Regulation of the Internet - Essay Example

?Regulation of the internet and democratic values and ideals Introduction In the age of information technology and advancement of communication system through the internet, there is a potential consideration of bringing into the virtual world the right of each individual to expression and privacy. In line with this, there are remarkable regulations which are put forward just to be able to address this specific concern. However, it still remains today a significant challenge whether or not the regulation of the internet is compatible with democratic values and ideals. In the age of internet, it has already become easy for people to keep in touch with each other because online communication has become a potential information resource (McQuail and Siune, 1998, p.76). Information has become a central foundation in the technological revolution (MacKay and O’Sullivan, 1999, p.122). With this, communication has become so easy that even an individual who is in the other part of the world could still converse to the other side of it with relatives or friends via social networking sites such as Skype, Facebook, Twitter, Friendster and many more. It has become so easy to connect with other people nowadays especially in making friends and increasing the number of contacts. In fact, the recent development in communication via internet and fast speed broadband connectivity paves the way for connecting people. Internet therefore has become a social phenomenon affecting culture (Atton, 2004, p.2; Slevin, 2000, p.1). However, while connecting people remains a significant advantage of the internet, the issue regarding safety remains an alarming priority as one of the potential arguments for the regulation of online activities. Various crimes are already committed within the internet including but not limited to physical or violent harm. Transactions could be faster if they have to be generated online. In this regard, there are bank, credit card and other related transactions already made via online deals or the internet. The purpose is for convenience and safety. However, safety could be such an understatement considering the fact that hackers are flooding over the internet plus there is a remarkable increase in the number of viral programs, malwares and strategies to secure passwords and other relevant confidential information. This is another remarkable reason and a significant argument for the regulation of the internet that at some point may also potentially concern with protecting the identity of an individual and disclosure of highly sensitive and valuable information. However, this only proves that censorship is essential in capitalist democracies (Petley, 2009, p.1). In the advent of terroristic attacks and their dangerous output on the public, the UK and US implemented anti-terroristic campaigns and even regulation over the use of the internet and control any activities in the virtual world. All the intentions in these related activities are in line with providing the safety which the public deserves to experience. However, behind this concern, there are other forms of issues that need also to be considered. This generally includes the consideration of democratic values and ideals in the actual implementation process. In this paper, the proponent tries to explore and examine some arguments used in order to justify the regulation of the internet. In particular internet censorship is discussed and even its compatibility with democratic values and ideals. Furthermore, the proponent also includes the explanation behind the recent US legislature regarding copyright laws ACTA SOPA, internet reactions, cyberfears and utopian dreams. With all of these cases, the proponent substantially evaluates whether it is possible or desirable to regulate the internet. While it is feasible from the technical point of view, there still remain some potential issues that need to be considered which would determine the compatibility of internet regulation with democratic values and ideals. Furthermore, the proponent also determines whether surveillance is better than censorship as either a form of control or threat to freedom of expression. The virtual world and the right to expression and privacy The right to expression and privacy is absolutely giving more meaningful emphasis on the kind of experience that individuals have gone through in the actual and real setting. However, the right like this remains completely not well represented and even implemented in the virtual world due to some important reasons. In the first place, internet as important component of the media is not a reality itself but just a version of reality (Jewkes, 2004, p.37). In the internet, people may come from different parts of the world. Each place from where these people are communicating belongs to a certain country. Each country has to promulgate certain laws to its people. Unfortunately, some of these laws may not be applicable to the other (Akdeniz, 2008, p.91). This only means that the kind of freedom experienced by an individual in a certain country via the virtual world cannot be exactly the same which are experienced by other people in some countries. For example, it is illegal in China to open pornographic materials, but other people in other parts of the world may have the freedom to have access on them just provided they are of legal age. In other words, if a man from China goes to a country where accessing pornographic material is legal; his freedom to have access to it may be potentially exercised without that fear of being caught by the authority. Furthermore, there are some countries where it is required to closely monitor internet communication. This means that it is allowed at some point to exercise intrusion. However, in other nations, anti-encryption law is emancipated for the purpose of giving an individual the right to privacy. In other words, this only proves that the actual law experienced in the real setting cannot be totally implemented in the virtual world for now due to variation regarding internet laws that are emancipated in different countries. This only means that the right to expression and privacy remains a significant challenge when it has to be brought up in the context of the virtual world. This specific case substantially illustrates the fact that at some point, there exist incompatibility between regulation of the internet and democratic values and ideals. In the case of the US, it is more ideal to have close monitoring of internet communications due to its experience from the past regarding violent terroristic attacks. It is more practical on its part to regulate internet communications as a way of tracing potential future terroristic threats. Based on the remarkable damages obtained from September 11 terroristic attack, the US learned its lessons. One way to secure the state from potential future threats and damages, regulating internet communication is a best possible option. However, the question whether this is compatible or not with democratic values and ideals, remains a potential issue at present. Whether it is feasible to bring the individual right to privacy in the virtual is appropriate or not remains a significant concern. However, one thing is clear about this scenario. The virtual world is substantially different from its actual and real counterpart. There are many things going on in the virtual world that at some point may be out of one’s control. It is at this point that it is too risky to only rely on the virtual world just as the same level of trust or confidence placed in the actual and real setting. The virtual world remains a complex world to be explored which at this moment only experts are able to understand its potential drawbacks and even limitation. It is in this reason that it would not be reasonable to equate certain rights enjoyed in the real setting with that in the virtual world. In the UK, there could be no higher demand on privacy over the internet due to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This act would ensure that there would be a wide spread monitoring of the internet in order to ensure safety for the people. Furthermore, this act would also ensure that the encrypted data would be decrypted in order to ensure safety of the people especially on various terroristic acts and probable hacking activities through malwares. In fact, when it comes to concerns on terrorism, the state has remarkable power due to Anti-Terrorism Act 2001. In other parts of the world especially in Australia, the government approved filtering of website content. This eventually led to many sites blocked by internet service providers. This remarkably raised potential issues concerning the freedom of expression of individuals and their right to privacy. In reality, it is hard to implement the actual need for achieving the right to privacy and freedom of expression within the virtual world for as long as the government’s concern is focused on protecting the people. For instance, in the presence of potential malwares that could be detrimental to one’s computer and even threats to steal personal information, the government of Australia, UK or US cannot just see the consequences without doing something that would potentially benefit the people. In other words, these governments try to publicize useful internet regulations that could benefit the people. At some point, the actual regulations may be able to hinder the achievement of some democratic values and ideals, but if it has to be viewed from the other perspective, the bottom line would just be for the benefits of the people. It is public service. After all, human rights are integrated with public service (Murroni and Irvine, 1997, p.46). This could be illustrated based on the different cases of internet regulations implemented by Australia, UK and the US as already discussed. It is therefore important that prior to understanding whether the democratic ideals and values are substantially compatible with internet regulations; a good approach is to evaluate the extent to which these could benefit the people. In other words, the monitoring of the internet at some point may potentially hinder the right of an individual for privacy, but the actual intention of such act is just to prevent unnecessary harm to be directly inflicted on a person. ACTA and SOPA Anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA) and Stop online piracy act (SOPA) are two remarkable hit issues today. These copyright laws may be a bit different from each other, but they all have the same intention. The ACTA originally is a legal trade agreement while SOPA is a law covered by the US legal code. The mushrooming of websites over the internet today which the main point is to offer services, products or ideas, makes it a point to always have second thought whether all the stuffs we have from the virtual world come from a reliable authority or not. In the same way, SOPA just tries to ensure everyone that any form of copyright infringement over the internet would be substantially addressed in fairness to the real sources to protect their intellectual property rights. The entertainment industry is a common area to experience copyright infringement. Today in the presence of fast-speed broadband connection, internet users can now have easy and fast access to download movies, music and other related form of entertainment and copyrighted materials. Internet users have the opportunity to illegally download copyrighted e-books. As a result, publishers and producers claim to be losing huge amount of revenue due to illegal access to copyrighted stuffs over the internet that are supposed to be for creating substantial profit. Under SOPA, the US can actually file a case against any individuals who would be facing copyright infringement case and to appear before the US court law. The ACTA on the other hand is another act against illegal exercise of copyright by blocking some important elements within the virtual world. However, unlike SOPA, the alleged by virtue of ACTA can defend themselves in their own country and would be justified based on their country’s very own interpretation of existing laws. This means that unlike SOPA, ACTA is not specific about everything because it could be subjected to personal interpretation of each country based on their existing and governing laws. In other words, ACTA has its international legal framework. Based on the above acts regarding illegal exercise of copyright, there seems to be contradicting forces governing within them as far as the issue of internet regulation is concerned. Every nation could substantially justify their own actions in line with their own law and interpretation of it. This would make it harder for SOPA to implement its underlying context because ACTA is there to protect every nation’s stand about copyright infringement for instance. There seems to be a contradiction in this case, but the bottom line involves the issue about democratic values and ideals. There is a potential question in here which emphasises the extent to which point does the US only has the authority to implement its law underlying SOPA, provided that there is a counterpart of it with an international framework and broader context in the image of ACTA. In this case, one of the challenges of the US is on how to implement its stand on online copyright concerns with a legal basis that is covered by SOPA, considering that there is ACTA which has a broader context of justifying every nation’s specific laws about copyright matters. However, in order to retain their audience in the US, it is therefore clear that every nation should comply with the law provided by the US which is covered by SOPA. This at some point implies consideration of democratic values and ideals. This only proves that the virtual world and regulations associated with it require more specific concerns in order to put everything in order especially on how democratic values and ideals can be taken into consideration. The above scenario only proves that internet regulations may potentially hinder the implementation of democratic values and ideals at some certain point. The case of SOPA and ACTA, as already discussed above together with their point for internet regulations can substantially justify this point. On the other hand, although it is possible to regulate internet using different acts such as ACTA and SOPA, their implementation might be a significant challenge. This is due to the fact that every nation could actually justify their specific action especially that there is ACTA, with international framework that at some point could potentially protect each country’s democratic values and ideals. Internet reactions There are varying internet reactions regarding regulation in the virtual world. Moreover, fragmentation of speech is more susceptible to occur in the internet (Barendt, 2005, p. 454). Policy-makers are quite aware of this. However, it is always their real intention that matters in the end. For instance, in the case of ACTA, policy-makers are continuously challenged regarding their true intention about this act. The US simply wants to be secured in implementing its law over the internet world, but there seems to be some remarkable forces which could substantially hinder in doing this. There are varying reactions over the internet when it comes to some important regulations, because everyone seems to have specific reasons over something. For example, an individual, as guided by an international framework could potentially claim his freedom and even personal ideals which may not be given with great importance in other countries because of their existing laws. What is legal in a specific country may not be appropriate or morally right in some nations. Thus, it is not surprising that reactions over internet regulations are imminent and has become an integral concern in every day living as the virtual world momentarily associates with everybody’s daily life. The case of SOPA clearly elaborates the thought of eliminating the activity of acquiring traffic and visitors within the United States. This substantially covers various issues about copyright laws and other property rights. This prohibits websites and services outside of the US to acquire traffic and visitor within the country. In other words, this act simply tries to illustrate the point of employing the prevailing laws in the country and integrate them momentarily with the virtual world. The US simply is making the virtual world a place where it could extend its territory, power, rule and authority, as fair as possible. Considering that there is still no international law concerning this matter, the US is free to release certain laws in the virtual world which the whole pattern could be duplicated based on the actual setting prevailing in the country today. This act clearly would create a great impact on the media, e-commerce and other related industries especially the small medium enterprises in Europe. As a result, the US would appear to have the authority to police copyright or intellectual property rights within the virtual world for the entire world as every case should be heard under the US law. This at some point would sound unfair to other nations as there is no specific international law governing this concern yet. In other words, the case of law when employed in the context of the virtual world should also be deliberately discussed within the international law as this primarily concerns every nation, and not only the US. Cyberfears It cannot be denied that the virtual world is flooded with potential risks and threats. Cyber attacks are detrimental to one’s own personal gain, especially among business people. At this point, marketing significantly fears the fast development of information over the internet aside from gaining benefits from it (Barker and Petley, 2001, p.186). Intellectual property rights could not be guaranteed. Online piracy can be initiated at a fast-pace level, which could potentially create significant loss in business. The entertainment industry and academic activities are faced with this significant threat. Online transactions always face significant fears considering that it would be hard to trust in somebody especially within the virtual realm. In other words, cyberfears are prevailing and because of their intense level of development they can potentially make everyone a possible target. Thus, cyberfears are imminent. In line with this concern, it is always a great possibility that policy makers would potentially result to coming up with efficient internet regulations in order to address the above-specific concerns. At this point, it is also reasonable to think of coming up with internet regulations because at some point they could be important ways in order to secure one’s democratic values and ideals. For example, protection of personal information over the virtual world is a specific right. In order to preserve this right, internet regulations would make sense. Utopian dreams Based on the above discussion so far, it has become clearer that the internet has become a haven of different types of people, varying cultures, diverse intentions and desires, distinctive cultural and political matters and so on. The list goes on and on. All of these only justify the point that the internet has become a complex world, which are substantially justified further by the proliferation of more varied computer networks (Curran and Seaton, 2009, p.253). Due to its complexity, there are also varying aspects to consider that at some point are also complicated. Communications for instance have become complex (Akdeniz, 2008, p.2). This complexity remains a great possibility for as long as there are still more space to be explored within the virtual world, those undiscovered (Atton, 2004, p.5). For as long as this complexity remains a real possibility, it is difficult to come up with a utopian dream within the virtual world. Just like in the real world, it is difficult to create a society with perfect socio-political-legal system in the internet because of its complexity. However, just like in the real world, it is also possible to eliminate away these complexities by implementing regulations. Thus, policy-makers are on the right path in improving the internet world by implementing regulations in it. In this view, policy process would involve complex interaction of interests, actors and discourses (Devereux, 2007, p.341). However, there must be a series of trial and error in this attempt because of the prevailing complexities in the internet world. Surveillance as control It is true that surveillance is a type of control in the same way with censorship. It attempts to take a look at varying perspectives prior to initiating essential moves. Surveillance would act as an important move in order to ensure that everything would be in its finest condition. In the internet, surveillance is necessary because as stated earlier, the virtual world is bombarded with complex risks and threats. At some point, an individual may have no control over them, but through surveillance, important perspectives will be obtained that will eventually lead to the implementation of control. In other words, surveillance is a must within the internet prior to the achievement of specific level of control over everything that is complex. Internet regulation therefore is a must in order to implement this surveillance strategy. The case of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is a specific surveillance strategy. Monitoring of the internet on a wide scale to ensure safety of the people is one of the major benefits of surveillance strategy. In this activity, the UK government will be able to create precautionary measures in advance that will eventually lead to having control over unexpected situations such as terroristic attacks, internet fraud, and crimes and so on. In other words, surveillance strategy would be a best tool to initiate control and this could be remarkably implemented in the case of internet regulation. Surveillance as threat to freedom of expression Even though surveillance might potentially lead to high level of control, it is also a significant threat to freedom of expression. For example, Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in the UK does not only specify surveillance as an important move within it but specifically it would see to it that encrypted data be decrypted for the safety of the people. However, along with this safety, the freedom of expression or right to privacy should be given up at some certain level. At this point, it is important to consider that a democratic value or ideal should be given up prior to maximising the potential of regulation in the internet. However, compared to censorship, freedom is still given within the bound of implementing surveillance. Even though surveillance may be a form of control, but unlike censorship, it does not actually totally limit the democratic values and ideals of an individual. At this point, it is also clear that the regulation strategy within the virtual world does not only promise potential benefits, but it also requires something to be given up in exchange for another beneficial thing. In the case of internet regulation, there is an important point to consider that it is not necessary to expect everything should be adapted well in the same way as how everything goes in the real setting. In other words, there still remains a distinction between the virtual world and the real context and their level of contrast might be well established within the kind of complexity that each possesses. Conclusion Internet regulation is an important matter to be given with high level of concern. After all, this substantially includes specific issues about democratic values and ideals. The implementation of internet regulation is such a complex activity because at some point, something must be given up in exchange of achieving something better. It is also a complex activity because the internet is filled with complexities that specific policies and regulations might end up in a trial and error scenario until a perfect and most efficient comes along the way. It is therefore found that even though it is technically possible to come up with internet regulation or censorship, its compatibility with democratic values and ideals would still remain a potential issue within this activity. References Akdeniz, Y. (2008) Internet Child Pornography And The Law: National And International Responses. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Atton, C. (2004) An Alternative Internet. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Barker, M., and Petley, J. (2001) Ill Effects: The Media/Violence Debate. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Routledge. Barendt, E. M. (2005) Freedom of speech. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Curran, J., and Seaton, J. (2009) Power Without Responsibility: The Press, Broadcasting and the Internet in Britain. 7th ed. Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Devereux, S. (2007) The New Famines: Why Famines Persist in an Era of Globalization. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. Jewkes, Y. (2004) Media and Crime. London: SAGE. MacKay, H., and O’Sullivan, T. (1999) The Media Reader: Continuity and Transformation. London: SAGE. McQuail, D., and Siune, K. (1998) Media Policy: Convergence, Concentration, and Commerce. London: SAGE. Murroni, C., and Irvine, N. (1997) Quality In Broadcasting. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. Petley, J. (2009) Censorship: A Beginner's Guide. London: Oneworld. Slevin, J. (2000) The Internet and Society. Stafford: Polity Press. Read More