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.