Managing sysop prerogative in Europe through fabris dualism: An agenda for reform of the European Union and Council of Europe into international organisations

Managing sysop prerogative in Europe through fabris dualism: An agenda for reform of the European Union and Council of Europe into international organisations

Jonathan Bishop

Abstract

The European Union referendum on the 23 June 2016 in the United Kingdom was reported as being the most significant plebiscite for over a generation. Its impacts may only become most apparent when the citizens of the United Kingdom start to demand the same rights that those in the countries that have remained a member of the European Union enjoy. This paper looks at the impact leaving the European Union will have for the United Kingdom in terms of ‘sysop prerogative’ – the right or lack of for information society service providers to do what they want when administering their websites as systems operators, or sysops. The paper argues that a lack of harmonization of laws across Europe will make enforcing sysop prerogative and indeed the very nature of it, more difficult. Even with the outcome of the EU referendum affecting only the United Kingdom, this paper argues that in order to secure a cyberspace free from crime that global cooperation is still needed, but that the European Union in its current form might not be the appropriate vehicle at all, with a combination of the United Nations, Nato and the Council of Europe being more suitable.

Full Text

Citation

Jonathan Bishop (2016). Managing sysop prerogative in Europe through fabris dualism: An agenda for reform of the European Union and Council of Europe into international organisations. The International Journal of Internet Trolling and Online Participation 3(1). Available online at: http://resources.crocels.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/managing-sysop-prerogative-in-europe-through-fabris-dualism.pdf

NATO’s military response to Russia

NATO adopted a two-pronged response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine 2014. These are divided into what it describes as Assurance and Adaptive measures.

DEFENCE TACTICS: Nato has set out its strategy for dealing with Russia. Courtesy: Nato
DEFENCE TACTICS: Nato has set out its strategy for dealing with Russia. Courtesy: Nato

The Assurance measures seek to reassure the members of the Alliance that border Russia. These include bolstering air policing and air surveillance in the Baltics and along NATO’s eastern flank and a more visible military presence in these states by means of additional exercises and training.

The Adaptive measures seek to adapt NATO’s force structure to strengthen the ability of the Alliance to respond to any crisis that may occur. These include significantly enlarging the existing Response Force, creating a new ‘spearhead’ force of around 5,000 troops, and pre-positioning equipment in member states along the eastern flank.

Some of these measures were adopted in April 2014 as part of NATO’s immediate response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine. They crystallised into the Readiness Action Plan adopted at NATO’s Summit in September 2014. The Plan reflects what NATO says is the “most significant strengthening” of its collective defence in decades. Further measures have been adopted at subsequent Defence Ministers meetings. The next NATO summit is in July 2016 in Warsaw, Poland.

Trident ‘not the only option’ to deter war

Trident is not the only option to deter war, a candidate and homeland security researcher in the by-election for Llantrisant Town has said.

Freeman of Llantrisant Jonathan Bishop, who is standing as an independent for the town and who is a strong supporter of the Llantrisant War Memorial Campaign, questions whether Britain going it alone with Trident will actually protect national security.

Freeman Bishop, who studied economics at Aberystwyth University and has a masters of laws degree in European Union law, says Britain must look beyond its own shores. “Much of the cost of Trident involves paying other NATO members to provide the labour and materials,” he said. “With NATO members facing the same threats from the same international powers and terrorists, we should be sharing the control and costs of a nuclear deterrent with our allies.

Freeman Jonathan Bishop believes a shared nuclear deterrent between NATO members will reduce the cost of Trident for British taxpayers.
HOMELAND ECONOMICS: Freeman Jonathan Bishop believes a shared nuclear deterrent between NATO members will reduce the cost of Trident for British taxpayers. Courtesy: Jonathan Bishop Limited

Freeman Bishop, who has patented technology that can reduce the number of civilian casualties in warzones, says the government should ask whether an independent deterrent is actually an option. “Homeland security is not just about renewing Trident,” he said. “The Royal Air Force is instrumental in defending British airspace and the National Crime Agency needs expansion to protect us from new threats,” he said. “Renewing Trident might be an issue for Labour MPs fearful of losing their seats to Tories in the 2020 General Election, but in my view we should be collaborating with our allies in NATO to achieve a more affordable shared deterrent.

It is not clear whether Labour candidate Liz Smith agrees with her husband Owen Smith, MP, over his strong support for another Trident programme. But another independent in the election, Louisa Mills, who works for a London-based woodcraft organization, is clear where she stands, saying she wants to send “peace and love energy across the world – near and far.

Louisa Mills wants to send "peace and love energy across the world - near and far."
PEACE IN OUR TIME?: Louisa Mills wants to send “peace and love energy across the world – near and far.” Courtesy: Copyright(c) Louisa May Mills.

Ashu M. G. Solo is a former infantry officer and platoon commander understudy. “Peaceniks turn a blind eye to genocide and ethnic cleansing and ignore atrocities by foreign dictators,” he said. “They trust foreign tyranny more than their own military, care more about domestic lives than foreign lives, put domestic prosperity over foreign liberty, and prefer peace under tyranny over war for liberty.

Freeman Bishop, who is a member of the Institute of Marine Engineering and Technology, says defence policy is not as simple as war being the opposite of peace. “Whether we like it or not, war has been a reality for the last 5,000 years and things are unlikely to change any time soon,” he said.  “In my view we should be reducing the number of nuclear powers in the world to between four and six with NATO being one of them, which would mean they would be an ‘oligopoly,’  so that at some point in the distant future, they could all disarm at once.
Both my grandfathers were involved in World War II, one as a gunner and the other as a miner, so as nice as we would like the world to be, unilateral disarmament like some peaceniks call for will not work.

Concerns over NATO police operation

As the Home Office announces “one of the UK’s largest-ever policing deployments” in South Wales at the 2014 NATO Summit, concerns have been raised about public safety for those wanting to protest peacefully.

POLICE THREAT: Concerns are raised that scenes like this at the G20 summit in London where police traumatize protesters will be repeated in South Wales at the 2014 NATO summit. Courtesy: Kashfi Halford
POLICE THREAT: Concerns are raised that scenes like this at the G20 summit in London where police traumatize protesters will be repeated in South Wales at the 2014 NATO summit. Courtesy: Kashfi Halford

The 2009 G20 summit in London resulted in a number of members of the public suffering trauma through being mishandled by police when trying to protest peacefully. Concerns have been raised by human rights advocates that there would be a repeat of the violence from police officers at the NATO summit in South Wales. Ashu M.G. Solo is a civil rights activist. “The police should be equipped with miniature lapel cameras to protect themselves and the people,” he said.

Questioned about the risks to the public at the NATO summit from overzealous police officers, a Home Office spokesperson said: “It is up to the police how they want to police it.”

Members of the public caught up in any violence against them by the police are advised to make a complaint via the Independent Police Complaints Commission. They can be contacted by phone at 0300 020 0096 or via their website at http://www.ipcc.gov.uk