How Might Internet Kill Switches Affect Freedom Of Speech - Report Example

? How Might Internet Kill Switches Affect Freedom Of Speech? Sammy Cabrera. Florida International CGS 3095 – Spring During the period of 1990’s the internet mainstream attractiveness blossomed and it has become tightly woven into the fabric of advanced society. Internet connects different institutions that were previously not connected; as this is a high-speed mean of communication therefore the issues related to the freedom of speech are now become more important and for protecting these highly spreading tools and the critical infrastructure that it serves from disruptive events. In order to protect the national security interest many countries ensures that the Internet wouldn’t help hackers or terrorists to commit digital attacks on different important services that are now un-resolvedly linked to the network. During the past few years many discussion were there in US Congress related to the effective and safe internet structure for improving Homeland Security. Therefore this paper will analyze the causes and impacts of legislations to kill internet and its impacts on the freedom of speech. How Might Internet Kill Switches Affect Freedom Of Speech? 1 INTRODUCTION In today’s world the Internet has become the fastest mean of communication and this is unprecedented. However simultaneously, peoples are losing conventional print form of fact-finding journalism. Everyone in the world is communicating with each other via the Internet, as this has now turned into the most trusted sources of news. Arab Spring of 2011 is an example of the power of the internet and the reason for this development is the social media websites. In addition to a way of dynamically social communication, the Internet has now turned the greatest risk to all the secret societies (Crum, 2011). This study provides the detailed content over the developments at governmental level in various countries regarding the blocking of internet and its ethical impacts of this internet kill switch on the right of free speech in two more sections. Section 2 this paper will discuss the brief background and current situation of the issue and section 3 will conclude this paper covering the main points regarding the issue. Currently there is a proposal regaining momentum in Congress to provide the president with a “kill switch” for various sectors of the internet. 2. BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE Every time when new ways of communications have been introduced, their invention and appliance was met with the disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge, fear or directly ban by the dominating parties who feared the unknown means, and its power to remove and replace them from their authorities. And for this reason, modern (mass) media throughout history face suspicion, and are responsible for unnecessary regulation as they cause fear of possible unfavorable effects on security, society, and also to the political structures of the country. These types of events has proven true in the communication of certain types of content to the public from the press to the introduction of radio, TV and satellite transmissions, also as other types of systems for communicating. During the last decade, due to the increase in attention towards the Internet and also to its access to the new means of communications that are having no borders, the extensive accessibility of different content and many types of content viewed as to be not good for children, stimulates a “moral panic” that is shared by a number of countries and authorities and certain member of civil-society. Nowadays, on the other hand, with this new digital mode of communication, wide spread of information and content is available, which do not essentially respect the rules belonging to a nation. In various countries such dissolution of the power of controlling content, combined with the worldwide growth of information, comes along with an increased knowing of more than one language is evident. This virtual world of internet is now becoming borderless due to the increase in the use of different new services and applications that are driven by the user like Web 2.0, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Therefore this is without doubt creates complication for efforts at the level of state in order to search for equilibrium between the worldwide right to freedom of speech, this also includes the right to get and convey information, and the ban on those contents that are viewed as illegal by governmental authorities of the nation or organizations (Crum, 2011). Due to the availability of the Internet to substantial extent and also because of the increase in the number of users, it became necessary for the governmental and international authorities across the world to regulate the online content. As the internet has created many challenges for authorities and such challenges are mostly evident when actions are taken in order to regulate online content. On the basis of the ineffective state laws as well as due to lack of synchronization at global level many states and developed new policies and can also use an “internet kill switch” to block use of Internet content, websites that are against the law and those social media platforms that are grounded on Web 2.0 and are not under their legal power (Snyder, 2011). Blocking such high-speed of communication is not easy and there isn’t any immediate way out to such impacts of the internet. Using “internet kill switch” might lead to the ouster of the government for example in the case of Egypt when its President Mubarak uses the “internet kill switch” before his ouster. The Arab Spring showed that the people do have the ability to impose change upon the government. 3.0 INTERNET KILL SWITCH Nowadays the “Internet kill switch” is one of the new tools that are used by the dictatorial governments throughout the world. In the past, the Internet was a fortress of freedom, but at present country after country is clamping down on it. As a matter of fact, in Congress again legislation has been presented which the U.S president would get the power to block the internet in case of any emergency or war by using “Internet kill switch.” As might be expected there would be a lot of flexibility of interpretation or of options in finding out the actual cause of a true “emergency.” However, according to the members of Congress with this tool of “Internet kill switch” U.S. will become more similar China (Chen, 2011). Though internet is highly regulated and controlled by the Chinese and they can block the internet of the entire country as per their need but the example of Egypt is also there in which shutting down the Internet by the President lead to his ouster. Protestors in Egypt had been communicating with each other on different social websites like Twitter and Facebook; subsequently the Mubarak government believed that by blocking the internet they could significantly disrupt the movement. Reports showed that approximately 88% of the Egypt’s Internet was blocked at one point. The way in which the internet was shut down was described by Jim Cowie, the Chief Technology Officer at that time who was monitoring the internet, he says; “All business, internet cafe, websites, embassy, schools, banks and even all government offices in the Egypt were relying on big 4 Internet Service Providers whose connectivity was cut off from the rest of the world (Crum, 2011).” This process is further explained by the computer scientist David Clark, his main study is based internet development and architectures, the Internet Service Providers are the private companies which allow internet access to the user and these ISPs are under control of the government. So in order to shut down the internet government can use the ISPs as the internet service providers as an “Internet kill switch.” In some countries these ISPs are regulated to a great extent. For example in the past the Chinese government had “cut off” the Internet in several areas.” Though in China is the number one country of the world in terms of internet user but it also has the tightest controls (Chen, 2011). 3.1 INTERNET REGULATION IN US United States have previously suffered from infiltration on its energy grid, when hackers from Russia and China allegedly planted harmful software program with their aim to retrieve structural information regarding power grid and maybe stop them in the case of a full-scale war. Experiencing such cyber attacks, security gaps are expected and surely are already coming quickly, therefore US authorities has looked for expanding its control to protect vital infrastructure from harms that are grounded on the internet. Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) and Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del) after making changes to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 presented an act called “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010.” The proposed act came under severe examination from several political liberty fronts as it did not protect against possible misuse of power established to stifle free speech (Battle-technology.com, 2010). As critics started out relating to the act as the “Internet kill switch,” an expression that come into existence in ill fame in 2011 when President Hosni Mubarak in actual fact “shut down” internet access of millions of people of Egypt when they entered in a popular springing up against his cruel government. In reaction to the cases in Egypt and to moderate criticism, a slightly amended edition with the title the “Cybersecurity and Internet Freedom Act of 2011” was introduced anew with a particular ban on executive block out of the internet and various legal alternatives for providers disapproving to their position on the critical infrastructure list. However, the aimed legislation even comprises of important provisions that could be unsuccessful to accomplish the stated objective of the bill that is increasing cyber-security, while simultaneously contributing to a set of unforeseen negative consequences (Chen, 2011). 3.2 ETHICAL ANALYSIS According to the utilitarian ethical theory the condition of right and wrong exclusively depends on the consequences of selecting one policy over other policies. Intrinsically, it goes outside the scope of one's own concerns and plan for possibility of the concerns of others. The act-utilitarianism is defined as a utility principle that is directly utilized to all alternative acts in a condition of choice and the right act is that one which produces the best consequence. Whereas the rule utilitarianism is defined as the utility principle that is applied in order to find out the effectiveness of rules of conduct (Caae.phil.cmu.edu, n.d.). Some of the critics of the Internet Freedom Act of 2011 object this legislation for some reasons. Firstly, advocators of the human right raise the argument that the some terms in the bill are not clearly defined which causes the uncertainty (Snyder, 2011). According to these advocators with this bill President could any time declare a cyber emergency on any system and because of that the president can get a quick authorization over the functioning of that system. Despite the fact that the Internet Freedom Act states that no government office is allowed to “cutting off the Internet,” nothing about the legislation that prevents the Internet traffic or blocking certain websites until “no other emergency action will continue the dependable functioning” of the system and the arguing is not established “only” on protected speech (Snyder, 2011). Advocates of free speech condemn a lack of safety for right of speech and due this kill switch process. Security specialists have doubts regarding the efficaciousness and possible collateral damage of any system which is looked for protecting the Internet by turning it off. The president should go for those actions that are much productive for the country. The government should plan those techniques that could produce the best results (Snyder, 2011). The serious significances of exerting authority to control the Internet require the duty of proving a disputed charge to lie on the claimant of that power. Advocates should refine the internet kill switch bill with the objective of assuring that the requested authority be used in the ethically refined manner. 4.0 CONCLUSION During the 1990s the Internet has become the fastest mean of communication. Everyone in the world is communicating with each other via the Internet, as this has now turned into the most trusted sources of news. Due to the increase in the usage of the internet to a great extent has created many challenges for authorities and such challenges are mostly evident when actions are taken in order to regulate online content. On the basis of the ineffective state laws as well as due to lack of synchronization at global level many states, developed new policies and can also use an “internet kill switch” to block use of Internet content, websites that are against the law and those social media platforms that are grounded on Web 2.0 and are not under their legal power. In order to protect the infrastructure of the country from cyber attacks, many countries are using “Internet kill switch” is one of the tool for controlling these attacks. According to some advocators this bill is against the freedom of speech whereas some advocators support this bill in context of national security. References Ackerman, L. (2011). Internet “Kill Switch” Legislation: Can Obama Turn Off the Internet?. [online] Retrieved from: http://btlj.org/2011/03/09/internet-kill-switch-legislation-can-obama-turn-off-the-internet/. Battle-technology.com (2010). BATTLESPACE - Exhibition News. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.battle-technology.com/exhibitions.asp?key=406. Caae.phil.cmu.edu (n.d.). Online Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy. [online] Retrieved from: http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/80130/part2/sect9.htm Chen, T. (2011). Governments and the executive "internet kill switch". 25 (2), pp.2-3 Crum, C. (2011). What Will Egypt Do Without the Internet?. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.webpronews.com/what-will-egypt-do-without-the-internet-2011-01. Snyder, M. (2011). The Internet Kill Switch – One Of The Favorite New Tools Of Tyrannical Governments All Over The Globe : http://truthmovement.com/. [online] Retrieved from: http://truthmovement.com/?p=1951. Read More