The ability to own a physical home changed the world. Establishing the concept of a ‘digital home’ will change the Big Social world.
Homeowners in western civilizations enjoy great security and privacy benefits. Digital homeowners should benefit from some of the same benefits.
In the US, the 2nd and 4th amendments assure Citizens are able to protect their home, and keep governing bodies out. Citizens should have similar rights in the digital realm: define their ‘digital home’, defend it, and keep unwanted governing bodies from occupying it.
The Digital Home Bill of Rights
|1st||Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and the right to petition both a Social Network and the Social Network governance (e.g. FCC).|
|2nd||Right to keep and bear digital arms to assure personal security, manage surveillance, and fight against digital tyranny|
|3rd||Restricts the quartering of digital soldiers in private Digital Homes|
|4th||No unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause. Surveillance will never be shared, sold or otherwise disseminated without explicit permission|
|5th||Eminent digital domain, protects the right to digital due process|
|6th||Right to a speedy digital trial by jury, to notification of criminal digital accusations, to confront digital accusers, to obtain digital witnesses and data, and to retain counsel|
|7th||Provides for the right to a digital jury trial in digital proceedings: must have access to digital evidence|
|8th||Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment (e.g. banishment)|
|9th||Rights not enumerated in the Social Network Terms of Services are retained by the people|
|10th||Social Network and Social Network Governance (FCC) possess only those powers delegated, or enumerated, to it through their Terms of Services|
Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and the right to petition both a Social Network and the Social Network governance (e.g. FCC).
In today’s oligoly-controlled social regimes, parties can be shut down based on religion, speech, even assembly, with limited or no ability to petition.
As private entities, companies like FB have this right: the Constitution’s 1st Amendment primarily affects what governments – and their extensions like public schools – can and cannot do.
I choose to build a social network on Facebook. The lack of viable alternatives and my inability to build a social network on alternatives (a chicken-egg situation) essentially creates imperfect competition, giving these companies control over my social network.
Right to keep and bear digital arms to assure personal security, manage surveillance, and fight against digital tyranny.
Imagine an army sitting outside of your physical house sneaking in and out, with your full knowledge. This is the state of your current digital home.
Digital citizens need to be armed to fight against this tyranny.
Restricts the quartering of digital soldiers in private Digital Homes.
Recently my Youtube feed prompted me with an ad for “Neck Stretching”. I had this conversation in the kitchen with my wife. A digital YouTube soldier was listening and decided I could use help solving the problem, by watching one of their videos. OK, more like ‘butler’ in that scenario, but you can see how that could easily become ‘soldier’.
Devices capable of soldiering like that should be held to a standard. The Internet of Thing IoT will explode this issue. There should be a reasonable expectation of privacy when my phone is listening to me. Sharing what it has heard with apps and companies should be visible to me.
There should be no unreasonable searches and seizures, and there should be requirements for searches and search warrants based on probable cause. Surveillance will never be shared, sold or otherwise disseminated without explicit opt-in permission.
Google is prolific in its ability to gather information for internet searches. There is no reason to believe they are not equally excellent in searching what is on my Android or iPhone device. Apple and other oligopolists are not far behind.
I may want them to gather info from my phone for when I search, but that does not imply I want that to share that information beyond to internal bots or other apps or services. Google assumed that since I said “neck stretches” that it could return a list of applicable videos. I have no visibility to that transaction, nor the scope of what Google is collecting or sharing.
There is no ‘unreasonable’ without that list. Like the SEIC of cybersecurity, digital homes need a ‘register’ that collects the surveillance being done, and where that surveillance info is being shared.
Citizens have the right to carve out their Digital Home, and should have due process to protect rights to that Digital Home.
Local governments value the concept of the physical homestead, and have government agencies that help define what that is, and who owns it.
Governments need to value the concept of the digital homestead and establish protocols for Citizens to defined and defend their digital home.
Citizens will get speedy digital trials by jury, notifications of digital accusations of violations; ability to confront digital accusers, to obtain digital witnesses and data, and to retain counsel
Oligopolies have nearly unlimited power to outlast the typical citizen. While enjoying this imperfect competition, they should be held to standards regarding accusations, witnesses, and evidence.
A Citizen accused of violations has the right to a digital jury trial in digital proceedings, and must be given access to digital evidence used in the accusation.
Physical communities and governments respect the value of unbiased Citizens helping to sort out judgments of disputes and accusations.
Digital communities should develop similar concepts, enabling random digital homeowners to participate in resolutions of disputes.
Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment (e.g. hidden black-listing, ghosting, banishment, etc.)
Evidence suggests that today’s social media oligopolists conduct countless cruel and unusual punishments, and excessive fines. Some evidence suggests it is weighted towards one set of the population.
Just as physical courts are required to publish punishments and fines to give visibility to the issues raised by this Amendment, oligopolists must publish the actions they take to assure similar abuse is not occurring.
Similar to unreasonable searches, oligopolists need to ‘register’ the punitive actions they have taken against citizens.
Rights not enumerated in the Social Network Terms of Services are retained by the people
ToS are the joke of the Internet. Yet they remain the best viable solution.
Oligopolists must (a) adhere to a governance-sanctioned “Your Rights as a Digital Citizen” YRAADC document that includes these amendments and is presented to Citizens; and (b) must submit their TOS versions to the governance body as a memorialization of those terms.
Social Networks and Social Networks Governance (FCC) possess only those powers delegated, or enumerated, to it through their Terms of Services.
Undoubtedly new technologies and/or practices will fall outside the scope of current definitions and governance. Where there is discrepancy of Digital Citizen versus Social Media Oligopolist, the rights of the Digital Citizen should prevail.