Controlling the Internet - Essay Example

Should the Internet be to controls, including new legislation, greater policing and the use of filtering systems, so as to prevent its use for allegedly harmful purposes 1. Introduction The Internet as part of the Information Technology which plays a significant role in the development of our society has become an essential element of our lives, government, education, research, and across diverse sectors of our society. As it is already a part of our daily living, there has been considerable increase in the occurrence of more advanced online activities everywhere such as information search and retrieval, huge file downloads and uploads, e-learning, online conferencing, e-commerce, online banking and gaming, and more. In general, our society has a positive attitude and discernment with regards to the Internet. They see it as vital, constructive, motivating, convenient, and indispensable tool for the realization of economic development for the local and global community. However, with the free and unlimited power of the Internet comes great responsibility not only for our leaders but to each and everyone. Since the Internet has also become the haven for offensive and detestable content and gateway for malicious and destructive activities, there have been calls to control and police the use of the Internet in the name of protecting the members of our community predominantly the innocent children. "For success in any field of human activity leads to crime that needs mechanism to control it" (Singh, 2005, p.1) and "technology is a human activity" (Williams, 1997, p.39). 2. Internet Crimes and Intrusion of Privacy With the advent of Internet, crime is no longer confined to certain area, time, and types of individuals because it is rapidly creating moral and social transgressions worldwide (Singh, 2005). It is the new face of intrusion (Williams, 1997, p.72). It has opened new doors for criminal acts and unlimited ways to convey malicious deeds. According the compliance advice of the UK's Data Protection Act of 1998, the "Internet is not secure" (CSU, 2000, p.1) and therefore risky and somebody somewhere might be intercepting the information provided over it. These criminal acts to name a few are unauthorized access to a computer or to a computer network (Hacking), destroying files and data (Viruses), computer sabotage (DoS etc.), interception of communications (Key-logging etc.), and espionage (Spyware) (Singh, 2005, p.2). The danger is real, the European Union (EU) on a dialogue for 2006 "Strategies for Secure Information Society" draft a directive for the Critical Infrastructure Protection (where the Internet is specifically mentioned as part of it) and firmly announced that the security and economy of EU and its citizens are relying upon a specific infrastructure and services that if ruined will result in loss of lives and properties. The EU's announcement is not referring to simple hacking activities of bored teens or second grade cyber criminals but serious international terrorist activities intended to immobilize strategic government installations such as power plants, transport, financial institutions, and other important facilities in Europe (Edwards, 2007, p.3). In relation to EU's concern, Edwards (2007) added that due to the increasing sophistication of cyber crimes, threats like DoS, Viruses, Spam, Key-Loggers, Click and ID fraud etc. are no longer orchestrated by individuals but by networks of "zombies"1 or "bot computers" that are controlled remotely by criminal elements thru IRC (Internet Relay Chat). Astonishingly, the UK was reported to have the highest number of "zombie" population "per capita" (p.3). Adding more to the anxiety of the UK citizens (which 50%2 of the population already express profound mistrust in the Internet due to security issues and concerns) 1 a "zombie" is a computer always connected to the Internet that has been invaded by a virus to do harmful attacks under remote direction. They are primarily used to send spam and to perform click frauds. 2 result of the UK National Opinion Poll in January of 2007 (Edwards, 2007). is the fact that assembling or buying "botnets"3 is cheap and easy these days and zombie virus kits are widely available in the Internet (p.4). The demand for Internet privacy is widespread. In the United States of America, 54%4 of Internet users are very concern that their personal information or details of their family members will find its way in businesses and nasty strangers. However, a large majority of these respondents are also in favour on an "opt-in" approach to Internet privacy. The survey further shows that no matter what users do online they still demand stricter laws to protect their individual privacy and asking the government to immediately pass a law on how personal information can be collected on the Internet (Bell, 2001, p.3). Alarmed by Cybercrimes and Spam, the U.N. in January 2005 said they will try to put the Internet under their control replacing the U.S.'s ICANN5 (WorldnetDaily, 2005, p.1) and developing countries accused the U.S. government of influencing activities online (McCullagh, 2005, p.1). Privacy is fundamental to anyone not only because of safety as an individual but for the invariable belief in the importance and meaning of privacy rights to control any organizations use of power (Williams, 1997, p.72). A good example of these privacy invasions are Spywares. They are designed by advertising companies to gain access to personal or home computers to monitor user's activity without the permission or knowledge of the person. Much worse, these spy software can change computer settings, store credit card numbers and have access to all personal data stored on the hard drive tearing up every bit of privacy you have (Ehisen, 2004). They are "snoopware" or "trespassware" since it snoops into private lives of individual and sometimes becomes a full blown identity theft (Howard and Lim, 2005, p.2). 3 "botnets" are group of software robots or network of computers. 4 result of Pew Survey from May 19 to June 21, 2001(Bell, 2001). 5 Internet Corporations for Assigned Names and Numbers 3. Internet Protection through Regulation One of the moves towards Internet privacy and protection is regulation of web pages content. Web pages dissimilar to other form of media can be created and published by anyone. The liberated environment of the Internet encourages individual to use it freely on the own accord no matter how potentially harmful the consequences may be. Illegal and offensive materials are easily available to anyone with access to the Internet and this reality encourages governments to take action and regulate (Postnote, 2001, p.1). Self regulation is actually far better than statutory6 type of regulation and favoured by the majority of users simply because they want to steer clear of statutory regulation and stay away from the burden of enforcements. However, individual regulation on the other hand is more likely to succeed considering the ease of implementation and being free from complications arising from legalities of individual rights. This type of regulation allows self-restriction of content and source and typically implemented by users through software filters that blocks unwanted materials. It could be filters with pre-selected list of sites, keyword based, and rating based. Some special filters comes with inbound and outbound data controls that enable parents to regulate information their children send and received through the Internet (Postnote, 2001, p.2). 4. Controlling the Internet Various individuals and organizations believed that the Internet cannot be controlled or censored without imposing stringent measures. The process is so complicated to implement and check because it requires consistent surveillance and advanced technical expertise to thwart transmission of objectionable materials. The fact that the Internet is "global medium" (Postnote, 2001, p.2) and Williams (1997, p.24) without central control it is not possible to eliminate these 6 Statutory type of regulation where harmful contents can be eliminated through basic law and international agreements materials entirely. 4.1. Filters, Limiting Access and Surveillance Although there are some existing methods to blacklist or filter known threats, experts believed it is still almost technologically impossible to cover them all effectively considering the large scope and the volume of information passing through the Internet every second. Furthermore, censoring or controlling access would slow down legitimate activities in the Internet and could impair the rate of development and the vast potential of e-commerce. This is because censorship from the technical perspective is unproductive and alleged to be a stumbling block to development and technological innovation (Johal, 2004). Since censorships are not favoured by many in the technical field, another possible solution recommended is to control the Internet through limitation of user access, surveillance, and legislation. Although limiting access sounds promising and effective, controlling access to networks would significantly impact the economic potential of the Internet in terms of connectivity, convenience, transmission of information, and benefits of easy communication (Johal, 2004). Similarly, surveillance is also impractical and believed to be too costly to implement. Technical surveillance is typically implemented through proxy servers that monitor and keep records of user's activities. Physical surveillance that includes probing into the user's visited sites or monitoring user's activities is good enough but too expensive since the volume of information exceeds beyond the capability of a typical surveillance works. Since it's too demanding, it would only end up as a mere monitoring tool rather than a real surveillance works. In addition, with disregard to the concept of privacy and social equality, the successful implementation of surveillance depends on the user's knowledge of the possibility of being monitored. If for some reason the user is not conscious of the situation, the whole surveillance set up would fail (Johal, 2004). 4.2. Legislation The possibility of using legislation to control the use of Internet seems to offer greater benefits. The advantages came from two apparent reasons; straightforwardness of execution and the impartiality of a transparent judicial process. Take for instance the case of Singapore where Internet legislation is designed as necessary to capture or identify offences through intentional generalization of the words used in legislation. The reason for this unusual undertaking is to be able to flexibly interpret the law specifically when confronting issues involving technology which by nature is constantly changing and with unpredictable effects (Williams, 1997, p.34). The Singapore's Internet Code of Practice for example, vaguely stated that the meaning of "prohibited material" is generally materials that are offensive to "public interest, morality, order, security, and national harmony" (Johal, 2004, p.5). However, the questionability of the words used in the legislation maybe abuse and therefore honesty and dedication is vital. To ensure that such legislation is not exploited, the "common law method of adjudication"7 where consistent definition of transgression exists and penalties for such transgressions are already in place, must be used (Johal, 2004). This is possible but the problem is jurisdiction because implementation of common law method of adjudication only applies within the country where the violation occurs. For instance, the case of Nottinghamshire County Council in the early 1990's when they want to suppress a certain report posted in websites with computer servers located outside of the United Kingdom that resulted in an unspeakable settlement. In a letter, the council demanded the 7 The "common law method of adjudication" refers to the judicial proceedings in which both parties presents opposing arguments in which the court set their ruling based on previous disputes and norms. This will ensure greater amount of certainty and justice (Johal, 2004, p.5). removal of such report using the Copyright Designs, Patents Act of 1988 as the legal basis and threaten to take the matter in court if the website owners failed to get rid of the report within 24 hours. The websites owners replied with a reasonable but sharp statement claiming that the council's demand is ridiculous because the misconception that the Copyright Act of 1998 of U.K. applies to action taken in the U.S. is wrong. The "Act" is only applicable within the United Kingdom and not to websites located in the United States. These alarming realities awaken the council and issue a sad statement like this: "We have been faced with a technology running at a pace which exceeds the law's ability to adopt to deal with it" (Jones, 1998, p.3) and therefore justice cannot be served. 4.3. Policing the Internet It is very important to note that when defining crimes, the definitions should not completely detach from the real world meaning of crime (Davidson and Martellozo, 2005, p.2). Clause 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 states that the "grooming" of a child alone in preparation for sexual abuse in the future is an offence (Davidson and Martellozo, 2005, p.8) and this offence relates to the Internet and other communication devices. The very thought that someone is planning to molest a child is a crime and good reason to control the "pathways" being used to perpetrate these crimes. If the Internet is one of the medium being use to realize these paedophilic acts then no doubt we should control, legislate, and police the Internet using the full force of the law. Three years ago as reported, the Metropolitan Police received an intelligence report about a child receiving emails from someone she met in an Internet chat room and they planned to see each other to have sex. The interesting part here was the man actually admitted to the child that he earlier abused children and he is on trial for sex abuse. Even so, the confession didn't stop the child from communicating with the suspect. This only proves that children are not aware of the danger coming their way through the Internet. Quite the opposite and surprising, they even feel more secure and relaxed while online. It is apparent that the Internet is not just a means of communication but a separate world with its own reality that is fast becoming a hunting ground for child abusers and criminals' (Davidson and Martellozo, 2004, p.9). The Internet is no doubt to the highest degree influence human activities. It has become the vehicle to enhance our common activities and created a new world with completely varying types of new activities. It has contributed remarkably to human development but at the same time help in the development of detrimental behaviours and tribulations. It has enabled and probably enhanced the execution of traditional fraudulent activities and much worse became a favourable ground for paedophiles and child abusers to carry out their horrible practices. With the widespread proliferation of obscene images, theft, intrusion, and destruction of valuable materials, we are now witnessing the birth of brand new and inventive types of destructive activities which is beyond our control and requires not only innovative technical solutions but solid legal actions (Wall, 2005, p.2). 5. Conclusion The Internet as far as criminal act is concern deserved a certain type of control. We cannot just simply say that we don't have the law or the legal jurisdiction over it. One way or another, these harmful elements lurking in cyber space must be eliminated and locked away. The intrusion of privacy, spying, and destructive attacks are activities which we cannot simply ignore just because we are worried about the economic and innovative effects when we control or limit the access in the Internet. Our society long before the coming Internet has a history of making things right by law and other humane guidelines. We have seen atrocities in many politically destabilized countries eliminated and discriminations to coloured people stopped. If we can control these things why we can't control Internet The government is responsible for bringing us this technology and they should be able to do something about it. The United Nations for instance, mediates across the globe to settle disputes and other criminal acts against humanity. The U.S. government along with its allies particularly the United Kingdom fights injustice and eliminate those who in their judgements are a threat to national or global security. The Internet is no different from countries where terrorist roam around creating havoc to every household offices and even government. More importantly, considering the rapid development of technology, they should act soon before things gets worse. 6. References Bell Tom, 2001, Internet Privacy and Self-Regulation: Lessons from the Porn Wars, CATO Institute Briefing Papers No. 65, Published by the CATO Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, CSU, 2000, Compliance Advice: Protection of Privacy in the Internet, Computing Service Unit, Data Protection Act of 1998, Version 4, January 2000, Crown Copyright, United Kingdom, online, Date of Access: 05/08/07, www.ico.gov.uk /... /practical_application/data_subjects_-_protection_of_privacy_on_the_internet.pdf Davidson and Martellozo, 2005, Policing The Internet And Protecting Children From Sex Offenders Online: When Strangers Become Virtual Friends, Cybersafety Conference University Of Oxford 8-10 September 2005 Edwards Lilian, 2007, The Internet and Security: Do we need a man with a red flag walking in front of every computer Script-Ed, Volume 4, Issue 1, March 2007, University of Southampton, AHRC Centre for Research into Intellectual Property and Technology, United Kingdom Ehisen Rich, 2004, States Vie with Feds to Stop Spyware, 12 St. Net Capitol J. 25 (June 21, 2004), online, http://www.legislate.com/capj/capj.cgiissue=20040621. Johal Terry, 2004, Controlling the Internet: The Use of Legislation and its Effectiveness in Singapore, School of Applied Communication RMIT University, Paper presented to the 15th Biennial Conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia in Canberra 29 June-2 July 2004 Jones Richard, 2005, The Internet, Legal Regulation and Legal Pluralism, 13th Annual BILETA Conference: The Changing Jurisdiction, Trinity College Dublin , online, Date of Access : 05/08/07, http://www.bileta.ac.uk/98papers/jones.html Howard and Lim, 2005, I Spy With My Little Eye -Taking a Closer Look at Spyware', The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT), http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac /soc/law/elj/jilt/2005_2/howard-lim/ McCullagh Declan, 2005, Will the U.N. run the Internet CNET News, online, Date of Access: 05/08/07, http://news.com.com/Will+the+U.N.+run+the+Internet/2010-1071_3- 5780157.html Postnote, 2001, Regulating the Internet Content, Number 159, Houses of Parliament, The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA, Parliamentary Copyright 2001, www.parliament.uk/post/home.htm Singh Talwant, 2005, Cyber Law and Information Technology, Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, online, Date of Access: 05/08/07, www.delhidistrictcourts.nic.in /cyber%20law.pdf Williams Elizabeth, 1997, Regulating the Internet: Privacy Under the Microscope, National Library of Australia, ISBN: 0646 30994 3 Wall David, 2005, On the Politics of Policing the Internet: Striking the Right Balance, Cyberlaw Research Unit, Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Leeds WorldNetDaily, 2005, "U.N. to control use of Internet: Developing countries want global body to govern cyberspace", online, Date of Access:05/08/07, http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.aspARTICLE_ID=42982 Read More