Gov Internet Intervention Essay, Research Paper

The Internet is a method of communication and a source of

information that is becoming more popular among those who are interested

in, and have the time to surf the information superhighway. The problem

with much information being accessible to this many

people is that some of it is deemed inappropriate for minors. The

government wants censorship, but a segment of the population does not.

Within this examination of the topic of, Government Intervention of the

Internet, I will attempt to express both side s of this issue.

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-fas t 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 worldwide. With th e advances with 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 the key to the future of the

knowledge society. At present this net is the epitome of the F irst

Amendment: freedom of 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.

Recently, Congress has been considering passing laws that will

make it a crime punishable by jail to send “vulgar” language over the net.

The government wants to maintain control over this new form of

communication, and they are trying to use the protect ion 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

methods such as encryption could help prevent the need for government

intervention.

The current body of laws existing today in America does not apply

well to the Internet. Is the Internet like a bookstore, where servers

cannot be expected to review every title? Well, according to an article

written by Michael Miller “Cybersex Shock.” In

the October 10, 1995 issue of PC Magazine (p.75) “The Internet is much

more like going into a book store and choosing to look at adult

magazines.” Although the Internet differs from other forms of media in

that one cannot just happen upon a vulgar site without first, either

entering a complicated address following a link from another source, or by

clicking on the agreement statement at the beginning of the site

acknowledging that one is of the legal age of 18.

This lawless atmosphere bothered many people, one such person is

Nebraska Senator James Exon (D), who is one of the founding fathers of the

Telecommunications Decency Act of 1996, Section 502, 47 U.S.C Section 223

[a], which regulates ” any obscene or in decent material via the Internet

to anyone under 18 years of age. Exon’s bill would also according to an

article written by Steven Levy in an April 1995 issue of Newsweek magazine

(p.53) “criminalize private mail,” Levy also stated emotional “I can call

m y brother on the phone and say anything-but if I say it on the Internet,

it’s illegal.”

One thing that Congress seems to have overlooked in its pursuit of

regulations is that there are no clear bountries from information being

accessed over the Internet from over countries. All it takes is a click of

a mouse to access, even if our governmen t tried to regulate information

accessed from other countries, we would have no control over what is

posted in those countries, and we would have no practical way to stop it.

Today’s Internet works much like that of our own human brains, in that if

one ba rrier or option is taking your brain tries to find an alternate

route or option. Today’s Internet works on a similar design, if a major

line between two servers say in two countries, is cut, then the Internet

users will find another way around this obstac le. This process of

obstacle avoidance makes it virtually impossible to separate an entire

nation from indecent information in other countries. If it were physically

possible to isolate America’s computers from the rest of the world, in my

opinion it woul d be devastating to our economy.

In an article published In Time magazine, written by Philip

Emler-Dewitt titled “Censoring Cyberspace: Carnegie Mellon’s attempt to

Ban Sex from its Campus Computer Network Sends A Chill Along the Info

Highway.” Nov. 1994, (p.102) “Martin Rim put togethe r 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). A local court had

recently declared pictures of similar content obscene, and the school felt

they might be held resp onsible for the content on its network. The school

administration quickly removed access to all these pictures, and to the

newsgroups where 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

only a tiny example of wha t may happen if the government tries to impose

censorship. Regardless of what types of software or safeguards are used to

protect the children of the information age, there will always be ways

around them. As stated in an article printed in PC Magazine on

Oct. 10, 1995, written by Michael Miller on (p.76) titled “Cybersex

Shock.” “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 an

extension and 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.”

Until the development of the Internet, the U.S. government

controlled most of the new communication techniques. With the development

of faster personal computers and the addition of the worldwide web, they

had no control over the vast range of this style

of communication. To stop the spread of data the U.S. government has

imposed strict laws on the exportation. This is explained in an article by

Phil Zimmerman entitled ” Pretty Good Privacy” found online at Ftp:

net-dist.mit.edu “To send a encoded messag e 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 with any new technology, this program has allegedly been used

for ille gal purposes, and the FBI and NSA are believed to be unable to

crack this code. Zimmerman’s reply to his knowledge of this rumor was

quoted in Steven Levy’s article published in the Apr. 1995 issue of

Newsweek titled “The Encryption Wars: Privacy Good or Bad?” (p.56) “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 that the benefits to

society that come from automobiles-taking the kids to school, grocery

shopping and such-outw eigh their drawbacks.”

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 incited, then

the Internet as a tool will become nearly useless, and the Internet as a

mass communication devise and a place for freedom of mind and thoughts,

will become non existent. The govern ment should rethink its approach to

the censorship and the encryption issues, allowing the Internet to

continue to grow and mature. The users, parents, and servers of the world

need to regulate themselves, so, as not to push the government into

forcing th ese types of regulations on what might be the best

communication instrument in history.

543

Emler-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.

Levy, Steven. “The Encryption Wars: is Privacy Good or Bad?” Newsweek Apr. 1995; 55-57.

Miller, Michael. “Cybersex Shock.” PC Magazine Oct. 10, 1995; 75-76

Zimmerman, Phil. (1995). Pretty Good Privacy v2.62, [Online]. Available Ftp: net-dist.mit.edu Directory: pub/pgp/dist File: 262dc.zip