Internet Bill of Rights

I think this would be a good move, there need to be some protections codified in law.

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom
of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue
is a good place to start.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf

Broadband access should be a human right that is essential to full participation in a democratic society. Access cannot be removed arbitrarily or made unaffordable to any section of society. The three strikes law should be repealed.

The full guarantee of the right to freedom of expression must be the norm, and any limitation considered as an exception, and that this principle should never be reversed.

Content restriction should be based on the principles outlined in the report.
(1) it must be provided by law, which is clear
and accessible to everyone (principles of predictability and transparency);
(2) it must pursue one of the purposes set out in article 19, paragraph 3, of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , namely:
(i) to protect the rights or reputations
of others;
(ii) to protect national security or public order, or public health or morals
(principle of legitimacy); and
(3) it must be proven as necessary and the least
restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim (principles of necessity and proportionality).

In addition, any legislation restricting the right to freedom of expression must be applied by a body which is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. There should also be adequate safeguards against abuse, including the possibility of challenge and remedy against its abusive application.

@andrewmcpherson that's a fabulous proposal.

We must include some sort of transport layer neutrality, though!

Forgot to mention this, but Gareth Hughes of the Greens has been working on this:
http://www.internetrightsbill.org.nz/

That's another one where we could support the greens, as they are way ahead. It would be much more efficient to help them improve their proposal than to try to do the same, but different under our own flag that nobody recognises. This would also show that we are not dogmatic nor childish and do really care about our core issues and want to advance in a way that actually can make a difference.

Here is another manifest to potentially support:
http://document.netmundial.br/1-internet-governance-principles/

We should be prepared to take part in any conversation and or action that would promote Pirate Party principles outside our own party.

Not sure if Gareth has addressed data sovereignty in his draft bill of rights, but it's an issue a lot of people don't understand, and one the Pirates could be at the forefront of educating people about:
http://www.1stcloud.com/nz/data-sovereignty/

The problem I have with data sovereignty in the context of global data services in the cloud, is that you must subject your service to each countries laws that you operate in.
In effect, this is analogous to a christian trying to follow all the verses of the bible, even the ones that contradict each other.
For this reason, the cloud project I am working on is not sovereign to any nation, due to self-hosting and social sharing it is impossible to even know which countries your hosting is in besides on your device.
There is no good argument for a global cloud service to tie itself to a nation's flag.

I agree with you in principle @andrewmcpherson , in fact I remember a time when it felt like the net wasn't subject to the laws on any state. However, states didn't like that, and are busy applying their laws to net users both inside and outside their territory. The link above suggests that a customer's data is subject to the law of the country where the hosting company is based (eg US), even if the customer and their data are located in another country (eg NZ).

The point of a data sovereignty policy would be to limit such expansions of jurisdiction.

In principle data should belong to the originator of the data. If the data is meta data about a person or legal entity then it should be something like the creative commons BY-NC-SA so that the data would be in the public domain but commercial use could be compensated or prevented.

@andrewreitemeyer I agree with your comment, but data ownership is orthogonal to the subject at hand, which is data sovereignty, specifically, which state's laws apply to a kiwi's data hosted in a US datacentre. NZ law? US law (including DMCA and Patriot Act)? Both? Neither, As @andrewmcpherson argues? We need to establish two things things here; which is currently the case in practice, and which we think should be the case. In the two differ, then we need to draft policy advocating for change.

BTW BY-NC-SA is a copyright license. Public domain, by definition, means "no [copy]rights reserved", so commercial use is allowed. I think the phrase you're looking is something like "freely shareable".

We are discussing an internet bill of rights. Which covers ownership - Section 21 of our Bill of Rights
I think that by default the data should be under the jurisdiction of the content creator. In transit and in storage it should be under safe harbour provisions
or something similar to the high seas law.

IMMI is looking into the international aspect of data protection. https://en.immi.is/

Sorry @andrewreitemeyer, you're right that Internet Bill of Rights is the topic. Thanks for the link, I'll check it out.

But again, ownership and sovereignty are related but separate issues. If I own a house in NZ, it's clear that I have ownership (of a freehold title) but the NZ State still has sovereignty over it. If I own a house boat (or data which is also mobile), I have ownership (as chattel property) but which state has jurisdiction over it? My understanding is that when at sea I'm under the jurisdiction of Maritime Law, and when in port (hosted on someone else's server) I'm under the jurisdiction of whichever state rules the territory the port (server) is in.

This may be reasonable (depending on how reasonable the government of that territory is) but it means I need to aware of what whose territory ports (servers) are located in, how reasonable their laws are, and whether or not to dock (host) my boat (data) there. The alternative, as @andrewmcpherson suggests, it to treat the net as its own jurisdiction, with is own governance (or lack thereof), but states appear not to accept this, and treating activity of the net as separate from the "real world" creates its own problems, and we've seen with the Harmful Digital Censorship Act.

I say it in the light of the old concept of the internet as an anarchy, just as the united nations is.
What we need in the light of the new idea that the internet is subject to the laws of the nations of the world, is lawmakers who actually understand science, maths, engineering and programming.
Which is where the pirate party comes in of course.

However, in the meantime it remains highly dangerous that most of the world's jurisdictions operate in ignorance of the workings of the internet, from US senators remarking that "the internet is a set of tubes", through to Russian MPs shutting down wikipedia for "promoting gay propaganda", or Pakistan banning and blocking Youtube across most of the world for several hours.