From: The Pitt News
Written by Tiemoko Ballo
“Information superhighway” was a popular term used to describe the Internet in the 1990s, and that analogy is fitting: Like the highway system, the Internet is a public infrastructure our society and economy depend on. But because there are absolutely no restrictions, the Internet is a highway without lanes, speed limits or dividers. Worse yet, near anonymity is achievable, making the Internet a highway on which not all cars have license plates and police can’t identify some drivers. Last year’s bomb threats are just one familiar example of the potential for abuse this imparts. At present, the Internet is a critical public domain in which the government and law enforcement have practically no ability to combat cybercrime or protect Internet users.
Internet regulation does not have to mean censorship or a roadblock on our information superhighway. It can mean adding some lanes and speed limits for the public good: giving authorities the tools to effectively enforce the necessary laws we agree on. Internet regulation also isn’t the antithesis of openness or freedom. A national regulator can safeguard nondiscriminatory broadband access and guarantee interconnectivity among the networks of rival providers, all while protecting consumers from potential abuse.
Most people are quick to assume that any government regulation of the Internet is a step toward a totalitarian future where censorship is prevalent and privacy is nonexistent. These fears are not unfounded given the track record of proposed Internet regulation. 2011 saw both the Stop Online Piracy Act and the PROTECT IP Act threaten free speech, innovation and the economy. But trade organizations lobbied for these acts, seeking to protect profits through the punishment of copyright infringement. These acts represent the disastrous potential of misguided restriction, not the benefits of progressive regulation.
A much lesser-known event in the regulatory debate is the 2010 court case Comcast Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission. In 2007, Comcast — an Internet service provider, or ISP — received complaints about its policy of blocking peer-to-peer file-sharing applications. The FCC ordered Comcast to stop forceful P2P blocking, arguing that it impeded consumers’ ability to access content and use applications of their choice. This marked the first time the federal agency attempted to enforce net neutrality.
Though Comcast eventually complied, the 2010 ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the FCC lacked the authority to regulate ISPs. At present, no one has the authority to stop ISPs from blocking sites, services or applications, to prevent them from using proprietary technology that limits the interconnectivity of networks or even to ensure that ISPs are providing advertised broadband speeds. Because ISPs have almost unrestricted control over public Internet access, the future of the web is in the hands of corporations — not people. Many are afraid that Internet regulation will rob them of freedom, yet without regulation, there is no way to uphold freedom in the first place. Moreover, if your Comcast router is old enough, it might still block P2P applications without your knowledge.
Internet regulation also has the potential to greatly improve law enforcement’s ability to deter, detect and defend against cybercrime and cyberterrorism. All criminal activity in the physical world has an online analog, and new types of cybercrimes — as well as new methods to commit them — emerge online every day. Law enforcement perpetually lags behind the hackers and crackers of the world: A 2012 report by Symantec Corporation found 556 million consumers are victims of cybercrime each year. That’s 18 victims per second, not including companies.
Unfortunately, no simple implementation of laws or technologies will help catch criminals without any encroachment on free speech or personal liberties. Regulation for crime reduction is a complex issue with many possible approaches, both at a technical level (such as authenticating identity through digital signatures) and a legislative level (such as mandating that critical Internet infrastructure adheres to certain security standards). The handling of anonymity is particularly challenging, as privacy-enabling technologies have many important and legitimate uses, especially for lawful activism. The 2011 Arab Spring protests were largely organized through some anonymous use of social media.
Despite the challenges, active government involvement in cyber security is a necessity. President Barack Obama’s recent executive order, signed Feb. 12, aims to increase defenses on infrastructure, improve collaboration between public and private sectors and establish a framework of cyber security best practices.
You aren’t less free because you can’t legally drive drunk on a public highway. Your risk of dying in a car accident is much lower because traffic laws exist and are enforced. Likewise, there needs to be some enforceable standards guarding public safety on the web. Increasing government regulation of the Internet — if done in a way that minimizes censorship and focuses on protecting the average user — will allow government agencies to uphold consumer freedoms while combating cybercrime.
Leave a Reply