Rick Falkvinge, pirate

Articles of Interest

(Original post published on September 30th, 2009)

This morning saw the release of two very interesting articles.

In the first article (Dagens Nyheter, Henrik Oscarsson, Ulf Bjereld, 2009) it is established that the general public’s acceptance of surveillance of the civilian population has seen a dramatic decrease since 2002. The authors point out a strong connection between this and the success of the Pirate Party, and further assert that we have been successful in the advocacy of our policies. As they conclude that there is also a connection between the increasingly negative opinion of coercive measures, and left-wing ideology, the question is raised of whether the Left are absorbing the libertarian and information-political ideals. There was no such connection seen in 2002.

Since I find myself in a somewhat advantageous position on analysing the question at issue, I will provide some further data. It is my conviction that, had that same survey been conducted in the summer of 2006, we would instead have seen a weak but significant connection between right-wing ideology and libertarian information politics. It is not without reason that the surveillance society is called The Bodström Society. Because of undetermined causes, we find ourselves in a situation where the Swedish government – irregardless of position on a left-right scale – continue to drive the legislation of severely repressive laws, while the opposition gain freebie points by pretending to disapprove, even though having pursued those very same policies themselves during the last term.

These questions were non-existent in 2002, or had at the least not been raised in the political arena, which is why I believe that there was no apparent political connection at the time.

Also worthy of mention is the 2009 European Parliament post-election analysis by the Social Democrats. They, too, see a weak connection to left-wing sympathies, but draw a different set of conclusions altogether, which I believe to be more accurate:

The left and green parties are losing more votes to the Pirate Party than are the conservatives, which depends first and foremost on the right bloc’s weaker support among young voters.

They also conclude that people coming into voting age choose to become cross-political in favor of libertarian information politics, instead of, as seen earlier, having gravitated toward the Left. This constitutes a significant number of people, where 37% of male first-time voters cast their vote on the Pirate Party.

We have a good hunch of whether the sympathies within the party weigh stronger to the right or the left, and the opposing sides seem to have been in an equilibrium since 2006, with no preference for one or the other. For the moment, we find it easier to cooperate with the opposition, albeit this is sooner due to that they are just that – in opposition – rather than their ideological orientation. This was likewise the case before the 2006 general election, when the conservatives were in opposition.

Henrik Oscarsson and Ulf Bjereld also provide comment on the article at their respective blogs.

In the second article (Svenska Dagbladet, 2009) the CEOs of nine Internet service providers publicly defend the principle of mere conduit, also called common carrier or messenger immunity (Swedish: budbärarimmunitet.) However, they may have been too late, and the effectiveness and timing of their move can be called into question. What we need is a legal defense fund for ISPs, called for by Oscar Swartz as early as in 2005, made current by the ruling in the case against Black Internet. The question of the ”responsibility of the service providers,” a common battle cry among the Mafia, however, has already started to gain foothold, and needs to be pushed back with far more effective means than this excellent reasoning:

Consider that the Postal Service would be held responsible [sic] for any illegal message or contraband sent by their customers; that café owners would be held responsible for the conversations of their guests; or that the Road Administration would be responsible for the actions of drivers, and be forced to close off roads where one could suspect criminals to travel.

In every case, the effects are exclusively negative. The freedom of speech and information is undermined, while the costs of service providers increase with higher broadband fees [for the end-user], and decreased resources available for expanding the internet infrastructure, as a consequence.

They are certainly right in raising this question. However, the concept of a ”criminal service provider” has already started to appear in political documents – that is, a service provider whom does not assume responsibility for what goes on in their network. What we need now is a massive political initiative and lobbying effort. The Pirate Party is currently working with this question, albeit by itself and while facing a great deal of resistance.