This sounds like something that came from a report submitted by the sub-committee to the full committee responsible for reasonable letter writing.

How about something like this:

‘We demand that DRM should not be given any legal protection. In fact, we believe that DRM should be illegal in this country.’

I guess idealism isn’t what it used to be.

Under Common Law, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence. Suspension of civil rights must be based on probable cause, sworn to before a highly placed magistrate, who must satisfy himself that the proposed “probable cause” is based on fact and an accumulation of evidence. Many of the recent laws enacted by the United States of America have totally twisted time-honored legal precedent – vague allegations and hearsay do not fulfill the requirements for probable cause.

More groups, both large and small, need to raise their voices. Our elected representatives need to be reminded by a multitude of inputs that the only answer to the establishment of just laws and procedure must begin with a tabula rasa. A general call to action, by the peoples of the world to their representatives, needs to go out loud and clear: stop the knee-jerk reactions to self-serving political groups with barrels of money designed to dictate the wording and nature of laws which are needed to protect all concerned.

Patch-work, add-on, and second-thought amendments to current law under the guise of careful legislative consideration are little more than infantile reactions where deliberative, intellectual new concepts are needed.

No matter what group you belong to, no matter how large or small, no matter what political leaning, no matter how zealous your beliefs in what is right, urge your group to write to your national legislatures encouraging them to stand back and take a fresh look. No law is yet carved in stone. Encourage the law-makers to start from a blank piece of paper and legislate this world-wide phenomenon from scratch. Tell them not to write laws that are unnecessary; tell them to base their laws on human and civil rights and on common law. Neither strengthen nor weaken the reasons for man’s necessity to control other men’s actions. Child pornography is already proscribed in most societies; there is no need to write new laws where old laws already apply.

Do not create ad hoc law enforcement agencies from simple businessmen. No ISP should be required to keep records that any other business is not required to keep. No ISP should be required to act as a law enforcement agency and should not be required to police the actions of its subscribers. No law enforcement agency should be granted greater rights over the Internet that they are otherwise permitted. Any allegation of wrong doing must be presented by affidavit of probable cause, which must satisfy a magistrate that such affidavit is not based on whimsy or unsubstantiated imagination.

A Continental Congress is necessary to approach the matter freshly. Such a Congress should be necessary in every sovereign nation; then a United Nations Committee should serve as a forum for the resolution of conflicting laws, insofar as the international availability of the Web is concerned. Each nation must be assured of its sovereignty, but where legal lines are blurry, this is where the International Forum would help. In many nations, sexual maturity is established at fifteen years of age; in other nations, eighteen is the age of consent. Where such discrepancies exist, the International Forum could coordinate the manner in which such cases would be handled.

However, excessive boundaries must not be treated by law, but rather by cooperation or protocol. Example: Religion is a flammable topic for many. In some countries, (U.S.A., for example), a web page depicting demonology or what might to some religions be seen as heretical, cannot and should not be legislated (unless legal statutes are treated illegally); access to such web sites by persons in sovereign nations that preclude viewing such subject matter, should become the concern of that objecting nation, and the International Forum might prescribe certain types of blocking chips or other technology which would not interfere with the web hosts rights while enforcing the laws of a sovereign nation.

I do not propose to know the answers to each situation. I do propose that every free citizen in a free society has the obligation to call upon his legislative representatives to demand and insist upon a fresh approach to this very fresh problem.

The World Wide Web was conceived as an almost miraculous way to share information and knowledge. It should not be reduced to some vast marketplace where every iota of knowledge becomes a commodity. Commercialization cannot be avoided, but just as objectionable items can be brought under some reasonable degree of control, so, too, can excessive venality.

If I were sitting on such a law-making forum, I would point out that when a shopper goes to the mall, he is not required to sign a Privacy Agreement or Terms of Service Contract, etc. I would do my utmost to make “browsing” or “web surfing” untraceable or unaccountable. If I want to browse through your on-line store, you should not be allowed to restrict me or preclude me, unless by prior action whereby you had specific reason to restrict a person an invoke a form “Trespassing” notice. Where age restrictions are required (as in pornography sites), a mode of proof-of-age could be devised by the above-referred to International Forum.

And foremost of all: no person, company, organization, country, or group of any nature could access my personal information without first obtaining a court order.

So write! Make it as formal as possible from a group to which you belong. Tell the world’s elected bureaucrats that the are not doing their job until a brand new “World Wide Web Internet Statutes and Procedures” has been written from scratch, and not pieced together like a patch-work quilt. It should be a Twenty-First Century document enunciating the rights of man.