Do We Need More or Less Regulation in the Internet - Research Paper Example

Internet Law – Do we need more or less regulation? We need more. Introduction The need for cyber patrolling is intensifying with each passing minute. In a world which is slowly accepting the rule of the internet for all practical purposes – ranging from cutlery shopping to money transfer – a firm legislation for the internet is of prime importance. However, that is not the case today. The current laws for cyber patrolling are not stringent enough to assure net users to go about their businesses safely. The increasing number of crimes on the internet, such as hacking, ‘selling’ confidential information to rivals, credit-card theft, child abuse, and many, many other crimes – however serious they may be – are still not dealt with properly, with the requisite level of seriousness. All this calls for a higher degree of internet regulation. A research The United States is the top-ranked country with the highest host density1in cyberspace, ranked at 65.3%. It is a country that allows a high degree of competition to its net users, and so carries a great deal of responsibility on its shoulders. More importantly, in the US, IP telephony is unregulated because it is considered to be an information service. And given the high population of the internet community of the United States, regulation is not only a recommendation, but a valid requirement. Unless properly regulated, the trends of internet usage promise a disastrous picture in the long run for the United States – both economically as well as socially. Socially, because the United States legislation, known for its strict regulatory framework on the international front, would prove to be a negligible threat to the ever-increasing community of Internet hackers, thieves, virus-creators, and so on. However, the economic numbers are far more intimidating. Hacking costs the United States economy close to $400 million every year2. Given the ever-multiplying community of internet unscrupulous minds, this number is a cause for grave concern. This dangerous figure of $400 million is testimony to the fact that the security of cyberspace in the United States stands dangerously exposed, and unless serious steps are taken to amend the prevailing situation, cyberspace faces the risk of unscrupulous domination in the years to come. The following paragraphs discuss the impact of this research from both positive and negative angles. The positive side of Internet Regulation We live in a digital age. Most of our world is comprised of data and bytes instead of flesh and blood. In such a case, the need for internet regulation becomes imperative. The lack of internet regulation will lead to a state of cyber anarchy, a state of complete lawlessness where we will have no one else to blame except ourselves. The time has come for us to decide which is more important to us: Digital safety or artificial freedom. The main reason for internet regulation is its great influence on our life – whether it is starting a business, getting legal advice, understanding the theory of relativity, or doing some jewelry shopping. The internet’s presence is all-pervasive. For the sake of our expressions and thoughts, we prefer blogs (online internet diaries) instead of conventional methods (it is claimed that there are over 14 million blogs on the internet and one blog is created every half a second!). For starting a business, we prefer an online business as compared to the traditional brick-and-mortar. And for buying something, we prefer e-bay to the store on Regent Street. Yes, the internet has given us what we always wanted – absolute freedom. But is freedom all that is required? Unless there is a sense of responsibility accompanying it, freedom will be a synonym of lawlessness. And in the present circumstances, we are witnessing a dangerous event of cyber anarchy. Just like anything else, the internet is to be used in a responsible manner. Freedom of thought and expression does not coincide with lawlessness. Recent examples and events convince us only too clearly that there is a dire need for a stringent internet regulation. A call centre employee of Calcutta was accused of selling vital customer information to rival companies for a whopping £233,0003. News of credit-card information being stolen on the internet has become way too common nowadays. Password theft or phishing has led to many unhappy customers in the corporate world and very recently, a premier community website has come under fire for hosting an insulting blogging group. So why do these incidents happen? Simply because there isn’t any law that protects safe and responsible internet use! The existing laws are full of loopholes, leading to a variety of unfortunate incidents such as these. All this calls for a stronger, more intimidating internet regulation that ensures that no culprit goes unpunished. As our dependence on the internet will only increase with time, we need to couple that dependence with safety. The importance and vitality of the internet make it all the more prone to danger, and active steps should be taken to establish firm legislations dealing with internet crimes. Just imagine if we keep moving ahead on the digital age without adequate security! The results would be devastating. The need for a much more severe degree of internet regulation also stems from the fact that there have been too many incidents of cyber crime relating to immoral human trafficking and child abuse in the past. Child pornography is one of the darkest forms of crimes which stare at us in our faces today. The immorality relating to child abuse is far too shocking for words – but the weak laws we have in place for dealing with them are even more shocking. There is no regulatory mechanism dealing with immoral trafficking on a strict note, and this leaves many innocent lives unprotected. The main reason for this problem is that we look at human trafficking that occurs physically around us as something different from cyber abuse. This difference in severity is bound to shift focus, and thereby emboldens the unscrupulous minds that are involved in child abuse on the internet. And not only does child abuse manifest in the form of pornography, it manifests in one of the ‘safest’ places for a cyber criminal on the internet – an online chat room! There have been incidents reported where a chat in an online forum led to suicide by a child. Influenced by the words of the culprit, who spoke highly about the afterlife and its subsequent glory, a child decided to test his theory – the hard way. The result was a dead child – and nothing could be done about the culprit because of the current impotency of internet legislation. The current legislations are not at all sufficient for dealing with the heavily increasing number of cyber crimes that come to us in myriad forms. While the law recognizes cyber crime and most of its components as a criminal offence, much of it is not given the importance it deserves. There is no international consensus on an effective and uniform methodology to deal with the issue of internet crimes, and as long as a debate over the need for internet regulation is in place, nothing much can be achieved. In order to achieve some progress, it is first important to reach a global consensus. While the European cyber crime treaty4 is a good step taken in the right direction, it still lacks the fire that is required to check internet crimes. Hacking still goes unpunished – no matter how severe damage it may have caused. Child abuse and pornography are still highly unnoticed – no matter how much media coverage is given. It is still highly unsafe to conduct business on the internet for fear of information theft – because one does not know when one’s credit card information may be stolen. Going by the diversity of these crimes, it can be safely concluded that given our increasing identification with the virtual world, a potent legislation is the need of the hour. Without a strong legal support, our internet activity stands dangerously exposed to clear and present danger – for committing a cyber crime is the easiest way to do something wrong. Hence, our dependence on the internet will be justified only if we create a strong legal support for the same, and introduce tougher laws dealing with cyber crime. That alone would insulate us from devastation. Negative aspects of Internet Regulation If we talk about a digital world where the concept of free thinking rules, regulation will prove to be a fatal blow for the theory of freedom of expression. While the need for regulation is of utmost importance, as illustrated by the lengthy discussion above, overreaction will also lead to unwanted problems. Just as we require a regulatory framework for controlling the activities on the internet, we must double check to ensure that this regulation does not dilute freedom of expression. Banning a blog because it hurts the feelings of a community is perfectly justified, but banning a blogging community altogether is sheer overreaction and is definitely unwarranted. In such a case, we must exercise good judgment in deciding the extent of regulation on the internet. Many critics of internet regulation argue that regulation is a fatal blow to democratic setup. China, a country which introduced strict internet regulations recently, has come under criticism by other countries for hindering with the free flow of thoughts on the internet. Given the level of importance accosted to freedom of speech – calling it as a vital necessity for progress and development, a regulation of the internet would be paradoxical and of course severely criticized5. Some critics are of the opinion that since the internet is a virtual world, it cannot be regulated at all. And to a large extent, this statement is true. The criticism internet regulation is facing speaks volumes about how much people value their democratic right to speech and how much they wish to express themselves. This can be seen in a recent example where the banning of a blog led to protests and demonstrations all over the world, inviting discussions and talks. Another argument against internet regulation is that it cripples the flexibility of modern business. If Bill Gates envisioned Business at the speed of thought, the internet is a vital tool that should be made available and open to all. It is said that online businesses exceed the traditional brick and mortar businesses by close to 6 times! The flexibility and global audience the internet gives, makes it one of the most important tools of the modern era. The concept of e-commerce has marketed itself effectively to the world audience. The current trends of competition require that the world must stay connected all the time – so the internet is a tool demanding mandatory dependence. Regulations, in such a case, would never allow the dreams of a global village to fully manifest themselves, leaving behind a lot of red faces. The internet is, by and large, the most convenient tool for effective human expression. Without the internet, we may say that the free flow of information is not only under threat of dilution, but under the threat of extinction. Is it, therefore, really worthwhile to risk the loss of free thinking just because many incidents outlining the negative aspects of internet abuse are on the rise? Critics of internet regulation call for the use of effective sense of individual judgment, rather than stringent laws. In a way, a strong argument stems from the fact that human expression comes under threat because of thoughtless dilution. The second strong argument is the death of online business, which many believe, is the face of future business. Regulation with regard to online businesses is bound to be implemented hastily, unduly affecting a great number of businesses all over the world. Critics have also argued that governments tinker unnecessarily with developing ideas, most of which involves the internet in part or in full. The negative aspects of regulation focus on the long-term losses resulting out of banning a free flow of ideas, and criticize overcautious attitudes. General Effects of Internet Regulation – positive and negative Taking it all together – the good and the bad, it can be concluded that the need for a stringent internet regulation is very much validated. The level of irresponsibility seen today – be it hacking, phishing, and child abuse or credit-card information theft – calls for a serious review of current legislations, and validate the replacement of the current regulations by fresh and strict laws that deal with the whole problem in a much more efficient manner. However, an absolute regulation of the internet would be equally bad as not regulating it. The second section of this research, which dealt with the negative aspects of internet regulation, gives us enough reason to believe that an overcautious attitude would also prove to be disastrous in the long run. Just because the free flow of information raises a few eyebrows, it does not mean that the flow of information can be diluted forever using internet regulations. Both sides of the topic demand equal attention. While internet regulation is definitely validated, owing to recent incidents and proper judgment, it should not be absolute; it should not be overcautious and unwarranted. Regulation of the internet should not be made a synonym of hindrance in progress. While internet regulation is the only answer to irresponsibility in the cyber world, we must examine its consequences in detail. More regulation would send a positive signal to the world, in the form of a responsible attitude. In fact, internet regulation is the best way for a government to prove that it has taken note of the prevalent cyber crimes and more importantly, has decided to act against it. This is naturally different from being casual about the whole affair just because of a few raised eyebrows and refraining from internet regulation because it infringes on the theory of free speech. The impact of internet regulation is, therefore, beneficial from a social, ethical, commercial and political point of view. It is a trademark of responsibility. However, the negative dimensions of internet regulation would also play an important role in taking an appropriate decision. The biggest negative consequence of regulation would be loss of free speech. As it is, we do face a lot of problems in trying to be heard. The internet, naturally, is a saving grace in such situations. Chat rooms provide absolute anonymity, and allow you to express yourself freely. Should they be regulated and cripple the process of public responses even more? Apart from the expression platform, the negative consequences of internet regulation also include a crippling of businesses based in the internet, which have been noted as the face of business in the 21st century. A regulation of the internet, therefore, would cause these businesses to lose their trademark flexibility, and prove to be a hindrance on the path to development. Critics of internet regulation have centered themselves on the point of political dominance. They say that governments are trying to regulate the internet because free flow of thoughts may interfere with their absolute administration. So, the theory of regulating the internet is not without a lot of valid criticism. Conclusion Much has been said about the importance of internet regulation, and much has also been said about its negative aspects. Going by all the discussion stated above, notwithstanding the negative aspects of regulation, we must agree that internet regulation is validated. If we take a closer look at the European cyber crime treaty, we will understand why. The main problem here is not validating internet regulation, but getting global consensus for the same. We must agree to regulate cyberspace, because the current scenario of atrocities committed in the cyber world call for some close thinking. Agreed, regulating the internet would hamper free flow of thoughts to some extent. But that is a small price to pay for ensuring digital safety. Implementing any law will invite criticism because that implementation will destroy a few vested interests. It is important to remember that the internet is the trademark of the 21st century. We are heavily dependant on the internet for a variety of reasons. So, we must justify this dependence – by ensuring ourselves with adequate security. The regulation calls for removal of irresponsibility, and not a dilution of expression. If we keep this in mind, we will surely agree on the need for a validated regulation. We must choose now – between an artificial, unregulated freedom, and a real, progressive regulation combining freedom with responsibility. In all cases we must choose the latter. Digital safety is not only imperative from a commercial point of view, but also from a long-term perspective. As discussed throughout, the dependence on the internet is bound to multiply in the years to come. Hence, it is binding upon us to create a safety net. Carelessness in this sensitive matter of internet regulation will lead us to repent heavily later on. Verdict Therefore, going by all the discussion stated above, the verdict is a stronger internet regulatory framework. There are a lot of pro-internet buffs who criticize the rules of cyberspace – simply because they have all become addicted to unwarranted freedom. But the time has come for us to rise above our weaknesses. A strong regulatory framework will not only send a positive signal to users of cyberspace, but validate our excessive dependence. Should we risk our future safety because of a few wannabe internet users? When we talk about ensuring ourselves in this digital world, we are actually discussing the life of technology. Technology should never be exposed to any sort of danger. Left unprotected, the US national security agency would have been hacked by a third grader with a modem ages ago. It is that security that makes the organization respectable and reliable. In a way, internet regulation is the only way to make the internet a safer place to be. Thus, after a careful research of the positive and negative sides of the topic, we may safely conclude that the current laws regulating the internet need to be strengthened even more, if we are to be assured of digital safety. The European Cyber crime treaty, a strong step taken to ensure a safer internet, must be given due importance and implemented without exception, no matter how severe the criticism may be. We must remember that safety comes first, and an enjoyment of our freedom can be truly possible only if we understand to use it responsibly. It is only then can we progress in great strides and make a name for ourselves – at home and around the world. Endnotes 1. Regulating the Internet: Article seen at: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/papers/1999/LM-Cyprus-Nov99.ppt. 2. CNET website, “Hacking costs businesses $800 million”, URL: www.news.com 3. News Article seen at BBC website, “Man held for call centre scam”. URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6044402.stm 4. The European Cyber Crime treaty – Charter may be located at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/185.htm 5. News article from BBC website, “China defends Internet Regulation”. URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4715044.stm Notes (1) The figures used in section 2: A research, have been duly acknowledged in the endnotes and footnotes, and the corresponding URLs have also been stated. (2) The references have been used only for informative purposes, and relevant information corresponding to the same has not been quoted anywhere in the paper. References 1. Baughman, Matthew, Recent Legislation: Regulating the Internet, 36 Harv. J. on Legis. 230 (1999) 2. Benkler, Yochai, Rules of the Road for the Information Superhighway: Electronic Communications and the Law, West, 1996 3. Chapman, Gary, The Unassailable Liberty of Cyberspace, The New Republic, July 31, 1995 4. Huber, Peter W., Law and Disorder in Cyberspace: Abolish the FCC and Let Common Law Rule the Telecom, Oxford University Press, 1997 5. Kahin, Brian & Nesson, Charles, Ed., Borders in Cyberspace: Information Policy and the Global Information Infrastructure, MIT Press, 1996 6. Netanel, Neil W., Cyberspace Self-Governance: A Skeptical View from Liberal Democratic Theory, 88 Cal. L. Rev. 395 (2000) Read More