Control Of Internet
During the past decade, our society has become
based solely on the ability to
move large amounts of information across great
distances in a very short amount
of time and at very low costs. The evolution
of the computer era and our growing
need for ultra-fast communications has
caused a global network of interconnected
computers to develop, commonly
referred to as the Internet or the world wide
web. The Internet has
influenced practically everyone’s life in some way
whether it was done
directly or indirectly. Our children are exposed to the
Internet at
school, and we are exposed to the Internet simply by just watching
our
television sets. The Internet has become the primary key to the future
of
communication in our society today. Because of this, the government feels
that
it has the right to regulate and control the contents of information
distributed
through the World Wide Web, contrary to the opinions of most
Internet users,
myself included. Freedom of Speech Over the Internet At the
present, this
network is the epitome of the first amendment, freedom of
speech. It is a place
where people can speak their minds without being
reprimanded for what they say,
or how they choose to say it. The key to the
success of the Internet is its
protection of free speech, not only in
America, but in other countries as well,
where free speech is not protected
by a constitution. Because there are no laws
regulating Internet material,
people may find some of its content offending,
ranging from pornography, to
hate-group forums, to countless other forms of
information. With over 30
million Internet users in the U.S. alone, some of the
material is bound to be
interpreted as offensive to some other Internet user. My
advice to these
people is to "change the station if you don’t like what you
see". Laws and
the Internet The newest waves of laws making their way through
Congress
threaten to stifle spontaneity of the Internet. Recently, Congress
has
considered passing laws that will make it a crime to send vulgar language
or
encryption software over the web. These crimes could result in
prosecutions
punishable by jail time. No matter how insignificant, any
attempt at government
intervention on the Internet will stifle the greatest
communication innovation
of this century. The government wants to maintain
control over this new form of
communication, and it is trying to use the
protection of children as a smoke
screen to impose these laws upon us.
Censorship of the Internet threatens to
destroy its freelance atmosphere,
while wide spread encryption could help
eliminate the need for government
intervention. How Do We Interpret the Internet
The current body of laws
existing today in America does not apply well to the
Internet. Is the
Internet like a broadcasting medium, where the government
monitors what is
broadcast? Is it like a bookstore, where servers cannot be
expected to review
every title? Is it like a phone company that must ignore what
it carries
because of privacy? The trouble is that the Internet can be all or
none of
these things depending on how it is used. The Internet cannot be viewed
as
one type of transfer medium under the current broadcast definitions.
The
Internet differs from the broadcasting media in that one cannot just
happen upon
a vulgar site without first keying in a complicated address, or
following a link
from another source. "The Internet is much more like going
into a book
store and choosing to look at adult magazines" (Miller 75).
Because our use
of the Internet varies from person to person, its meaning may
be interpreted in
a number of different ways. Nudity on the Internet Jim
Exon, a democratic
senator from Nebraska, wants to pass a decency bill
regulating sexual content on
the Internet. If the bill is passed, certain
commercial servers that post nude
pictures, like those run by Penthouse or
Playgirl, would of course be shut down
immediately or risk prosecution. The
same goes for any amateur web site that
features nudity, sex talk, or
sexually explicit words. Posting any sexual words
in a Usenet discussion
group, which occurs routinely, could cause a person to be
liable for a
$50,000 fine and six months in jail. Why does it suddenly become
illegal to
post something that has been legal for years in print? Exon's bill
apparently
would also "criminalize private mail," ... "I can call
my brother on the
phone and say anything--but if I say it on the Internet, it's
illegal" (Levy
56). Internet Access To Other Countries Congress, in their
pursuit of
regulations, seems to have overlooked the fact that the majority of
the adult
material on the Internet is sent from overseas. Many of the new
Internet
technologies, including the World Wide Web, have been developed
overseas.
There is no clear boundary between information existing in the U.S.
and
information existing in other countries. Data held in foreign computers
is
just as accessible as data in America. All it takes is the click of a
mouse to
access it. Even if our government tried to regulate the Internet, we
have no
control over what is posted in other countries or sent from other
countries, and
we have no practical way to stop it. The Internet was
originally designed to
uphold communications after a nuclear attack occurred
by rerouting data to
compensate for destroyed telephone lines and servers.
Today's Internet still
works on a similar design. The building blocks of the
Internet were designed to
overcome any kind of communication barriers put in
its way. For example, if a
major line between two servers is cut, the
Internet users will find another way
around this obstacle, whether the
servers reside in different cities, states, or
countries. This characteristic
of the Internet makes it virtually impossible to
separate an entire nation
from indecent information in other countries (Wilson
33). Internet
Regulating Gone Bad Recently, a major university attempted to
implement
limitations on the Internet access available to its students, with
results
reminiscent of a 1960’s protest. The university had become concerned
that it
might be held responsible for allowing students access to sexually
explicit
material, after a research associate found quite a large collection
of
pornographic pictures (917,410 images to be exact) that several students
had
downloaded. Frightened by a local court case that had recently declared
pictures
of similar content obscene, the school administration quickly
removed access to
all these pictures and to the newsgroups where most of this
obscenity had
susceptibly come from. A total of 80 newsgroups were removed,
causing a large
disturbance among the student body, and shortly thereafter,
the American Civil
Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation
became involved, all of
whom felt this was unconstitutional. After only half
a week, the college had
backed down, and restored the newsgroups. This is a
small example of what may
happen if the government tries to impose censorship
(Elmer-Dewitt 102). Children
and the Internet Currently, there is software
being released that promises to
block children’s access to known X-rated
Internet newsgroups and sites.
However, most adults rely on their
computer literate children to install and set
these programs up, which
inevitable defeats the purpose behind childproofing
software. Even if this
software is installed by an adult, who’s to say that
the child can’t go to a
friend’s house and surf the web without any
restrictions or supervision?
Children will find ways to get around these
restrictions. Regardless of what
types of software or safeguards are used to
protect these children, there
will always be ways around them. This necessitates
the education of the
children to deal with reality. Altered views of an
electronic world translate
easily into altered views of the real world. When it
comes to our children,
censorship is a far less important issue than good
parenting. We must teach
our kids that the Internet is an extension and a
reflection of the real
world. We have to show them how to enjoy the good things
and avoid the bad
things. This isn't the government's responsibility. It's ours
as parents.
(Miller 76) Self Regulation of the Internet Some restrictions on
electronic
speech imposed by major online companies are not so bad. Most of
these
communication companies have restrictions on what their users can
"say in
public forum areas" (Messmer). They must, however, respect their
customer's
privacy. Private e-mail content is off limits to them, but they may
act
swiftly upon anyone who spouts obscenities in a public
forum.
Self-regulation by users and servers is the key to avoiding
government imposed
intervention. Many on-line sites such as Playgirl and
Penthouse have started to
regulate themselves. Both of these sites post clear
warnings that adult content
lies ahead and lists the countries where this is
illegal. The film and video
game industries subject themselves to ratings,
and similarly, if Internet users
want to avoid government imposed
regulations, maybe it is time they began to
regulate themselves. Encryption
Government attempts to regulate the Internet are
not just limited to
obscenity and vulgar language. These attempts also fall into
other areas,
such as data encryption. By nature, the Internet is an insecure
method of
transferring data. A single e-mail packet may pass through hundreds
of
computers from its source to its final destination. At each computer,
there is
the chance that the data will be archived and someone may intercept
that data.
Encryption is a means of encoding data so that only someone
with the pror
"key" can decode it. "Why do you need" encryption?
"It's
personal. It's private. And it's no one's business but yours"
(Laberis). You
may be planning a political campaign, discussing our taxes, or
having an illicit
affair. Or you may be doing something that you feel
shouldn't be illegal, but it
is. Whatever it is, you don't want your private
electronic mail or confidential
documents read by anyone else. There's
nothing wrong with asserting your
privacy. Perhaps you are not really
concerned about encrypting your e-mail
because you believe that you have
nothing to hide. I mean you haven’t broken
the law in any way, right? Well
then why not just write letters on postcards
instead of sealed away in
envelopes? Why not submit to drug testing on demand?
Why require a
warrant for police searches of your house? Do law-abiding citizens
have any
need to encrypt their e-mail? What if everyone believed those
law-abiding
citizens should use postcards for their mail for the simple reason
that you
have nothing to hide? Just because you haven’t done anything wrong,
doesn’t
mean that you want the whole world to have access to your letters or
e-mail.
Analogously, it would be nice if everyone routinely used encryption for
all
their e-mail, innocent or not, so that no one drew suspicion by
asserting
their e-mail privacy with encryption. "Think of it as a form of
solidarity"
(Zimmerman). Until the development of the Internet, the U.S.
government
controlled most new encryption techniques. With the development of
faster home
computers and a worldwide web, the government no longer holds
control over
encryption. New algorithms have been discovered that are
reportedly unable to be
cracked, even by the FBI and the NSA. This is a major
concern to the government
because they want to maintain the ability to
conduct wiretaps and other forms of
electronic surveillance into the digital
age. Pretty Good Privacy To stop the
spread of data encryption software, the
U.S. government has imposed very strict
laws on its exportation. One very
well known example of this is the PGP (Pretty
Good Privacy) scandal. PGP
was written by Phil Zimmerman, and is based on
"public key" encryption. This
system uses complex algorithms to
produce two codes, one for encoding and one
for decoding. To send an encoded
message to someone, a copy of that person's
"public" key is needed.
The sender uses this public key to encrypt the
data, and the recipient uses
their "private" key to decode the message. As
Zimmerman was finishing
his program, he heard about a proposed Senate bill to
ban cryptography. This
prompted him to release his program for free, hoping
that it would become so
popular that its use could not be stopped. One of the
original users of PGP
posted it to an Internet site, where anyone from any
country could download it,
causing a federal investigator to begin
investigating Phil for violation of this
new law. As with any new technology,
this program has allegedly been used for
illegal purposes, and the FBI and
NSA are believed to be unable to crack this
code. When told about the illegal
uses of his program, Zimmerman replied,
"If I had invented an automobile, and
was told that criminals used it to
rob banks, I would feel bad, too. But most
people agree the benefits to society
that come from automobiles -- taking the
kids to school, grocery shopping and
such -- outweigh their drawbacks". Data
Encryption Standard The government
has not been totally blind for the need of
encryption. For nearly two decades, a
government sponsored algorithm, Data
Encryption Standard (DES), has been used
primarily by banks. The government
has always maintained the ability to decipher
this code with their powerful
supercomputers. Now that new forms of encryption
have been devised that the
government cannot decipher, they are proposing a new
standard to replace DES.
Clipper Chips This new standard is called Clipper, and
is based on the
"public key" algorithms. Instead of software, Clipper
is a microchip that can
be incorporated into just about anything (Television,
Telephones, etc.).
This algorithm uses a much longer key that is 16 million
times more powerful
than DES. It is estimated that today's fastest computers
would take " 400
billion years to break this code using every possible key"
(Lehrer 378). The
catch: At the time of manufacture, each Clipper chip will be
loaded with its
own unique key, and the Government gets to keep a copy, placed
in escrow. Not
to worry though, the Government promises that they will use these
keys to
read your traffic only when duly authorized by law. Of course, to
make
Clipper completely effective, the next logical step would be to
outlaw other
forms of cryptography. If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will
have privacy.
Intelligence agencies have access to good cryptographic
technology. So do the
big arms and drug traffickers. So do defense
contractors, oil companies, and
other corporate giants. But ordinary people
and grassroots political
organizations mostly have not had access to
affordable ‘military grade’
public-key cryptographic technology. Until now.
PGP empowers people to take
their privacy into their own hands. There's a
growing social need for it. That's
why I wrote it. (Zimmerman) Signatures The
most important benefits of encryption
have been conveniently overlooked by
the government. If everyone used
encryption, there would be absolutely no way
that an innocent bystander could
happen upon material they find offensive.
Only the intended receiver of the data
could decrypt it (using public key
cryptography, not even the sender can decrypt
it) and view its contents.
Each coded message also has an encrypted signature
verifying the sender's
identity. The sender's secret key can be used to encrypt
an enclosed
signature message, thereby "signing" it. This creates a
digital signature of
a message, which the recipient (or anyone else) can check
by using the
sender's public key to decrypt it. This proves that the sender was
the true
originator of the message, and that the message has not been
subsequently
altered by anyone else, because the sender alone possesses the
secret key
that made that signature. "Forgery of a signed message is
infeasible, and the
sender cannot later disavow his signature" (Zimmerman).
Gone would be the
hate mail that causes many problems, and gone would be the
ability to forge a
document with someone else's address. The government, if it
did not have
ulterior motives, should mandate encryption, not outlaw it.
Conclusion As
the Internet continues to grow throughout the world, more
governments may try
to impose their views onto the rest of the world through
regulations and
censorship. It will be a sad day when the world must adjust its
views to
conform to that of the most prudish regulatory governments in
existence. If
too many regulations are enacted, then the Internet as a tool will
become
nearly useless, and the Internet as a mass communication device and a
place
for freedom of mind and thoughts, will become nonexistent. There exists
a
very fine line between protecting our children from pornographic material,
while
still protecting our rights to freedom of speech. The users, servers,
and
parents of the world must regulate themselves, so as not to force
government
regulations that may stifle the best communication instrument in
history. If
encryption catches on and becomes as widespread as Zimmerman
predicts it will,
then there will no longer be a need for the government to
intrude in the matters
of the Internet, and the biggest problems will work
themselves out. The
government should rethink its approach to the censorship
and encryption issues,
allowing the Internet to continue to grow and mature
on its own.
Bibliography
Elmer-Dewitt, Philip. "Censoring
Cyberspace: Carnegie Mellon's Attempt
to Ban Sex From Its Campus Computer
Network Sends A Chill Along the Info
Highway." Time 21 Nov. 1994:
102-105. Laberis, Bill. "The Price of
Freedom." ComputerWorld (1998).
Dialog Magazine Database, 036777. N. pag.
34 Apr 1994 <
http://www.computerworld.com>. Lehrer, Dan. "The Secret
Sharers:
Clipper Chips and Cypherpunks." The Nation 10 Oct. 1994: 376-379.
Levy,
Steven. "The Encryption Wars: Is Privacy Good or Bad?" Newsweek
24 Apr.
1995: 55-57. Messmer, Ellen. "Fighting For Justice On The New
Frontier."
Network World (1997). Dialog Magazine Database, 028048
. Miller, Michael.
"Cybersex Shock." PC Magazine 10 Oct. 1995: 75-76.
Wilson, David. "The
Internet Goes Crackers." Education Digest May
1995: 33-36. Zimmerman,
Phil. (1995). "Pretty Good Privacy" v2.62, [Online].
Available
Ftp:net-dist.mit.edu Directory: pub/pgp/dist File: Pgp262dc.zip.
Works
Cited Elmer-Dewitt, Philip. "Censoring Cyberspace: Carnegie
Mellon's
Attempt to Ban Sex From Its Campus Computer Network Sends A
Chill Along the Info
Highway." Time 21 Nov. 1994: 102-105. Laberis, Bill.
"The Price of
Freedom." ComputerWorld (1998). Dialog Magazine Database,
036777. N. pag.
34 Apr 1994 < http://www.computerworld.com>.
Lehrer, Dan. "The Secret
Sharers: Clipper Chips and Cypherpunks." The
Nation 10 Oct. 1994: 376-379.
Levy, Steven. "The Encryption Wars: Is
Privacy Good or Bad?" Newsweek
24 Apr. 1995: 55-57. Messmer, Ellen.
"Fighting For Justice On The New
Frontier." Network World (1997). Dialog
Magazine Database, 028048
. Miller, Michael. "Cybersex Shock." PC Magazine 10
Oct. 1995: 75-76.
Wilson, David. "The Internet Goes Crackers." Education
Digest May
1995: 33-36. Zimmerman, Phil. (1995). "Pretty Good Privacy"
v2.62, [Online].
Available Ftp:net-dist.mit.edu Directory: pub/pgp/dist
File: Pgp262dc.zip.