Untitled Essay, Research Paper

Government Intervention of the Internet

During the past decade, our society has become based solely on the ability to move large

amounts of information across large distances quickly. Computerization has influenced

everyone’s life. The natural evolution of computers and this need for ultra-fast

communications has caused a global network of interconnected computers to develop. This

global net allows a person to send E-mail across the world in mere fractions of a second,

and enables even the common person to access information world-wide. With advances such as

software that allows users with a sound card to use the Internet as a carrier for long

distance voice calls and video conferencing, this network is key to the future of the

knowledge society. At present, this net is the epitome of the first amendment: free

speech. It is a place where people can speak

their mind without being reprimanded for what they say, or how they choose to say it. The

key to the world-wide success of the Internet is its protection of free speech, not only

in America, but in other countries where free speech is not protected by a constitution.

To be found on the Internet is a huge collection of obscene graphics, Anarchists’

cookbooks and countless other things that offend some people. With over 30 million

Internet users in the U.S. alone (only 3 million of which surf the net from home),

everything is bound to offend someone. The newest wave of laws floating through law making

bodies around the world threatens to stifle this area of spontaneity. Recently, Congress

has been considering passing laws that will make it a crime punishable by jail to send

"vulgar" language over the net, and to export encryption software. No matter how

small, any attempt at government intervention in the Internet will stifle the greatest

communication innovation of this century. The government wants to maintain control over

this new form of communication, and they are trying to use the protection of children as a

smoke screen to pass laws that will allow them to regulate and censor the Internet, while

banning techniques that could eliminate the need for regulation. Censorship of the

Internet threatens to destroy its freelance atmosphere, while wide spread encryption could

help prevent the need for government intervention.

Jim Exon, a democratic senator from Nebraska, wants to pass a decency billregulating the

Internet. If the bill passes, certain commercial servers that post pictures of unclad

beings, like those run by Penthouse or Playboy, would of course be shut down immediately

or risk prosecution. The same goes for any amateur web site that features nudity, sex

talk, or rough language. Posting any dirty words in a Usenet discussion group, which

occurs routinely, could make one liable for a $50,000 fine and six months in jail. Even

worse, if a magazine that commonly runs some of those nasty words in its pages, The New

Yorker for instance, decided to post its contents on-line, its leaders would be held

responsible for a $100,000 fine and two years in jail. Why does it suddenly become illegal

to post something that has been legal for years in print? Exon’s bill apparently would

also "criminalize private mail," … "I can call my brother on the phone

and say anything–but if I say it on the Internet, it’s illegal" (Levy 53).

Congress, in their pursuit of regulations, seems to have overlooked the fact that the

majority of the adult material on the Internet comes from overseas. Although many U.S.

government sources helped fund Arpanet, the predecessor to the Internet, they no longer

control it. Many of the new Internet technologies, including the World Wide Web, have come

from overseas. There is no clear boundary between information held in the U.S. and

information stored in other countries. Data held in foreign computers is just as

accessible as data in America, all it takes is the click of a mouse to access. Even if our

government tried to regulate the Internet, we have no control over what is posted in other

countries, and we have no practical way to stop it.

The Internet’s predecessor was originally designed to uphold communications after a

nuclear attack by rerouting data to compensate for destroyed telephone lines and servers.

Today’s Internet still works on a similar design. The very nature of this design allows

the Internet to overcome any kind of barriers put in its way. If a major line between two

servers, say in two countries, is cut, then the Internet users will find another way

around this obstacle. This obstacle avoidance makes it virtually impossible to separate an

entire nation from indecent information in other countries. If it was physically possible

to isolate America’s computers from the rest of the world, it would be devastating to our

economy.

Recently, a major university attempted to regulate what types of Internet access its

students had, with results reminiscent of a 1960’s protest. A research associate, Martin

Rimm, at Carnegie Mellon University conducted a study of pornography on the school’s

computer networks. He put together quite a large picture collection (917,410 images) and

he also tracked how often each image had been downloaded

(a total of 6.4 million). Pictures of similar content had recently been declared obscene

by a local court, and the school feared they might be held responsible for the content of

its network. The school administration quickly removed access to all these pictures, and

to the newsgroups where most of this obscenity is suspected to come from. A total of 80

newsgroups were removed, causing a large disturbance among the student body, the American

Civil Liberties Union, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, all of whom felt this was

unconstitutional. After only half a week, the college had backed down, and restored the

newsgroups. This is a tiny example of what may happen if the government tries to impose

censorship

(Elmer-Dewitt 102).

Currently, there is software being released that promises to block children’s access to

known X-rated Internet newsgroups and sites. However, since most adults rely on their

computer literate children to setup these programs, the children will be able to find ways

around them. This mimics real life, where these children would surely be able to get their

hands on an adult magazine. Regardless of what types of software or safeguards are used to

protect the children of the Information age, there will be ways around them. This

necessitates the education of the children to deal with reality. Altered views of an

electronic world translate easily into altered views of the real world. "When it

comes to our children, censorship is a far less important issue than good parenting. We

must teach our kids that the Internet is a extension and a reflection of the real world,

and we have to show them how to enjoy the good things and avoid the bad things. This isn’t

the government’s responsibility. It’s ours (Miller 76)."

Not all restrictions on electronic speech are bad. Most of the major on-line communication

companies have restrictions on what their users can "say." They must respect

their customer’s privacy, however. Private E-mail content is off limits to them, but they

may act swiftly upon anyone who spouts obscenities in a public forum.

Self regulation by users and servers is the key to avoiding government imposed

intervention. Many on-line sites such as Playboy and Penthouse have started to regulate

themselves. Both post clear warnings that adult content lies ahead and lists the countries

where this is illegal. The film and videogame industries subject themselves to ratings,

and if Internet users want to avoid government imposed regulations, then it is time they

begin to regulate themselves. It all boils down to protecting children from adult

material, while protecting the first amendment right to free speech between adults.

Government attempts to regulate the Internet are not just limited to obscenity and vulgar

language, it also reaches into other areas, such as data encryption.

By nature, the Internet is an insecure method of transferring data. A single E-mail packet

may pass through hundreds of computers from its source to destination. At each computer,

there is the chance that the data will be archived and someone may intercept that data.

Credit card numbers are a frequent target of hackers. Encryption is a means of encoding

data so that only someone with the proper "key" can decode it.

"Why do you need PGP (encryption)? It’s personal. It’s private. And it’s no one’s

business but yours. You may be planning a political campaign, discussing our taxes, or

having an illicit affair. Or you may be doing something that you feel shouldn’t be

illegal, but is. Whatever it is, you don’t want your private electronic mail (E-mail) or

confidential documents read by anyone else. There’s nothing wrong with asserting your

privacy. Privacy is as apple-pie as the Constitution.

Perhaps you think your E-mail is legitimate enough that encryption is unwarranted. If you

really are a law-abiding citizen with nothing to hide. What if everyone believed that

law-abiding citizens should use postcards for their mail? If some brave soul tried to

assert his privacy by using an envelope for his mail, it would draw suspicion. Perhaps the

authorities would open his mail to see what he’s hiding. Fortunately, we don’t live in

that kind of world, because everyone protects most of their mail with envelopes. So no one

draws suspicion by asserting their privacy with an envelope. There’s safety in numbers.

Analogously, it would be nice if everyone routinely used encryption for all their E-mail,

innocent or not, so that no one drew suspicion by asserting their E-mail privacy with

encryption. Think of it as a form of solidarity (Zimmerman)."

Until the development of the Internet, the U.S. government controlled most new encryption

techniques. With the development of faster home computers and a worldwide web, they no

longer hold control over encryption. New algorithms have been discovered that are

reportedly uncrackable even by the FBI and the NSA. This is a major concern to the

government because they want to maintain the ability to conduct wiretaps, and other forms

of electronic surveillance into the digital age. To stop the spread of data encryption

software, the U.S. government has imposed very strict laws on its exportation.

One very well known example of this is the PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) scandal. PGP was

written by Phil Zimmerman, and is based on "public key" encryption. This system

uses complex algorithms to produce two codes, one for encoding and one for decoding. To

send an encoded message to someone, a copy of that person’s "public" key is

needed. The sender uses this public key to encrypt the data, and the recipient uses their

"private" key to decode the message. As Zimmerman was finishing his program, he

heard about a proposed Senate bill to ban cryptography. This prompted him to release his

program for free, hoping that it would become so popular that its use could not be

stopped. One of the original users of PGP posted it to an Internet site, where anyone from

any country could download it, causing a federal investigator to begin investigating Phil

for violation of this new law. As with any new technology, this program has allegedly been

used for illegal purposes, and the FBI and NSA are believed to be unable to crack this

code. When told about the illegal uses of his programs, Zimmerman replies:"If I had invented an automobile, and was told that criminals used it to rob banks, I

would feel bad, too. But most people agree the benefits to society that come from

automobiles — taking the kids to school, grocery shopping and such — outweigh

their drawbacks." (Levy 56).The government has not been totally blind to the need for encryption. For nearly two

decades, a government sponsored algorithm, Data Encryption Standard (DES), has been used

primarily by banks. The government always maintained the ability to decipher this code

with their powerful supercomputers. Now that new forms of encryption have been devised

that the government can’t decipher, they are proposing a new standard to replace DES. This

new standard is called Clipper, and is based on the "public key" algorithms.

Instead of software, Clipper is a microchip that can be incorporated into just about

anything (Television, Telephones, etc.). This algorithm uses a much longer key that is 16

million times more powerful than DES. It is estimated that today’s fastest computers would

take 400 billion years to

break this code using every possible key. (Lehrer 378). "The catch: At the time of

manufacture, each Clipper chip will be loaded with its own unique key, and the Government

gets to keep a copy, placed in escrow. Not to worry, though the Government promises that

they will use these keys to read your traffic only when duly authorized by law. Of course,

to make Clipper completely effective, the next logical step would be to outlaw other forms

of cryptography (Zimmerman)."

The most important benefits of encryption have been conveniently

overlooked by the government. If everyone used encryption, there would be absolutely no

way that an innocent bystander could happen upon something they choose not to see. Only

the intended receiver of the data could decrypt it (using public key cryptography, not

even the sender can decrypt it) and view its contents. Each coded message also has an

encrypted signature verifying the sender’s identity. The sender’s secret key can be used

to encrypt an enclosed signature message, thereby "signing" it. This creates a

digital signature of a message, which the recipient (or anyone else) can check by using

the sender’s public key to decrypt it. This proves that the sender was the true originator

of the message, and that the message has not been subsequently altered by anyone else,

because the sender alone possesses the secret key that made that signature. "Forgery

of a signed message is infeasible, and the sender cannot later disavow his signature

(Zimmerman)." Gone would be the hate mail that causes many problems, and gone would

be the ability to forge a document with someone else’s address. The government, if it did

not have alterior

motives, should mandate encryption, not outlaw it.

As the Internet continues to grow throughout the world, more governments may try to impose

their views onto the rest of the world through regulations and censorship. It will be a

sad day when the world must adjust its views to conform to that of the most prudish

regulatory government. If too many regulations are inacted, then the Internet as a tool

will become nearly useless, and the Internet as a mass communication device and a place

for freedom of mind and thoughts, will become non existent. The users, servers, and

parents of the world must regulate themselves, so as not to force government regulations

that may stifle the best communication instrument in history. If encryption catches on and

becomes as widespread as Phil Zimmerman predicts it will, then there will no longer be a

need for the government to meddle in the Internet, and the biggest problem will work

itself out. The government should rethink its approach to the censorship and encryption

issues, allowing the Internet to continue to grow and mature.Works CitedEmler-Dewitt, Philip. "Censoring Cyberspace: Carnegie Mellon’s Attempt to Ban

Sex from it’s Campus Computer Network Sends A Chill Along the Info Highway."

Time 21 Nov. 1994; 102-105.Lehrer, Dan. "The Secret Sharers: Clipper Chips and Cypherpunks." The Nation

10 Oct. 1994; 376-379."Let the Internet Backlash Begin." Advertising Age 7 Nov. 1994; 24.Levy, Steven. "The Encryption Wars: is Privacy Good or Bad?" Newsweek 24

Apr. 1995; 55-57.Miller, Michael. "Cybersex Shock." PC Magazine 10 Oct. 1995; 75-76.Wilson, David. "The Internet goes Crackers." Education Digest May 1995; 33-36.Zimmerman, Phil. (1995). Pretty Good Privacy v2.62, [Online]. Available Ftp:

net-dist.mit.edu Directory: pub/pgp/dist File: Pgp262dc.zip

318