Final Comments

I thought it would be interesting to wrap up this specific blog with a mini survey I conducted. I asked some of my friends, classmates, and co-workers what their opinion on government regulation of the Internet is. I did not give them a specific set of answers to choose from because I wanted to see what they said. As it turns out, I did not have to do much analysis of the data because the responses were overwhelmingly similar. Out of the 25 people I asked and recorded, I found that 23 out of the 25 want nothing to do with government regulation of the Internet, and the other 2 were undecided. What was interesting though, was the fact that along with their response that they do not want government involvement, almost everyone ended up reverting back and suggesting a minimal approach should be taken; for example finding ways to fight hackers, etc. 

This was obviously not an official survey I conducted, but it did make me realize that this question of government regulation is a very difficult one to answer. It is more than a yes or no answer and it is frustrating for people to come up with an answer they are satisfied with. I mentioned this in the last post, but these personal findings reiterate my point that this debate will be a long and continuous one. As long as the Internet is alive, I believe this debate will stay alive. So, what came out of this entire discussion on government regulation of the Internet for me, was that although it is a frustrating topic, take a second to realize what is at stake no matter the side you are on. It is a very important topic that will hopefully receive the attention and attentiveness that is needed to ultimately create the best policies needed to make the Internet more valuable for everyone.

What is in the future for the Internet??

It seems as though this debate of Government regulation will continue to grow the more the Internet becomes increasingly prevalent. The Internet will continue to be a device we use as a society, and that the world uses. It is a great way to communicate across the globe, easy to find any answers to any questions you may have, and acts as a tool for work, school and jobs. As the Internet grows, so will the threats that we face today; hacking, child predators, the attempt for global domination, etc. That being said, there does need to be a consensus on how, if at all, the government will regulate the Internet. Like I mentioned in previous posts, I think there is a common belief that there needs to be some government regulation, but again this answer begs the question of how much regulation.

When looking at other debates and controversies, there is a common theme; there is rarely an answer that makes all parties content. In the government regulation of the Internet debate, there are people who do not want any regulation at all, some want a little, and there are also advocates for full government control of the Internet. It seems that we need to focus on staying balanced and in the middle. That is why I suggested a government policy that is not too strict, yet it is conducive to some Internet safety.

Despite my beliefs on a specific policy, it is interesting to think about what the future looks like for the Internet. It will continue to strengthen and I think things will remain as they are for quite some time because of the polar opposite views on regulation. As far as a ways down the road, I believe that government regulation will never be where it wants to be. There are too many hoops that the government would have to jump through to allow it to have full control that would never pass through policy makers and the public; for example, the House just recently voted against government regulation at the start of the IT convention.  But, they are very persistent, and it may be sooner than we think that they will have the most control over the Internet. It will be a very interesting topic to stay invested in because the debate is constantly being resurfaced. 

So, what is appropriate for government to oversee?

Despite this whole controversy; is regulation what we want or needed, the government does regulate over certain aspects of the Internet. There are many examples of this and many of the regulations go unnoticed by the public every day. The government has involved itself in many ways. It does not always seem like regulation as we think of it; prohibiting searches, blocking websites, delegating what is specifically allowed and what is not, etc. The government is active in the search for child predators, became involved when illegal downloads of music was popular, and has an ominous presence patrolling for threats to national security and general security risks.

(May not be completely
accurate, but does reflect the
common consenses
of no government reg.)

I think that the current system the government is working with for government regulation could be used to come up with a new policy position. I have the same belief that well over half of the population agrees upon; government regulation should be restricted, and they should not have free range over the Internet. At the same time, I believe that there are aspects of the internet that can be very harmful to the public, especially without oversight. As mentioned above, there are great efforts from law enforcement and government agencies that work on a daily basis to protect children from adults who abuse the Internet. Downloading music is illegal and despite how petty and annoying this enforcement seems, it is necessary to protect musicians and their craft. Also, there are threats that are spread through the Internet, and especially after an act like 9/11, the government needs to be cautious of these threats and at least have a way to be aware o f them.

My specific plan is not a drastic change from what is already in place. I think the government should continue to have a hand in certain aspects of the Internet, while also keeping a safe distance. The oversight of predators, illegal acts, and patrolling for security risks are all activities that should stay in place, and I do not think many people would argue against this. So, what should change or be implemented? I do not think too much has to change. I think that the government should act almost as a standby investigator. For example, if hackers or malware gain control of a computer then the owner should be told and the government should offer ways to help this. I think that the government should have a constant team that researches all of the potential problems the Internet could project, and then offer solutions or fix the problems before they arise. The regulation should end there, though. I do not see any advantages of the government being able to terminate a program or computer- this leads to them thinking they can ban certain sites or take away amenities they agree with.

It is a very difficult question to answer. I think that the complete involvement of the government in Internet Regulation would lead to a snowball effect; an effect that would eventually lead to complete censorship of the Internet. This is a scary but realistic idea. The last thing the public wants to see is a message saying a website, social media, or news outlet has been withdrawn from available searches. I think the argument should be government oversight rather than regulation. The idea of regulation suggests that the government will actively decide for you what is allowed, and this goes against peoples’ freedoms.

 

 

 

Government Limitations on Regulation

A policy on Government Regulation cannot be made without very careful consideration of government limitations. Government is limited in all aspects of governing, but it becomes particularly controversial and difficult with the question of limitation over the Internet. There is a very fine line between what is allowed in terms of government regulation of the Internet, and the limitations that governments face.

Peng Hwa Ang cohesively summarizes that users of the Internet are not fans of regulation, but gives a  list of reasons why governments are worried about the growing power of the Internet.

The European Union paper on "Illegal and harmful content on the Internet" probably best sums up the fears of governments about the Internet:

• national security (instructions on bomb-making, illegal drug production, terrorist activities);
• protection of minors (abusive forms of marketing, violence, pornography);
• protection of human dignity (incitement to racial hatred or racial discrimination);
• economic security (fraud, instructions on pirating credit cards);
• information security (malicious hacking);
• protection of privacy (unauthorized communication of personal data, electronic harassment);
• protection of reputation (libel, unlawful comparative advertising);intellectual property (unauthorized distron of copyrighted works, software or music) 

 

 There are indeed regulations in place in the US and other countries, mostly because of the concerns listed above. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), is in charge of this regulation of the Internet, but the FCC faces many limitations. One of the most obvious forms of limitations comes from the First Amendment. The First Amendment allows for the freedom of speech, and this hinders the government from taking full control of regulations of the Internet. This freedom of speech clause seems to be very simple, but it is not. An article from Pareto Logic (sited earlier in this post), suggests another prudent point about the First Amendment and net neutrality.

"A major issue facing the Internet is net neutrality. Sometimes referred to as the "First Amendment of the Amendment," it is the principle that access to Internet content is not stopped, slowed down, or sped up based on content, source or destination". 

There are questions of whether the government is over stepping its boundaries on a daily basis, and Internet regulation is included in these questions. Many people would argue that the FCC is attempting to take away an essential right and the Internet would not exist if they had their way. Governments are in place to protect citizens from potential threats and harm, but they need to keep a healthy balance with their presence.

 

Another major limitation that somewhat prohibits full government regulation of the Internet, is the fact that the Internet is a worldwide phenomenon. I discussed this briefly in the blog post, "Government Regulation: Good or Bad". Everyone around the world uses the Internet for a variety of reasons and it becomes hard for, say the US, to implement laws that prohibit users from using the Internet to do business, or have communications with another country. An example of this is identity theft, or credit card theft. Many governments would approve a regulation that would decrease the amount of theft on the Internet, but it cannot be done because that would take away the right to willfully purchase items over the Internet from other countries. Each country is trying to protect their citizens from malware and what they deem 'inappropriate content', and this is a process that will continue as long as the Internet is present.

 

It is starting to become more and more evident that the question of Government Regulation does not, and will never have a clear cut answer. The topic of regulation always coincides with government limitations; and we have only just grazed the surface of this issue.