no one complaining. If I want to say: [insert name of celebrity, or someone here] be [any insult you want]; I can, and that people SHOULDN’T bother.

    If someone wrote a book, and I publish it (this means, i ”put it online”) on the Internet, stating that’s not mine, and I don’t charge for it, I can do it so (after all, what does a Library? Let you read books inside it. We(people) just take it to the confort of your home.

    Continuing: No one should have the right to disconnect you from the Internet, more than your own ISP, stated by their OWN rules, which can’t include limitations to what’s stated above. Also, they should have NO limitation to the use of services, in any way (no blocking incoming packages, no blocking ports, etc). AND, more importantly, they should hand the information TO NO ONE more than the GOVERMENT itself (so no anti-piracy companies requesting information here).

    And, more importantly: No one should force me to say, explain, or show what I do on the Internet, not even government. And no one should be able to threat me saying they will sue me if I don’t comply.

    Kommentar av xRDVx — 9 december 2009 @ 20:57

  77. File sharing has been put in the middle of it all as the great villain but it is not. No money is made from any movie, song, game, software etc downloaded from common people. In fact, there seems to be studies that indicate that people are buying more digital media as P2P allows them to get in touch with much more content in a much more complete way than the regular business model.

    The focus of the authorities is being disrupted by companies that refuse to evolve and make a profitable market out of P2P offering good availability of the content for sane prices. They should be focusing on the people that sell physical copies on the streets that feed the organized crime. And even if they do fight those people, it’ll lead to nothing if the companies refuse to acknowledge that making hundreds of millions of copies of digital media is cheap and that they can earn more money over quantity by offering the said sane prices.

    As for the providers, they should not use traffic shape or any restrictions to the transfers other than their own physical limit. If the heavy users pose a problem then they should be offered a plan that suits their needs and pockets and is good for the ISPs. Trailers and trucks aren’t forbidden to circulate in the road network just because they prompt more maintenance costs. In that same analogy, the road operators aren’t sued for the illegal cargo that circulates in their network. Same with ISPs and what circulates in their cable, they are not the police.

    Last, you cannot assume someone driving in the roads is a drug dealer just because there’s a package inside their cars that look like cocaine. You first stop that person and check if it is in fact cocaine. And even if it is, was he/she transporting it for his/her own purposes or someone asked a favor and the person didn’t know what was inside? Given the proportions, this can happen on the internet. Wireless routers can be easily breached and used for illegal purposes. A complete and fair process including all legal steps should not only be granted but enforced for any person and such in normal lawsuits, proper technical opinions must be heard and taken into account.

    So basically the same rights and laws should apply to the internet. The net has become an important and even vital part on our lives, it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to add it to the fundamental human rights.

    Kommentar av Ninja — 9 december 2009 @ 22:05

  78. Hithero, we declare that all rights are not right but wills. This proclamation necessitates that the duty of the will is to preserve itself. The unity of the few must fulfill its obligations to the many with respect to its own obligation to itself. As such, our will is defined, and our action of consequence of that will. As such, we understand that what defines the will is not what is believed to be right, but what action is granted to the individual from the universe.

    We, universal beings, declare

    I. Information is not in the domain of the individual but to that of the universe. Information, the universe, is not a right and bears no ownership. It is a consequence of being.

    II. Our being as individuals and also our being as a whole. The will of the individual is his own obligation to exist without disrupting the will of the other. Thus, the will of the individual is not justified to define the will the other.

    III. Information is the universe and is free for all wills. The passage of this information shall bear no restriction on any will.

    Kommentar av JK — 9 december 2009 @ 22:50

  79. Im not sure what i can say here that doesnt sound like common sense….but hey =)

    I want to say thankyou to Christian Engstrom for standing up for the internet and its ”everyday” users. Therein lies my first comment – without raving on about copyright – something is very wrong when a user is fined millions for downloading a single album. The internet is as real as anything in the real world, and as you say, the internet cant be treated as a politicians plaything – it belongs to everyone, afterall was it not invented for the free flow of information, without any ONE person or organisation having control over any aspect of it. In a nutshell, freedom of speech, freedom of information, the right to share that information with anyone, and the freedom from being spied on by whoever may seek to. If i dont like a programme im watching on TV, i can change the channel, if i dont like a website, i just wont visit it anymore – net neutrality is a must – to quote ”the internet is our biggest asset, and we must protect it”. The new laws that were proposed, sueing people or possibly even locking them up without even a trial sicken me, especially when REAL criminals walk the streets. Thankyou Christian for opposing it.
    Be warey of ”political correctness”, there will always be things that will offend somebody for some reason. But imagine a world where everything that offends anyone is illegal…well…almost everything would be illegal! Forget right wing and left wing and even politics in general, the individual has to be the priority. The individual MUST be respected at all times (as long as there is no physical harm happening) even if they do not have millions of euros to potect themselves with.

    In a nutshell, the ”internet bill of rights” should reflect any real world bill of rights (obviously!) – No amount of money should allow any one person to harrass another, no matter what information a person is consuming, as long as they are not profiting from it at anothers expense, or harming another through that persons action (or lack of action) they should be left alone.
    Goverments of the world should wake up and realise, they only exist to serve the citizens of they’re respective countries, they only have the power to take what we choose to give and organisations lobbying them, should only be listened to if they are lobbying for what the population wants, not what is best for a relatively small number of people out to make money.
    ONE human life is worth more than all the money in the world.

    Finally, to agree with a number of posters already on this site, the internet is no longer a baby. It is fast reaching adulthood, and as such should be considered a human right. Every person has a right to electricity and a plumbing system, why not net access?

    Feel free to contact me, anyone at the pirate party, ill always be willing to do whatever i can to help.


    Kommentar av Tigger — 9 december 2009 @ 23:28

  80. […] document – an “Internet swarm”. Comments, suggestions and questions are all welcomed via his website, to contribute to the development of the […]

    Pingback av Pirate Party MEP Proposes ‘Internet Bill of Rights’ – FUCK THE RIAA — 10 december 2009 @ 1:22

  81. Support from AUS!!!

    Kommentar av Lee — 10 december 2009 @ 2:01

  82. I’d like to bring up one additional thing I have not seen thus far.


    There are already accessibility guidelines provided, but we need a way to provide subtitles for videos, provide easy navigation in text only browsers, etc.

    Kommentar av Daniel — 10 december 2009 @ 2:18

  83. im all in for the bill its fine and dandy and all but what about those harmful files such as viruses and trojans i mean its all over the internet. and it would also strengthen hackers because of the extra anonymity

    Kommentar av blahhh — 10 december 2009 @ 3:11

  84. Here are the notes I took as I worked through the comments so far…

    * Keep it short and simple.
    We should build our Bill to last, so that in 200 years it still
    protects our descendants, as the US Bill Of Rights protects Americans
    today. Avoid referring to any technology that is likely to become
    redundant, or we risk the freedom of those who succeed us.
    I’m with Nicholas Miles, comment 18, on being inspired
    by the American Bill Of Rights.

    * Access
    ** Right to access
    No-one’s access may be cut off without both being found guilty of a
    relevant crime, and with the order of a judge.
    ** Right to ignorance
    No-one shall be held responsible for data he has not examined.
    (Covers ACCIDENTAL download of illegal material, trojans viruses
    and worms, and ISPs being threatened for their customers’ actions.)

    * Freedom Of Speech.
    ** Net Neutrality
    ** Prioritisation
    Data may only be prioritized for technical reasons.
    If you’re providing tubes, you have to tell your customers what you
    prioritize and why.
    (comment 66)
    ** Right to link
    (you have a right to link to anything hosted on the Internet)
    ** Right to anonymity
    Including pseudonyms, avatars

    * Privacy
    ** Right to encrypt
    ** Right to silence
    (generally, but also specifically when asked for your passwords,

    * do not include ”responsibilities”
    Put them somewhere else.

    Kommentar av jrms — 10 december 2009 @ 3:12

  85. Fundamental rights. The European Convention on Human Rights should be respected on the net as well, including Article 8 (the right to privacy) and Article 10 (information freedom).

    In addition to Art. 8 and 10 I would like to point out ”Art. 6 – Right to a Fair Trial” and especially point 2 of this Art. – ”everyone charged with criminal offences shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law”. Also in Protocol (1 I think) ”Art. 1 – Protection of Property” – ”right to the enjoyment of possessions” this clearly states that one may not be deprived of what he legally acquired such as a connection to the Internet. And Protocol 4 Art. 2 – ”Freedom of Movement” this can easily be linked to a freedom to navigate/surf the Internet as more and more of our lives intertwine with the digital structure (i.e. jobs, shopping, education, ect)

    Net neutrality. Internet operators should provide neutral connections without any restrictions on content, sites, platforms, or the kinds of equipment that may be attached.

    Here I would like to add without restrictions on region. DVD and TVshow region is horrible. It actually incites piracy by postponing by months, if not years (or EVER!!!), content in your region/country. That should go aswell and allow/force companies to publish content world-wide when they make it available on their sites. They can still charge other countries for the rights since people will still watch good content on TV even if repeated. They already do. In Portugal every Christmas they show ”Home Alone”, ”Harry Potter” and ”Lord of the Rings” just to give an example (and people always watch anyway).

    Mere conduit. I return for providing net neutrality, Internet operators and other suppliers of information infrastructure should not be held responsible for the information exchanged by their clients.

    This one is self explanatory and I agree 100%. Nothing to add at this moment.

    Commenter 2. cameras on streets are supposedly for our protection, on the internet is for our persecution. Everything should be private and the protection is made on the sites themselves such as Bank sites and others where your info is protected.

    Commenter 4. Totally agree on the right to protect devices and connections. Hopefully the articles I referred above might help that.

    Commenter 7. Agree with the right to encryption (and without suspicion of illegal action-cover-up) and the right to freedom of speech in which your connection cannot be terminated for expressing opinions (even deny the holocaust just as the example I think it is really evil to deny it) but the Internet even in a german blog should not be subjected to such laws. Internet is freedom (someone denies the holocaust I call him a nazi ^^ that is the beauty of the Internet without political correctness).

    … After reading until commenter 50 something I got tired… sorry ^^

    As a last suggestion I believe that if possible the use of Google Wave for this kind of endeavour is just what the tool was designed for.

    Kommentar av Nuno Rafael Relvão — 10 december 2009 @ 4:41

  86. I think that Internet access should be a fundamental human right and no Government should be able to disconnect someone for life just because they shared / downloaded a few files.

    After all, filesharing is nothing compared to murder and even murderers get a reprieve after 15-20 years.

    Kommentar av Anonym — 10 december 2009 @ 7:47

  87. I think that Internet access should be a fundamental human right and no government should be able to disconnect someone just because they shared a few files. After all, filesharing is nothing compared to murder and even murderers get a reprieve after 15-20 years.

    Kommentar av spladx — 10 december 2009 @ 7:48

  88. Hey,

    Great that you guys made it on Torrent Freak.

    Here’s what I’d like to see in Internet rights:

    -Right to encryption
    -Net neutrality and preventing throttling for paid services, all traffic treated as equal
    -non comercial p2p not being criminalized, the right to view superceeding the right to make profit (just calling what i’d like, not to say it’d happen, 500 media guys controlling 330,000,000 americans for example, we KNOW more then 500 WANT free music, movies, e-books, this intellectual poverty laws must be stopped!)
    -a right for 330,000,000 people to all vote online, every day, for their respective region. an open source government if you will. not saying you guys have the manpower for it, just what i’d like from my internet. 🙂 (comments, replies, inbox, all for enlightening everyone and allow all to vote under/alongside each politician decision, boot em out if they fail to vote the way their people do)

    -isp’s not having monopolies on the lines themselves but leased from the govt on equal playing fields (as most lines are built /w public tax money, managed by isp’s)

    Hope that wasn’t too long a comment. Hope we one day get to vote alongside our ”leaders” 😉

    THAT will be the change were all looking for I believe, being a PART of our governments. Not just abiding by retarded laws, against our better judgments.

    Kommentar av FreeSCV — 10 december 2009 @ 8:28

  89. […] These are my first suggestions. Are there any other areas that ought to be covered by an Internet Bill of Rights? The floor is open, and all suggestions and comments are welcome. Let’s write an Internet Bill of Rights […]

    Pingback av Help draft the "Internet Bill of Rights" | dv8-designs — 10 december 2009 @ 8:41

  90. […] y Egstrom ha invitado a participar en su creación a cualquiera que lo desee, solo tenemos que pasarnos por este post de su blog donde quien quiera puede aportar sus ideas, propuestas y […]

    Pingback av Participa en la creación de la Carta de Derechos de Internet | ALT1040 — 10 december 2009 @ 9:31

  91. […] Let’s write an Internet Bill of Rights […]

    Pingback av Help draft the "Internet Bill of Rights" | Geek News and Musings — 10 december 2009 @ 9:40

  92. […] y Egstrom ha invitado a participar en su creación a cualquiera que lo desee, solo tenemos que pasarnos por este post de su blog donde quien quiera puede aportar sus ideas, propuestas y […]

    Pingback av Participa en la creación de la Carta de Derechos de Internet | — 10 december 2009 @ 10:10

  93. For me, as a web developer, is very important to have freedom of creation, and no limitations like in the USA.
    If I buy a DVD on the store I can give it to my friends, I would like to do the same with online content… share

    Kommentar av frank — 10 december 2009 @ 10:26

  94. One thing I haven’t seen mentioned here is the right to full enjoyment of ownership of content purchased online, and of the devices by which one accesses the network, etc. Something to kill abusive EULAs, anti-circumvention laws, protect iphone-jailbreakers and DRM-hackers. No need to prevent IP-vendors and device manufacturers using DRM or other ”protections”, just as long as they can’t lobby for laws demanding that citizens pretend these broken technologies actually work.

    Kommentar av Dave Cochran — 10 december 2009 @ 11:39

  95. […] Let’s write an Internet Bill of Rights (via The Command Line) […]

    Pingback av Help draft the “Internet Bill of Rights” « Orwell's Dreams — 10 december 2009 @ 12:27

  96. […] Christian Engstrom reprezentantul Partidului Piratilor face deja valuri in Parlamentul European. Dupa munca sa la legile Telecom, acum lucreaza la noua Lege a dreptului pe Internet, incercand sa puna in practica cateva idei ale celor de la Partidul Piratilor (Suedia). Pentru a realiza acest lucru, are nevoie de ajutorul vostru. Impreuna cu Amelia Andersdotter, Christian Engstrom reprezinta Partidul Piratilor in Parlamentul European. A muncit din greu in ultima luna garantand revizuire judiciara inainte de a deconecta sau sanctiona file-sharingul, iar acum se gandeste la mai mult propunand “Legea drepturilor pe Internet”. In cadrul acestei legi ar intra: Net Neutrality (internet neutru), intimitate si libertate la informatie. Ceea ce o face speciala, este procesul creerii acestei legi: Christian cere ajutor pentru a crea acest document prin comentarii, sugestii si intrebari pe site-ul acestuia. […]

    Pingback av » Blog Archive » Partidul Piratilor MEP (Suedia) propun “Legea drepturilor pe Internet” — 10 december 2009 @ 12:43

  97. What I would like to remind everybody is that the bill should be negative. Do not state what is to be but declare what is not to be. Also, I would like to see the bill to be free of political ideology. Also, stating something not natural (such as the Internet) man made to be your right should not, in the wording, mean right as in free beer. Let me try to explain.

    Instead of having ”Right to encryption” it’s better to have something like ”No person shall be denied or persecuted for applying methods to have and keep information of his own secret.”

    Instead of having ”Internet operators should provide neutral connections without any restrictions on content, sites, platforms, or the kinds of equipment that may be attached.” it’s better to have something like ”No person shall be denied of unhindered Internet connectivity.”

    ”No person shall be denied of Internet that is rightfully theirs; nor shall no person be denied from obtaining and owning Internet access of their own.”

    Kommentar av TeemuV — 10 december 2009 @ 12:58

  98. Fuck you.

    Kommentar av No thanks — 10 december 2009 @ 13:43

  99. I would add something akin to the following:
    ”A person has a right to remain anonymous online. Law enforcement can only violate this right as part of an ongoing investigation, can onle do so if they have proven that this information is seesntial to moving forward with the investigation, and personally identifiable information must be destroyed by law enforcement agencies if the case is closed with no charge laid against the person. Personally identifiable information about a person can only be disclosed to the public either if the person had been convicted of a criminal offense, or if the person agrees to waive his/her right to anonymity.”

    Kommentar av Solnar — 10 december 2009 @ 13:50

  100. […] document – an “Internet swarm”. Comments, suggestions and questions are all welcomed via his website, to contribute to the development of the […]

    Pingback av Pirate Party MEP Proposes ‘Internet Bill of Rights’ - News from the technology world - Technology News — 10 december 2009 @ 13:59

  101. The right to an internet connection (stops it from being removed via a 3 strikes and you’re out as punishment)

    Kommentar av Matt — 10 december 2009 @ 14:55

  102. I think a good starting point is this:

    Charter for Innovation, Creativity and Access to Knowledge

    Kommentar av chatoxxx — 10 december 2009 @ 15:09

  103. First,…Congradulation’s,and thanks to your Pirates,one and all.
    Yesterday i downloaded from Sweden a SUPER disc copy software,
    it was locked,so i paid for it,and can reuse it,and am very happy with it.
    Yesterday also i read where a young curious man clicked into a banned
    sex website and will go to jail for too long,here in the land of
    ”The Bill of Rights”Texas.
    Best Wishes on your journey.

    Kommentar av Rik — 10 december 2009 @ 15:12

  104. Please check out this declaration of (Canadian) User’s Rights written by William G. McGrath from the Vancouver Fair Copyright Coalition

    Kommentar av Torsten — 10 december 2009 @ 15:23

  105. I agree with TeemuV, comment 96, that the bill should be negative, and here’s a link for anyone interested to the Wikipedia article on negative rights:

    Kommentar av jrms — 10 december 2009 @ 15:42

  106. I applaud the efforts you are putting forth on this issue.
    Here is what I would like to see added to an Internet Bill of Rights:
    Upon leaving a website (for example Facebook) your information (demographic, pics, posts, etc.) are deleted. Gone. You don’t have to worry about that information still floating out there after you’ve decided you no longer want to be a part of a group/site/list/etc.

    Kommentar av Ian Chow-Miller — 10 december 2009 @ 16:36

  107. I think that a right to anonymity is indeed necessary. Of course, a court order should be able to lift anonymity only if there is compelling evidence that lifting anonymity is necessary for the case to move forward. However, allowing someone to anonymously fight the request to lift their anonymity appears essential. (Especially in civil cases) One could imagine that the court (judge only) would be made aware of the identity of the anonymous person in order to validate the source of any evidence or statements they enter, but prohibited from revealing that information to any party to the case or the public. Also, I think that more generally, until conviction is obtained and all appeals exhausted, any information that the courts have obtained through their authority (basically if the court had to issue a warrant of some sorts to obtain the info) must remain secret. (revealing it to the public must result in a stiff penalty)

    Also, a linking safe-harbor protection would be useful. Linking to something (whether with HTML hyperlinks or whatever equivalent system which points at a resource instead of serving it) should never result in charges.
    Finally, I think a safe-harbor for bots would be good. If I have a bot for a legitimate purpose and my bot goes off and downloads illegal materials (whether it be copyrighted materials or child pornography) and possibly serve it. I should not be prosecuted as long as I delete the materials as soon as I find out. That should hopefully cover things such as the case where Google was charged because they had a thumbnail of an image that violated copyrights.

    Finally, (and that may be getting a little off topic) how about restoring the good old system of copyright where you have to register your stuff as copyrighted and that copyright is only valid if the copies inform you that they are copyrighted? (with that cute little copyright sign, date of registration and registrant) This system whereby everything and anything is copyrighted just because it was created is quite inefficient in my opinion. It makes it difficult to verify that something is indeed copyrighted when somebody requests that you take it down. An online searchable registry of copyrighted works could provide such a service quite efficiently.

    Kommentar av PrometheeFeu — 10 december 2009 @ 16:50

  108. […] document – an “Internet swarm”. Comments, suggestions and questions are all welcomed via his website, to contribute to the development of the […]

    Pingback av Pirate Party MEP Proposes ‘Internet Bill of Rights’ | InstantIdiocy — 10 december 2009 @ 16:55

  109. all my data must be erased when i quit a social network !!
    thanks from france

    Kommentar av plop — 10 december 2009 @ 17:14

  110. The right to privacy. Right to anonimity. Right to have personal data that you shared one day changed/deleted (obviously we’re not talking about emails, anyone should be able to keep an email sent by someone else as long as they want to even if they get angry with one another, so there’s something to clarify here).

    Right to use cryptography to ensure privacy (you might never know who’s listening to your traffic).

    Right to accessibility for government sites/public services (to disabled for example) and having to use open standards for these organs.

    Right to use legal content the way you want it used (eventually working around DRMs if they prevent you from watching a movie on the device of your choice, or listening to music on the device you need, or reading text on the device you want, or if you want to reencode a file so that it takes less space, or change its format)

    Right to ”fair use” of content, short extract, parodic use, innovative use.

    Maybe a right to exploit existing legal content anyway as long as it’s not for commercial use?

    There’s probably a lot more to it, but that’s the more obvious to me in the current context.

    Kommentar av Falton — 10 december 2009 @ 17:56

  111. Prices to get conected to internet at home must be more reasonables. Many countries must pay a fortune for a simple conection and others have a really fast conection for much less. Internet is a right for everyone, not for just some who can afford it.
    Regards from Spain.

    Kommentar av anucha — 10 december 2009 @ 18:05

  112. 1: ”The spirit and letter of the law must be followed.” This is something I believe exists on the German side but not on the US or any other country’s requirements for a law.

    This would force people to both observe the intent and not be able to dance around it via select legal interpretations similar to GPL v2. Maybe we should take a hint from GPL and see if there’s anything to include?

    2: all access of the internet shall be free of copyright and patents

    3: no deep packet inspection, and mandated open access to other carriers, similar to the peer agreements between T2 and T1 internet providers/backbones.

    Kommentar av Matt — 10 december 2009 @ 19:33

  113. […] Pirata) está formulando uma Cartilha dos Direitos na Internet e quer sua colaboração para tal: aqui. Tags: cartilha, direitos, Engstrom Christian, internet, legislação, The Pirate Party Este […]

    Pingback av Discuta seus direitos « RBW — 10 december 2009 @ 20:33

  114. The main problem with the file sharing on Internet is the outdated copyright laws.Internet Must be a free zone for the non-commercial file sharing.The existing copyright laws protect the gangsters’ (aka The Music Industry)rights to dictate their rules and rob the people.The Industry can buy any copyright law it wants.The governments in the U.K., France and Sweden are terrible examples what could happen to all the Europe.I don’t think the Europe needs more revolutions and home-grown terrorists.These greedy morons from the Enterntainment Business will not ever change!The laws must change.

    Kommentar av The Laws Must Change — 10 december 2009 @ 20:45

  115. Yo Pirat’ Deputy !
    I’ve from France and here I’ve a main problem with Internet that I would find out since my mother whom is ill was on Youtube ! As you can imagine, I don’t agree the several video showing her in the streets talking even about me and her other sons answered to young students who do this during their pause. They were young, so I don’t mind about it. But more particularly, one guy permit himself to follow her asking questions and posted after all this crazy shit on Youtube too ! What’s the fuck with this man ?!? For this, sure I’ll find him I can kill him. So, I’ve written to him and he laughs. Of course, the state is called by my sister for advise and because they’re concerned for his protection, u know how it is I imagine for this salute regim… And, they tackle about all those who’ve posted videos and in the part, the famous guy. But, they avoid to make a trial and for me it’s not acceptable, because it concerns the dignity and the rights upon my mother. I’m very angry, like the adoptive child of our ex-president Chirac and some other cases.
    In 2009, I’ve had to resign about my case, but near 2011 I prevent that I can have a comdamnation for this type of outrageous guy who has offended me and my mother like anyone in the world, even the worst killer closed to us, can accept for …his Mom !!! I don’t count about u but I think we can’t afford reaction like ”owe, this is Youtube and u can’t do anything against me…” And Youtube has reacted answering to me without retiring videos ! At what’s the hell it needs to advert about the contenance if they don’t care ?!! For this, sure, their responsability of ignore us is the proof of their bury one’s head in the sand.

    Do the necessary for ur cause, for u ever, but please think about the freeship of Internet’s expression (the possibility of criticism anyone who is public and give political opinion), and also how manage to make judge some indesirables who abuses from their anonymous against ”weak” persons who, in fact, are not so protected, cause the states just contenting to make fear…Justice is not to give satisfaction to offenders, but to protect society. Perhaps, it’s just enough to ask Youtube to verify all contenues. But I don’t think this solution is available in terms of management and meanings by firms. So, I just want the same on the reel world, or I make justice by myself ?

    Kommentar av Ange06 — 10 december 2009 @ 23:36

  116. Hmmm. What I would like to see stated in this declaration of independence will seem as utopian and foolish as anything you’ve ever seen or heard… I would like stated in this declaration that:

    ”…information is a perhaps the highest refined state of energy, and as such, man has no object in trying to control it, nor has he any success in this endeavor, ever. As such, any information that has found its way into public domain, through means legal or not, is to be considered free and uncontrollable. Moreover, any person that through direct action, or through lack of thereof, facilitates the distribution of information thus it, is to understand that he/she loses control over the information for all and any purposes […]
    […] Time has come for man to see that there are things above his control, no matter his status or his prowess. Faced with a multitude of spirits demanding the information, willing and able to do all in their power to obtain it, not even the Sun can obliterate their access. This is truly the testing ground for the personality of the private entrepreneur and his understanding of the age of the free Internet. This defines his way of communicating and conducting business with the generation that grew up to understand that nothing is truly impossible or hidden.”

    Kommentar av Anonymous — 10 december 2009 @ 23:37

  117. This is related to the issue of a Bill of Rights. What I would like to see is the right of the Public Domain being restored. Life+70 years is effectively forever from my life’s point of view. If we had a functioning Public Domain I believe other issues would be able to fall into place. I am completely against ”teaching” copyright obligations to school children. With a fair term set before a work enters the Public Domain however, my objections lose a lot of basis. Copyright is not welfare, it is incentive. If I do a job today for my employer should I expect them to keep paying me forever because it was such a good job? Copyright law is out of whack and this is where I would like to see the start. There is no reason I shouldn’t be able to go to a torrent site and download 30 year old music and movies. Really.

    Kommentar av Bill Pickett — 11 december 2009 @ 0:26

  118. […] não contente em redigir um texto a uma só vez, Engström resolveu pedir a ajuda dos internautas europeus de modo a que contribuíssem com as suas sugestões. O documento visa enunciar alguns princípios […]

    Pingback av Eurodeputado pirata: “Ajudem a redigir Carta dos Direitos da Internet” | Remixtures — 11 december 2009 @ 0:52

  119. 1. To all: please, use english if possible. For most of us this is lingua franca, and google translate still is not that helpfull.

    2. Documents which are good to start with:

    * Cape Town Open Education Declaration (rights to learn): ”taxpayer-funded educational resources should be open educational resources”. I would extend it to all publicly funded information (especially public media) – in public domain or under free license. For example BBC is not good enough (only for NC use, only for UK citizens). Broad educational use exceptions for everythin else, and those must include mash-ups and remixes. State funded free textbooks programs, so everything a student need to know is avalaible under free license on-line.

    * FC Forum Charter is a must,

    * Getting rid of practise of selling rights to state owned information (charging for access may be sometimes necassary, but not selling rights – once you buy a copy you must be free to do whatever you want with it).

    * Noncommercial sharing allowed and encouraged. Flat fee for collecting societies may be introduced to help benefiting creators move to digital age.

    Kommentar av Lipszyc — 11 december 2009 @ 1:53

  120. Right to privacy must include all information, which can gathered by electronic devices, including geolocation (cell phones, cctv cameras). There are two important factors. First is what state may know about us, and under what circumstances and procedures (court order) officials may get access to this information. Second factor is more tricky: it is how much commercial entities may learn about us (google, facebook) and how they can use this information.

    Kommentar av Lipszyc — 11 december 2009 @ 2:16

  121. […] Let’s write an Internet Bill of Rights […]

    Pingback av Links 10/12/2009: Nouveau in Linux | Boycott Novell — 11 december 2009 @ 2:27

  122. I think it needs to be understood, by those of us (like myself!) who would like to see radical reforms to the notion of intellectual property, copyright, etc, that if these are our long-term goals, the Bill of Rights is a step along the way, that we can use to establish a baseline of fundamental rights. Such a baseline, once established, is be very very hard to revoke, and would give us a powerful weapon with which to strike down regressive legislation. As such it needs to aim for the strongest programme of online civil liberties that we could reasonably expect to have a fighting chance of getting passed by the European Parliament in the medium term, but it should not be seen the blueprint for the best and brightest future we could possibly imagine for online life. I am, for instance, in agreement with previous commenters that copyright should be inapplicable to noncommercial copying, but that is a really radical challenge to the status quo, which would turn the Bill into an exercise in manifesto-writing that will sink thrashing into the tarpit of a thousand youtube comment threads.

    In the fight against legacy copyright, our best ally is Moore’s Law. As copying gets exponentially easier, enforcing the copyright law of the the pre-digital world gets exponentially harder. As computers get faster, storage gets cheaper, networks get faster, and the whole lot becomes more and more ubiquitous, the only way to stop non-commercial copying is through increasingly authoritarian measures cutting ever greater swathes through civil liberties. The job of the Bill of Rights, then, is to stop the slide into authoritarianism and reverse the damage done so far. If legacy copyright can only be enforced by authoritarian measures, and the Bill prevents the use of authoritarian measures, legacy copyright becomes unenforceable, hence irrelevant, and then we win. But to get passed, the Bill has to get the votes of politicians from mainstream parties all across Europe, which isn’t going to happen for a pirate’s manifesto – at least, not yet anyway.

    Kommentar av Dave Cochran — 11 december 2009 @ 7:27

  123. Thank you for taking care of this issue!!! This is very much needed initiative. And I fully agree, that the political elite is out of touch with the internet generation and therefore do not understand it.

    I think that we should start from the very basic adition to the Charter of the Fundamental Rights: that is – every person should have an right to access the internet and that this right cannot be limited by any administrative decision. That should be bound with the right of the free speech.

    Another thing is the right of anonymity. Seems that many have forgot that the anonimity is the fundamental principle of the democratic decision making.

    Kommentar av Mic_Hall — 11 december 2009 @ 11:31

  124. ^^^
    I would add also a ban on content localization based on the IP. All citizens within EU should have a right to access the same content regardless of where they live in the EU. This of course goes beyond the internet itself as it touches essentially the media copyrights (this should have been fixed a long time ago anyway…)

    Kommentar av Mic_Hall — 11 december 2009 @ 11:47

  125. Why just for ”internet” ?

    Those concept are much larger than internet. It’s about communication right, free speach, information.

    It’s about journalism (why citizen are considered differently than journalist, when the wrote a text ?). Why the right of drawing cartoon (caricature) should be reserve to professional media ? Why this is a right for official comedian but a citizen could be condamn for parasitism because of the use of logo, trademark, etc…

    It’s the oppostion between professional and amateurs, that should be ban. Some amateurs are ”better” than true professional.

    This is important to set this. Lot of people want to ”control” internet. The next step will be for them to introduice a difference between ”official” or business voice and citizen voice.

    Kommentar av Nicolas — 11 december 2009 @ 14:13

  126. An other point: the media access right.

    In France, to protect book sellers the price is fixed by the manufacturer. They can’t sell it less than 5% of the official price.

    As for books multimedia producer have a kind of monopoly. You don’t buy a film rather than another because it’s cheaper. So the rules could be different.

    Every multimedia file could be sell to the reseller at the same fixed price. No more exclusivity, no more pressure, no more ”to small to be interested”, then we could have specialised web site on niche market (why there is no seller of metal music or jazz music ? why only generaliste ? Because there are considered too small by majors).

    Kommentar av Nicolas — 11 december 2009 @ 14:18

  127. Not there must be laws that make the Internet a state of emergency. The laws that apply on the Internet should be the same that apply in general.

    Kommentar av Santiago — 11 december 2009 @ 14:37

  128. Linking to ECHR is unnecessary complex. How about just re-stating what information freedom means in Internet instead of linking to existing ECHR that contains many unrelated parts.

    Kommentar av Joonas — 11 december 2009 @ 15:41

  129. […] weeks ago, MEP Christian Engström announced that he was partnering with the Greens to work on an Internet Bill of Rights that would one day be submitted to the European Parliament—and he wanted the collective […]

    Pingback av New Internet Bill of Rights contender comes from... pirates? — 11 december 2009 @ 15:46

  130. […] weeks ago, MEP Christian Engström announced that he was partnering with the Greens to work on an Internet Bill of Rights that would one day be submitted to the European Parliament—and he wanted the collective […]

    Pingback av New Internet Bill of Rights contender comes from… pirates? « Digital Asylum — 11 december 2009 @ 16:03

  131. Some ideas for the document that might be of some influence;
    1. Users should never have to think about the legality of data. You don’t know if the site-holder pays fees for having the content and if it might be legal or not to view (you sometimes don’t know what you will see on a website, no need to get arrested for a website that ”popped” up. Makes law enforcement a lot easier, because you don’t have to check for what a user did).
    2. Site-content is the responsibility for the site-holder. Only the national laws of the location of the server should be enforced. The Dutch government shouldn’t be able to say anything about a server elsewhere. If they want to do that, they should make some agreements on international laws that are supposed to be implemented nationaly.
    3. When selling occurs, you pay the taxes and rights according to the country of the selling party. The country of the buyer should have no rights (this works visa-versa as well, when the buyer would sell something; should solve the whole problem with international trading, reducing administration).
    4. When including content that is hosted on a server in a different country, the site-owner is not obliged to pay taxes or pay royalties. This should be handled by the hosting-servers owner. For example; website owners should not have to pay taxes or royalties for youtube clips. When youtube adds advertising to pay royalties, why should BUMA (Netherlands) charge additional royalties to the Dutch site-owner that included the embedded movies. The artist was already payed. (Besides, they want to use a webcrawling bot. Making no difference between personal movies, or the newest clip from an artist).

    Kommentar av Michael Zandstra — 11 december 2009 @ 16:12

  132. […] weeks ago, MEP Christian Engström announced that he was partnering with the Greens to work on an Internet Bill of Rights that would one day be submitted to the European Parliament—and he wanted the collective […]

    Pingback av New Internet Bill of Rights contender comes from… pirates? | TechBlogs Today — 11 december 2009 @ 16:41

  133. Hi!

    Congratulations on this initiative.

    Going through all the above comments I thought of few myself but found other contributors said the same. S I will not bore you with same things all over again.

    Rest assured i support you 110% and if I can, in my own small way, help in anyway please feel free to contact me.

    Power to the people

    Kommentar av RDJ109 — 11 december 2009 @ 18:47

  134. Just one idea that comes to me – Make all educational books that are used in schools copyright free so that ALL ch9ldren have access and not just the well off.

    Power to the people

    Kommentar av RDJ109 — 11 december 2009 @ 19:12

  135. […] weeks ago, MEP Christian Engström announced that he was partnering with the Greens to work on an Internet Bill of Rights that would one day be submitted to the European Parliament—and he wanted the collective […]

    Pingback av New Internet Bill of Rights contender comes from… pirates? | Superstars Of Gaming — 11 december 2009 @ 21:21

  136. The right to internet access is under attack in UK, where susected copyright infringers are likely to be denied faciities from Internet service providers. This goverment brokered cosy arrangement between the Media Industries and the Internet Service Providers is exactly the sort of thing that any Internet Bill of Rights should make illegal. A right to internet access should be at least as sacrosanct a right to a telephone line or right use a Public Library. I hope a Bill of Rights will address this issue in some way

    Kommentar av Peter Soper — 11 december 2009 @ 23:56

  137. Some points which in my opinion should be included:

    1. Any intellectual property paid for in its entirety with public money, which does not pose a serious threat to national security (for example weapon designs), is to be in public domain and to be made availabile to the public over the internet as soon as its production is finalized and may not be removed unless deemed illegal by a court.(This means every study, expertise, survey, booklet, campaign materials, material made for public tv, etc. must be made availabile and its publication may in no way be delayed or removed by the government)

    2. Portals through which other servers are accessed (e.g. a search engine, dns or proxy server) and providers of services to other servers which establish a connection with a client accessing the server (e.g. content/ad/statistics/api delivery) are prohibited from collecting any kind of personalized data concerning the behavior of the client. (This means that an ad netwok(e.g. google’s adsense and doubleclick) or content delivery (e.g. embeded media from video and image hosing sites) may not collect data on e.g. which videos you have viewed and from which site embedding the video you have viewed them. They can however still collect informations such as that your IP has requested 1000 videos trying to DOS them them or which site has embedded their video and how often they were viewed on that site; but, again, they may not store anything on which user watched which videos or clicked which ads etc.)

    3. Net neutrality.

    4. ISPs must assign dynamic IPs to all their natural person customers.

    5. The owner of an IP may only be revealed by the ISP if there is a court order to do so.

    Kommentar av Anonym — 12 december 2009 @ 1:36

  138. Another excellent resource on internet rights is European Digital Rights (EDRI) – look at for short list of most important problems. Main areas are:

    * Privacy
    * Copyright
    * New Technology
    * Freedom of Speech
    * Spam & spyware
    * Security
    * Governance

    Kommentar av Lipszyc — 12 december 2009 @ 2:35

  139. I agree with Nicolas point: it’s not just internet. Those are rights for digital society, or information society. Because cell GSM, CCTV, RFID etc are also our concern. And ”Bill of the Rights for Information Society” sounds better, because you have people in it, not technology.

    Kommentar av Lipszyc — 12 december 2009 @ 2:39

  140. I like the rough draft here, and my suggestions are echoing those said before me. I wonder, will this internet bill of rights need to be adopted by each country in order for it to be legally binding; similar to a treaty? Will it be up to each individual country to uphold and enforce these rights?

    I’d like to see a broad ”right to information” because I believe that access to information is crucial for the development of our species. I’d also like to see a right to privacy, but without limits this could contribute to current controversial internet issues like anonymous harassment, cyber-bullying/stalking.

    I’m not sure how to address it, or if this is the place for it, but I’d like to see some kind of path to legal recourse for those who are victims of identity theft or whatever next big internet crime they come up with, a way to address these crimes quickly as they evolve.

    Kommentar av 12mb — 12 december 2009 @ 4:44

  141. I would like to mention the existence of a text over this topic.

    It is called the ”Universal Declaration of Human Digital Rights”, ( This text has an international scope, because it is subordinaated to the United Nation 1948 Declaration, and has been presented to UNESCO in Feb. 2009.

    This text is included in the legal preamble of the young French Non Profit Organization MNEMOSINE, created in Feb. 2009. MNEMOSINE has been thought as NGO (Non Governmental Organization) with national representations ( ,,,,, etc…).

    The mission of this NGO is to build an information system that respect this digital declaration. Its long term ambition is to tackle the transmission of the digital memory of individuals, for familial or historical purposes. Its benefits are expected in the legal, technical, financial fields. But above all, this initiative is motivated by ethic.

    We are looking for local people to manage locally this NPO. Do not hesite to contact it.

    Kommentar av Jean-Marc Mercier — 12 december 2009 @ 8:32

  142. […] document – an “Internet swarm”. Comments, suggestions and questions are all welcomed via his website, to contribute to the development of the […]

    Pingback av Pirate Party MEP Proposes ‘Internet Bill of Rights’ « My blog at Servage :) — 12 december 2009 @ 12:15

  143. I haven’t read everything up to now yet, but I will read it in time.
    I don’t know if anybody hasn’t mentioned this yet, but I would like to see the freedom of press extended to everybody on the internet.
    – Right to hide sources.
    – Right to say what you want.
    – Right to publish without prior consent. – Right …
    etc. =)

    Kommentar av Jan Hopmans — 12 december 2009 @ 16:27

  144. […] de Direitos da Internet, e para que esta seja o mais universal e completa possível pediu no seu blog que internautas de todo o mundo apresentassem propostas. Para já escreveu três princípios […]

    Pingback av Internet Bill of Rights | — 12 december 2009 @ 17:25

  145. @Jan Hopmans. Press freedom is obviously very important. However, at my knowledge, in most democracies, these rights are included into the constitution. A Declaration of Human Rights is somehow prior to constitution, let say pre-constitutional.

    I think that it is better to start with the fundations that building directly the roof 🙂

    Kommentar av Jean-Marc Mercier — 12 december 2009 @ 18:27

  146. This is a BIG open complaint to all forms of companies, and governements world wide. In this complaint is the need for a powerfull Bill of Rights I have been pushing for nearly 15 years.

    The right to privacy, My Computer, My Property, IT IS IN MY HOME ON MY LAND, you come onto it WITH OUT my personal approval, that makes you a CRIMINAL TRESPASSER, it also makes you a thief by taking my bandwidth, my ram, my hard drive space, my resource power, and my ELECTRICITY, you slow my work down by slowing down my machine, adding wear and tare on my computers and equipment, all of which I have to pay for.

    Any politician who says and I quote many of them right here ”Oh, well at the moment we don’t have a law governing that yet because that’s done over the internet”, YA RIGHT….. ANY LAW in existence that says TRESPASSING is a crime, means TRESPASSING IS A CRIME, it does NOT mean THAT TYPE TRESPASSING IS OK because it was done on the INTERNET and the word INTERNET is not written in the TRESPASSING LAWS.

    It sure wasn’t hard for actors and actresses to block picture takers from publishing pictures taken of them on their private property, and monetarily go after such persons, WITHOUT HAVING TO WRITE A NEW LAW, all because INVASION OF PRIVACY is exactly that, INVASION OF PRIVACY!

    Invasion of Privacy is ANYTHING that exposes to 1 or more people anything within your personal property without your consent.









    Kommentar av ja37 — 12 december 2009 @ 20:24

  147. One of the main key of our freedom is ”interoperability”:

    ”Interoperability is the capability of a product or system — whose interfaces are fully disclosed — to interact and function with other products or systems, without any access or implementation restrictions”.

    French: ”L’interopérabilité est la capacité que possède un produit ou un système, dont les interfaces sont intégralement connues, à fonctionner avec d’autres produits ou systèmes existants ou futurs et ce sans restriction d’accès ou de mise en œuvre”.

    These definitions are the result of a long work from the interop work group
    My suggestion is that the law must allow to know all the interfaces (hardware or software) of a product you can buy. The interoperability must be a right exactly as you can get the sources of a free Libre open source software.


    Kommentar av Pierre Jarillon — 13 december 2009 @ 0:55

  148. […] verabschiedet wurde, kann der nächste Schritt kommen, so Engström. Der Schwede plant die “Bill of Rights” für das Internet, die sich auf drei Grundpfeiler stützen […]

    Pingback av Basic Flashback: Warum wir eine Bill of Rights für das Internet brauchen | Basic Thinking Blog — 13 december 2009 @ 11:40

  149. @Pierre Jarillon. Your point is technical but very important. To my perception, this PEM initiative about a Human Bill of rights for the internet, or the UDHDR (Universal Declaration of Human Digital Rights) for Mnemosine has one and only one purpose. It is precisely to be a reference text, used to write the specification of the interoperability interface between systems sharing human driven concerns. (A personal point of view: I think that it is a pure nonsense, ”freedomicide”, and totally inefficient for a nation, or a group of nations, to adopt a constitutional text which purposes are to rule the whole Internet. Such a text has a human scope, and should be restricted to human, personal data.).

    For instance, this interface is hidden behind the term ”UDHDR compliancy” for the Mnemosine project: see (French), or (English).

    Kommentar av Jean-Marc Mercier — 13 december 2009 @ 14:42

  150. the internet bill of rights should include
    only allowing copy righted ”book” material to have copyright for a maximum of say ”5 years” or untill they have recouped their costs+ 10% should be in the internet rights. if any company or publisher does not make enough profit up to this sweet period, then they need to rethink their company strategy. any period after the 5 years or recouperation ”sweet period”, the data should be available to be freely accesed on the internet (google books or any other means) for the benifit of the majority (the human race). How any company can try to justify a period of ownership of data of 50 years is just gready and comes at the detriment of the human population, no company should have the attitude that their profit is more important than the greater good of humnanity.If this was the overiding mantra of companies from the year dot, then we would have advanced humnaity far beyond what it is now, without the all the detrimental effects that comes with gready companies

    Kommentar av LEE CHER — 13 december 2009 @ 17:31

  151. Jean-Marc Mercier, i find Universal Declaration of Human Digital Rights to be deeply wrong. When i read art. 27 ”Everyone has the right to the digital protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic digital production of which he is the author” i see a strong support for DRM, which is a tool for depriving people from their right to read. Right to take an active part in cultural life, or to study, is much more universal than that. Also think about right to privacy. Author of a movie may have a picture of me taken on the street, but i think my right to privacy is more important than any of his rights to the movie he just shot. And the people need the right to dissect, analyze, use and reuse this movie for critical, artistic or other reasons. Without that we will get to world of strict access and reuse control. So dystopian.

    Kommentar av Jarosław Lipszyc — 14 december 2009 @ 1:59

  152. @Jarosław Lipszyc. From a pure personal point of view, I deeply share your concern. However, MNEMOSINE is not an utopia, it is an operational project. The article 27 that you point out is included in the UDHR (United Nation Declaration of Human Rights of 1948). The purpose of the UDHDR (Universal Declaration of Human Digital Rights) included in MNEMOSINE legal preamble, is to be a common framework to any information system sharing human concerns. The only international reference about human rights is the UDHR. Thus, the one and only one way to proceed is to write the more straightforward interpretation of the UDHR as an information system, and to subordinate the result to it. This methodology has been followed to write the UDHDR, without considering personal feelings. However:

    1- The UDHDR can be safely modified through a democratic process.
    2- The UDHDR is intended to be a common framework for all information system sharing human concerns (it is somehow digitally ”pre constitutional”). MNEMOSINE has been thought as a NGO: anybody can create its NPO (Non profit Organization), and add its own set of rules (some how ”constitutional”) to the UDHDR. Such a NPO is called a representation to mimic the United Nations terminology. For instance, France is thinking to its own interpretation (http:\\ Poland could do the same at http:\\ Why not an european representation ?
    3- Concerning the last part of your remark, I think that it can be treated through Common creative license They are clearly compatible with the UDHDR.

    Kommentar av Mercier — 14 december 2009 @ 10:48

  153. What truely needs to be created is a ”what is illegal” bill on the interent.

    The way I see it, if it is in the digital world, it is up for grabs for anyone free of charge, unless it is a pay-site.
    Certain digital items such as child pornography of course are not included in this.
    Piracy will always be the underlying issue.
    But, make it the responsibility of the origin of the information responsible, not the users that download it.
    For example, if I was to upload a movie to share on the internet, all users downloading it should assume that I have the legal right to distribute this media. If it is determined that the media is copywritten, a reporting procedure should be followed and the media removed from the server storing the information.
    As someone who has downloaded ”possible” copywritten material off the internet for free, I do so assuming that the person/organization that placed it there has the appropriate licensing to distribute to the masses, and therefor I cannot be held accountable for receiving this information.

    Kommentar av Globe — 14 december 2009 @ 19:03

  154. […] You see a representative of the Swedish Pirate Party has been talking about something they call an “Internet Bill of Rights”. This is something which would protect peoples publishing rights and to restrict the authorities to […]

    Pingback av Dreams of a Bill! « Unsuspecting Author — 15 december 2009 @ 4:57

  155. I think that this Bill of Internet have already been create with a great and very deep work of many many people in the Charter for Innovation, Creativity and Access to Knowledge:

    This work start by considering and including other previous works:

    and it is work in progress with all the people that are endorsing it day after day. It has also been used in several country already to force changes in the law (like in Spain this days).

    We suggest that Pirate Partiet and the Green Group take this extended and very complete effort from the civil society, send their suggestions too and use this document in the europarliament as representative of the citizens wish and work. We shouldn’t repeat the same work twice and we should gather all around this very useful and representative one.

    Simona Levi, exgae, Barcelona

    Kommentar av simona levi — 15 december 2009 @ 20:25

  156. To the intention of politicians and lawyers, I wrote a small note over this topic. It concerns this initiative of the MEP, but also the numerous others ones that tries to take into account Fundamental rights into national constitutions. It is available at my blog site I wrote it in French, but can translate if there is some interest abroad. A summary of it in with my (poor and broken) English:

    These initiatives are clearly driven by noble concerns: privacy and infringement of copyrights, that are included in the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Thus it is quite normal that governments try to tackle these concerns. But my guess is that ruling the whole Internet through a constitutional add is very ambitious, politically dubious, and above all dangerous for fundamental rights. My perception is that a modern democracy should not accept to modify its constitution to rule out Internet. It should be restricted to systems managing human, personal data.

    I think that the correct way to proceed is to be non intrusive. It consists in creating a space of digital rights, devoted to manage and to host human, personal data. Technically, it means creating a set of standard and opens tool that must be used by every Information Systems that respect the UDHR.

    This way is more fair, more respectful of fundamental rights, cost less, and is adapted to constitutional purposes: a country can add the national specific tools needed to rule any information systems operating the personal data of its citizens. Indeed, this is the real purpose of a constitution: organizing at a country scale the public affairs.

    Above all, this way to proceed is a incredible source of social innovations, because such a system is centered on individuals. It allows to create a incredible number of high added values services.

    Technically, it is not very difficult. It consists in writing standards for cloud solutions verifying the UDHR. These standards are given by the UDHDR (The Universal Declaration of Human Digital Rights) The NPO MNEMOSINE already did some works and have some contact in this direction. You can contact me if you need further informations.

    To the attention of MEP: be careful, this is a dangerous political game for you. Your credibility is targeted. If you want to survive, be prudent: answer with a technologically innovative solution.

    Kommentar av Mercier — 15 december 2009 @ 21:23

  157. I tried to translate my previous post. ”The Internet, The politician and the lawyer”.

    ”No no no, this post is not intended to satirize the film director Sergio Leone. It is an attempt to translate my quite serious previous post with a poor and broken English. Lets go: Privacy concerns, and copyright infringements over Internet have risen several interrogations. This debate is relayed by politicians and legislators (lawyers), which initiatives are more or less inspired over this topic. These people are targeted in this post, at the very moment where they are trying to take into account Digital Rights into nationals constitutions: I would like suggesting to them an alternative, reasonable path to support their actions.”

    available at

    Kommentar av Mercier — 16 december 2009 @ 13:51

  158. Aside from the common and more obvious rights there are some new, still under study; as an example, the new right to oblivion (in italian, ”diritto all’oblio”), which tries to understand if, how and when individual persons have the right to have all or specific informartion removed from the public knowledhe (actually, the Net).
    More specifically, what right has any single person over deciding which information must be definitively removed, and when?
    On the other side, which information cannot be removed, though I will?
    As an example, if a person responsible for genocide, or for any serious bad act, wants that information to be removed, is the world people right more or less relevant than that of the single person?

    Kommentar av Andy — 17 december 2009 @ 13:50

  159. I follow up my previous post with another consideration.
    Do you remember the Asimov’s three laws of robotics (

    There we see explicited the fact that there are different grades of rights, and specifically the rights of the community are more relevant than those of individual.

    I think that with the Internet Bill of Rights we have to face this problem, and to provide some answer.

    It is useless to state my right to privacy, if everywhere we approve laws that allow someone to examine my communications for anti-terrorism purposes.

    Privacy exists only if we are absolutely sure that noone is tracing my communications. Absolutely sure.

    But today, everyone agrees on his/her right to privacy, but at the same time everyone is absolutely sure that someone is tracing and analyzing his/her communications (governments, security agencies, telecom carriers, ISPs, etc.).

    Kommentar av Andy — 17 december 2009 @ 14:01

  160. I am sure that among you, some people believes that only a global initiative concerning Digital Rights can be efficient. For instance, a classical argumentation is that Digital contents are of immaterial nature.

    For this set of people, they might be interested to read an operational project on this topic. Its executive summary, including the business model, is accessible on line at my blog at

    Merry Christmas to all!

    Kommentar av Jean-Marc Mercier — 21 december 2009 @ 14:41

  161. […] you haven’t done anything good this year or want to do more, support the idea of an Internet Bill of Rights intiated by Christian Engström (Swedish Member of the European Parliament) as well as Matthias […]

    Pingback av Net Neutrality and Freedom of Speech « New Technology – New Government? — 22 december 2009 @ 13:56

  162. Your private & anonymous surfing solution You can unblock several popular websites including MySpace, Bebo, Facebook, YouTube, Orkut, Friendster and many other sites. Feel free to browse 24/7 and don’t forget to tell your friends!

    Kommentar av Safe secure surfing — 28 december 2009 @ 3:53

  163. 1. Every human has a right to access internet freely and without any limitations. If the human in question is unable to afford to pay for internet connection or to buy a computer, local government body must provide him and other such people with free public access internet spots.
    2. Neither a local government body, nor an internet provider can filter or censor the incoming or outcoming information.
    3. No legal body, or internet provider or anyone else for that matter can track users internet browsing history, nor they can collect any other private information.
    4. Every person has a right to encrypt information. No legal government body or anyone else for that matter is allowed to try to decrypt encrypted information. Any attempts to decrypt that information is considered a felony.
    5. None of these rights can be relinquished, no matter what conditions. No court order can relinquish these rights.

    Kommentar av Liudvikas — 30 december 2009 @ 18:13

  164. […] Oder von Menschen? See Engströms Bill of Rights […]

    Pingback av All Datenpakete are created equal | — 31 december 2009 @ 16:38

  165. It could be said in one short sentence: The Internet Is Copyright-Free Zone!

    Kommentar av bluenorther — 2 januari 2010 @ 13:56

  166. Hi everyone!

    I’v set up this site: with an initial, proposed text in what I hope is a suitable format. I hope that it, with the input from you all can be further refined and then used by Christian at al in the political process.

    Best Regards & Happy New Year

    Kommentar av internetbillofrights — 2 januari 2010 @ 15:07

  167. Hi

    Here follows version 0.1 of a proposed Internet Bill of Rights; updated versions are available at

    A proposed Internet Bill of Rights, ver. 0.1
    January 2, 2010 by internetbillofrights


    Considering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December 1948;

    Considering that this Declaration aims at securing the universal and effective recognition and observance of the Rights therein declared;

    Considering that this declaration was drafted in a pre-internet era and that its application to Internet-era issues have caused concern;

    Considering the extraordinary effects the recent, broad adaptation of Internet technologies for all aspects of society has had, and is having on the way people choose to communicate with each other, in private and in public, on the way all kinds of electronic media is produced and consumed, and on the way commerce is conducted. The Internet has enabled far more people to take an active role in their societies, has promoted intensified open debate and inclusive democracy on more equal terms through the simple fact that anyone can publish and discuss matters of interest with a global reach, without having access to prohibitively expensive equipment and advanced technical knowledge;

    Considering in particular:

    * the phenomenal growth of valuable content, software and knowledge in the public domain and the positive effects it has on society at large
    * the positive effects on democracy, economic growth and equal opportunity by offering disadvantaged groups access to, and means to produce valuable content including for education & training
    * the way individuals, families and groups chooses to document their private and professional life’s on-line, make friends and stay in touch with friends and family in an era of globalization
    * the growth of even very private and sensitive communications over the Internet and other networks and the improved efficiencies and service levels it brings to sectors such as healthcare, taxation, accounting, legal and other sectors
    * emerging technologies to document, recognize and use biometric data and it’s emerging use on the Internet;

    Considering that our common digital heritage will be of great importance for present and future generations and that increasingly, individuals will choose to record and document their life’s in digital and Internet-ready formats; and contribute to our common digital heritage in the ways they choose.

    Considering that a significant, and growing part of the global economy will depend on open source software and it’s associated services;

    Have agreed as follows:

    Article 1

    The continued growth of quality content, knowledge and software in the public domain that is free for anyone to use should be promoted and actively supported for the common good. The continued development of appropriate and open licensing forms such as GNU General Public License, GPL and Creative Commons should also be supported and actively promoted.

    Article 2

    All content, information, data, knowledge and software developed, compiled or documented using public funding should be made available in the public domain in formats and using licensing forms that promotes their continued use and further development in the public domain.

    All online content and services provided by publicly funded organisations should be made accessible for all, regardless of cognitive abilities, disabilities and age.

    Article 3

    Everyone has the right to access the Internet at any time and for any duration, and to use any service provided on the Internet as they wish. Everyone should have the freedom to choose and change Internet Service Provider and method and scope for his/hers Internet connection(s) as he/she sees appropriate. Everyone should have the right to choose the access device he/she wishes to use for accessing the Internet independently of his/her choice of Internet Service Provider. Less privileged groups should be given access on favourable terms.

    Article 4

    Everyone has the right to form, seek membership in, belong to, contribute to, benefit from and leave any online group. Such membership cannot be forced.

    Article 5

    Everyone has the right to remain anonymous on the Internet and no one has the right to engage in activities seeking to identify a person behind a site visitor, sender or receiver of e-mails or other forms of communications or identifications unless a competent court of justice has issued an arrest warrant. Everyone has the right to use any available tools such as encryption to preserve his/hers anonymity online.

    Article 6

    Everyone, and any group has the right to freely publish content such as but not limited to, text, audio, video, data, information, knowledge and software on the Internet and to freely engage in discussions with others on the Internet regarding for example ways to further improve such content. It is the sole right of the author/group of authors to decide the terms for such publication and further use by others. The continued growth of quality content in the public domain should be encouraged and promoted using recognized open licensing forms such as GNU General Public License, GPL and Creative Commons licensing. Such work is considered to be free for all to use in any form and for any purpose if no licensing form is decided and announced by the author or if no author can reliably be identified.

    Article 7

    Everyone, or any group acting as an author has the right to be recognized for her/his works. Every author has the right to remain anonymous or publish works under a freely chosen pseudonym.

    Article 8

    Everyone has the right to link to published content on the Internet, regardless of it’s licensing form and ownership, provided adequate recognition is given to the linked contents author and that such linking preserves the linked sites characteristics. Linking to another authors published content assumes no responsibility for that content.

    Everyone has the right to quote selected sentences of text from other authors published works provided a reference and preferably a link is provided to the quoted work.

    Everyone has the right to use any authors published works in accordance with their respective licensing terms. Such licensing terms must be reasonable and must not infringe on anyones rights according to this Declaration.

    Article 9

    Everyone has the full and sole rights to any digital imprint of his/her body, organs or bodily functions such as genetic sequence, protein structure, medical imaging, chemical nature, physical characteristics such as dimensions, shape, colour and texture, voice and movement characteristics and he/she should be considered the author of such information with the corresponding rights even if another party has recorded this digital imprint. Everyone has the right of giving another party the rights to use such digital imprints to create derivative works, including but not limited to scientific conclusions and new knowledge in medicine.

    Everyone has the right to refuse any recording of such digital imprints unless required by law. Everyone has the right to know what data is recorded and stored, where it is stored, for what purpose it is used and kept, for how long it is preserved and who has the right to access and use the information. Such recording and storage of usage data must be reasonable and must not infringe on the rights in this Declaration. Everyone has the right to have any such data kept by anyone deleted at any time unless required by law.

    Article 10

    Everyone has the full and sole rights to any documentation, recording or representation of his/her private life performed in his/her private home or physical or electronic venue regardless of who recorded this data. Everyone has the right of protection against intrusion into his/hers private life or any electronic representation thereof in accordance with Article 12 in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    Article 11

    Everyone has the right to be protected against attacks upon his honour and reputation in accordance with Article 12 in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Children and other specially vulnerable groups must be given special attention.

    Article 12

    Everyone has the right to communicate with others using the Internet and have the right to decide to do so in private. No one has the right to interfere with, intercept or corrupt communications over the Internet. Everyone has the right to protect any communications using any form of encryption or similar safeguards that is available on the Internet in order to preserve it’s confidentiality, integrity and authenticity.

    Article 13

    Everyone has the right to make any provision he/she sees fit to protect his/hers IT equipment, data and services from unauthorized access, intrusion, changes and destruction. Everyone has the right to deny anyone access to his/hers IT equipment, data and services for any duration of time. Any data that results from a persons use of a leased service or leased equipment is the property of that person and must be made available to that person upon termination of the leased service or leased equipment in a format that facilitates continued use. A deceased persons IT equipment, data and services is inherited as other property.

    Article 14

    Everyone has the right to see, verify, modify and delete personal information concerning himself/herself stored by a site owner or service provider. Everyone has the right to know what data associated with his/hers use of a particular service is recorded and stored, where it is stored, for what purpose it is used and kept, for how long it is preserved and who has the right to access and use the information. Such recording and storage of usage data must be reasonable and must not infringe on the rights in this Declaration

    Article 15

    Everyone using the Internet has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary treatment in violation of his/her rights according to this Declaration.

    Article 16

    Everyone has the right to become a site owner by registering a domain name and leasing or setting up the corresponding infrastructure to host a site. A site owner may provide any type of service and may publish any type of content that is not in conflict with the rights of other persons according to this declaration, in conflict with national or international law or interferes with the safe use and operation of the Internet and it’s services.

    Article 17

    Everyone, acting as a site owner must, if he/she stores and/or utilizes usage data, publish a privacy policy that corresponds to the real use of recorded data and does not conflict with any article in this declaration. A site owner is responsible for enforcing this policy for the duration of the sites existence online.

    Article 18

    Everyone, acting as a site owner and who decides to accept other authors contributions in his/her site must publish the terms for doing so. All contributions should be attributed to its author. Authors are themselves responsible for their own content.

    Article 19

    Everyone is responsible for the information he/she is providing from sites, e-mail accounts and other services controlled by him/her unless this provision is the result of unauthorized use of IT resources that could not reasonably have been prevented. No one is responsible for information received from others regardless if this information was previously requested or not. No Internet Service Provider, ISP has any responsibility to any 3rd party for the content of any communications travelling on it’s network

    Article 20

    Every ISP must respect the privacy and confidentiality of all communications of all persons using its services and must not provide identities, traffic data nor the contents of communications to any 3rd party unless ordered to do so on an individual person by person basis by a competent court of justice. Everyone affected by such a court order have the right of appeal.

    Article 21

    Every ISP must only save traffic data to the extent it is necessary for safe and reliable operations and such data must be destroyed in such a way that it cannot be recreated when it no longer fulfils reasonable operational purposes, or for a maximum time of 6 months. ISP’s should be encouraged to keep only the bare minimum of traffic data

    Article 22

    No ISP have the right to limit traffic in terms of volume or service types for it’s customers unless it negatively and significantly affects the service it provides

    Article 23

    Every ISP must provide it’s services to all end-user equipment and devices that conforms to generally agreed Internet standards. ISP’s must not require it’s customers to use only a specific device for accessing it’s services and when bundling a service with a specific access device both must be available separately. It must accept access devices from any 3rd party as long as the device conforms to generally agreed Internet standards and causes no negative interference with services provided

    Article 24

    Applicable laws are international laws and the laws that applies for the territory where the user of Internet services is located

    Kommentar av internetbillofrights — 2 januari 2010 @ 23:38

  168. Christian, I am happy that you considered making a reference to the United Nations 1948 UDHR, it is clearly important for the counsil of Europe.

    The main criticism that I could make to this text is that it is trying to rule the whole Internet, and that it is missing some important points.

    Maybe we should understand what are the purposes of this bill. My feeling is that it is targetting as a reference for European nations constitutions. This initiative is driven to open the path to Digital Rights, as a constitued part of national laws. Thus we have to be very careful.

    1- It may not be pertinent for a Nation or a group of Nations as Europe to rule the whole Internet. For instance, what happen if a website, hosted outside of Europe, do not fulfill this bill? Accordingly, nations should blacklist the site and cut any connections ? This is really dangerous for freedom, and you could kill the underground cyberculture, that is an engine for digital innovations. Nevertheless, my guess is that a modern democracy will not accept to refer to this text at a constitutional level.

    2- An important point is missed. The right for anyone to have a secured, safe and perenial on line backup solution. You can’t miss this point : safegarding the digital memory of individuals in the long term will just be the cement of European democracies.

    Kommentar av Jean-Marc Mercier — 3 januari 2010 @ 13:28

  169. Hi Jean-Marc

    I’m sorry for not introducing myself properly and my intention was not to try to highjack Christians excellent initiative in any way, just to support it the best I can.

    I believe you are making some very important points on how to move this initiative forward; I have yet no clear picture of this. In the past, the UNHR declaration came first in 1948 against the backdrop of WWII with a general and as I understand non-binding declaration that stake out an ambition for further work. A few years later came the European Council with it’s binding declaration that was concrete (and with many exceptions open) and that initially only covered basic rights. Years later came several, amended and binding declarations with further rights. Step-by-step, these rights have been implemented into each country’s constitution; one of the more recent, and very good examples is the Russian constitution that actually explicitly mentions ”Everyone shall have the right to privacy of correspondence, of telephone conversations and of postal, telegraph and other communications. This right may be limited only on the basis of a court order.”

    Today, many of us feel there is an urgent need to somehow extend human and fundamental rights into the Internet world as well. Many have in the past assured me that the same human rights applies online. Today, we know that is not true. Question is, how will this move forward?

    The format I selected was a taken from the first European Council declaration, assuming that the aim is to get this as a binding declaration, amended to the European councils convention for the protection of human rights? Or am I wrong here?

    Very Best Regards
    Peter Szmulik

    Kommentar av internetbillofrights — 3 januari 2010 @ 17:20

  170. @Peter,

    Oops, sorry, I read too quickly: I thought that it was a first version of a Bill of Rights by Christian Engström. Thanks for commenting. Just to understand who you are: are you the Peter Szmulik of the RUSLANet project ?

    Kommentar av Jean-Marc Mercier — 3 januari 2010 @ 18:04

  171. Hi Jean-Marc!


    Well, RUSLANet was a long time ago while I was part of DEC’s Internet Business Group. More about me here:

    You can also reach me at: peter (at)

    Best Regards

    Kommentar av internetbillofrights — 3 januari 2010 @ 18:21

  172. Hi peter.
    I can not comment on your site, it seems that only admins are allowed to do so.
    I answered you privately at your email address peter (at)

    Kommentar av Jean-Marc Mercier — 5 januari 2010 @ 0:27

  173. […] weeks ago, MEP Christian Engström announced that he was partnering with the Greens to work on an Internet Bill of Rights that would one day be submitted to the European Parliament—and he wanted the collective […]

    Pingback av Privacy Source » New Internet Bill of Rights contender comes from… pirates? — 5 januari 2010 @ 13:39

  174. Vore inte rätten att kryptera information något för denna Bill of Rights?

    Kommentar av infallsvinkel — 10 januari 2010 @ 16:40


    Pingback av VOX DEI » Blog Archive » Internetiõiguste deklaratsioon — 28 januari 2010 @ 9:32

  176. […] schwedische Euopa Abgeorndete Christian Engström beispielsweise startet den Versuch eine Bill of Rights für das Netz zu formulieren… Bürgerrechte für das Digitale Zeitalter… es ist […]

    Pingback av TOURpedo – der touristische Weblog der HHN » Krieg im Netz? | Informations- und Meinungsplattform des Studienganges Tourismusmanagement — 29 januari 2010 @ 15:51

  177. […] Piratpartiets Europaparlamentariker Christian Engström arbetar tillsammans med den gröna gruppen i… […]

    Pingback av Internet Bill of Rights – Rätten att länka « infallsvinkel — 2 februari 2010 @ 22:30

  178. Interesting post and I really like your take on the issue. I now have a clear idea on what this matter is all about. Thank you so much. I have a variety of topics including information on Cargo pants women or Cheap sperry shoes

    Kommentar av caruso steam rollers — 26 februari 2010 @ 20:46

  179. […] en de muziekindustrie, maar de voortdurende aanslagen op de vrijheden van internetters. Eerst een Internet Bill of Rights opstellen, dan zien of er nog samen te werken valt met de Amerikanen, dat zou de koninklijke weg […]

    Pingback av Geen downloadverbod langs de achterdeur van ACTA at DOWNLOADEN JA DAT MAG! — 8 mars 2010 @ 17:14

  180. seems hard to get breaktrough on this probleems, different country have different rule just like swedia and germany as described obove

    Kommentar av william duff — 11 mars 2010 @ 4:40

  181. […] la particolarità della proposta lanciata. “Non abbiamo ancora scritto alcunché – ha scritto Engström sul proprio blog – e vogliamo iniziare a farlo in una maniera innovativa”. […]

    Pingback av Mediattivismo 037 « Adriana&Maurizio's Blog – pittura, poesia & mediattivismo — 17 maj 2010 @ 14:29

  182. […] of rights for the internet In Uncategorized on September 30, 2010 at 11:24 pm Let’s write an Internet Bill of Rights says Christian Engström, Member of the European Parliament for Piratpartiet, Sweden (from […]

    Pingback av Bill of rights for the internet « New Yorker Bill of Rights — 1 oktober 2010 @ 4:24

  183. […] Internet Bill of Rights : another attempt to draft Internet Bill of Rights which is led by Swedish pirate partsimple y MEP Engstrom, I am not sure about the status of this project (the previous IBR projects : 1 and 2 ). […]

    Pingback av Some links to Internet Bill of Rights « 3apparatchik's blog — 5 mars 2011 @ 5:25

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Blogg på

%d bloggare gillar detta: