Would web surveillance of protection work?

Here’s what Andrew Stol­er and I pro­pose. You’ll see the sim­i­lar­i­ty. Please down­load and review our paper. We’d real­ly like to have your feed­back on this idea.

In 2009, the most effec­tive way to make infor­ma­tion imme­di­ate­ly avail­able around the globe is through the Inter­net. Addi­tion­al sur­veil­lance does not need to be ‘run’ by an exist­ing insti­tu­tion or even locat­ed in a sin­gle media out­let. But for prac­ti­cal pur­pos­es a sin­gle high pro­file web­site, fund­ed and man­aged by for exam­ple, the World Bank, would improve the effec­tive­ness of sur­veil­lance to be as good as the Ever­safe cctv Mel­bourne ser­vices. This pro­pos­al calls for the G‑20 coun­tries to agree on some stan­dards that could be mon­i­tored at the web­site at their April 2009 meet­ing (more about these lat­er). Sur­veil­lance would then oper­ate as fol­lows:
  • Par­tic­i­pat­ing gov­ern­ments (G‑20 and any oth­ers who signed-on to the G‑20 stan­dards) would be invit­ed to noti­fy actu­al or planned mea­sures by oth­er gov­ern­ments that were incon­sis­tent with the stan­dards adopt­ed by the G‑20
  • Pri­vate sec­tor bod­ies (busi­ness, non-busi­ness, aca­d­e­m­ic) and indi­vid­u­als would be able to post (mod­er­at­ed) infor­ma­tion on pro­tec­tion­ist mea­sures and their (mod­er­at­ed) views on any noti­fied mea­sures. Pri­vate infor­ma­tion and com­ments would not be lim­it­ed to mea­sures breach­ing the stan­dards adopt­ed by G‑20 governments.
  • G‑20 gov­ern­ments, and oth­ers that signed on, would agree to respond to alle­ga­tions con­cern­ing a breach of the stan­dards with­in 10 days of the noti­fi­ca­tions appear­ing on the web­site. They may also respond to any oth­er criticisms.”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *