Having "activities", and prominently taking a stand for what's right, are very different things. On Nov 7, 2017, at 2:30 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: > Hi Keith, > > yes, ISOC has activities on that front. For instance, a couple of weeks > ago ISOC organized the following Chatham House Roundtable on Encryption > and Lawful Access: > > https://www.chathamhouse.org/event/encryption-and-lawful-access > > Cheers, > > Gonzalo > > On 07/11/2017 2:00 AM, Keith Moore wrote: >> Hi Gonzalo, >> >> Thanks your your reply. I understand that it's necessary to word things >> carefully, but I hope ISOC can find a way to specifically call out both >> mining of personal data (whether or not traceable to individual >> identities) and mass surveillance (whether or not by state-supported >> actors) as significant threats to the public welfare. >> >> Keith >> >> On 11/06/2017 05:34 AM, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote: >>> Hi Keith, >>> >>> thanks for your comments. >>> >>>> In the context of ISOC it's important to understand that the Internet >>>> can be used for good or ill, but it's in danger of becoming more of the >>>> latter. Promoting the Internet as if it were a universal good, while >>>> ignoring the various ways it can be used to exploit or harm its users, >>>> does not seem either responsible or consistent with ISOC's history. >>>> There are of course limits to what ISOC can do about it, but I don't >>>> think ISOC should be silent and/or pretend that it's not a problem. >>> I agree with you. In fact, this is a topic I also brought up in my >>> closing talk at ISOC's 25th anniversary event a few weeks ago. In the >>> past, it was assumed that more connectivity was always good. Nowadays, >>> as you point out, ubiquitous and constant connectivity has clear >>> downsides as well. In addition to the examples you discussed, Internet >>> addiction and the social problems it is already causing in some parts of >>> the world (e.g., increases in car accidents, social isolation, etc.) is >>> an important concern as well. >>> >>> I also agree with you that there are clear limits to what ISOC can or >>> should do about it. As I mentioned in previous emails, in addition to >>> the work on the mission statement we are working on defining ISOC's >>> scope in more detail in different areas, "policy" being one of them. We >>> are currently working on identifying particular areas where, based on >>> ISOC's capabilities, we should engage. We are also identifying areas >>> where ISOC should not get involved. >>> >>> With respect to capturing this in the mission statement, the proposed >>> text reads as follows: The Internet as "a force for good in society". >>> That sentence tries to capture the social benefits we are after (as >>> opposed to just wanting connectivity for the sake of it, without any >>> "higher" purpose). >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Gonzalo >>