[discuss] My current understanding of scope and why

[Jorge Amodio]

> On Jan 7, 2014, at 10:44 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 7 Jan 2014, at 6:33 pm, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Andrew thanks for taking the time and patience to put together this great summary.
>> 
>> I will just add that as "why" is important the other question that we have been asking repeated times for which I've only seen lengthy statements, some of them full of non-sense, and that still remains is "what problems require fixing?"
> 
> Maybe this indicates that you are asking the wrong question.  It's a bit like the citizens of a dictatorship calling for elections, and the dictator responding, "What problems require fixing?  You have food to eat, don't you?  You have clothes on your back?"

 More non-sense, I really don't know where you pretend to go with your dictatorship analogy. I'm not saying that there are no problems, and that if a fix is required we don't have to continue to explore ways to keep improving to make Internet better.

Pervasive surveillance does not exist because of the technical capabilities, the lack of accountability and oversight is not a technical problem, and there is no technical solution to fix it when the main issue is several layers above the telecommunications infrastructure, Internet protocols and services.

Can we in the technology development process pay more attention to privacy and security, no doubt, but once again that is not the problem.

I doubt very much that IETF, IGF, 1net or any other of the organizations part of this discussion can solve for example the lack of proper oversight that it is mostly the responsibility of government and people's representatives, which requires a complete different solution than the pervasive filtering or censorship of content, or limits or complete lack of freedom of expression in some countries.

Can Consumers International make a statement about the oversight problem in the USG in regards to the  NSA ? I guess yes. Do you have enough clout and lobbying power in the US Congress to produce a change, I don't know. Will the US Congress listen to a coalition of disparate and of dubious representation organizations ? I guess no.

I don't think is quite clear yet what the purpose of the Brazil meeting is besides empowering a dialog and discussion about what issues require or will be better deal with in a multilateral or multistakeholder fashion, and perhaps come with a set of common principles. But I also doubt very much that anything at that level and with such a broad spectrum of participants will be accomplished in two days, without previous and substantial preparation for which now there is not enough time.

Regards
Jorge