FREE ESSAY ON GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE INTERNET

GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE INTERNET

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Science Government Intervention of the Internet During the past decade, our
society has become based solely on the ability to move large amounts of information
across large distances quickly. Computerization has influenced everyone's life. The
natural evolution of computers and this need for ultra-fast communications has caused a
global network of interconnected computers to develop. This global net allows a person to
send E-mail across the world in mere fractions of a second, and enables even the common
person to access information world-wide. With advances such as software that allows users
with a sound card to use the Internet as a carrier for long distance voice calls and
video conferencing, this network is key to the future of the knowledge society. At
present, this net is the epitome of the first amendment: free speech. It is a place where
people can speak their mind without being reprimanded for what they say, or how they
choose to say it. The key to the world-wide success of the Internet is its protection of
free speech, not only in America, but in other countries where free speech is not
protected by a constitution. To be found on the Internet is a huge collection of obscene
graphics, Anarchists' cookbooks and countless other things that offend some people. With
over 30 million Internet users in the U.S. alone (only 3 million of which surf the net
from home), everything is bound to offend someone. The newest wave of laws floating
through law making bodies around the world threatens to stifle this area of spontaneity.
Recently, Congress has been considering passing laws that will make it a crime punishable
by jail to send vulgar language over the net, and to export encryption software. No
matter how small, any attempt at government intervention in the Internet will stifle the
greatest communication innovation of this century. The government wants to maintain
control over this new form of communication, and they are trying to use the protection of
children as a smoke screen to pass laws that will allow them to regulate and censor the
Internet, while banning techniques that could eliminate the need for regulation.
Censorship of the Internet threatens to destroy its freelance atmosphere, while wide
spread encryption could help prevent the need for government intervention. The current
body of laws existing today in America does not apply well to the Internet. Is the
Internet like a bookstore, where servers cannot be expected to review every title? Is it
like a phone company who must ignore what it carries because of privacy? Is it like a
broadcasting medium, where the government monitors what is broadcast? The trouble is that
the Internet can be all or none of these things depending on how it's used. The Internet
cannot be viewed as one type of transfer medium under current broadcast definitions. The
Internet differs from broadcasting media in that one cannot just happen upon a vulgar
site without first entering 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). Jim Exon, a democratic senator from Nebraska, wants to pass
a decency bill regulating the Internet. If the bill passes, certain commercial servers
that post pictures of unclad beings, like those run by Penthouse or Playboy, would of
course be shut down immediately or risk prosecution. The same goes for any amateur web
site that features nudity, sex talk, or rough language. Posting any dirty words in a
Usenet discussion group, which occurs routinely, could make one liable for a $50,000 fine
and six months in jail. Even worse, if a magazine that commonly runs some of those nasty
words in its pages, The New Yorker for instance, decided to post its contents on-line,
its leaders would be held responsible for a $100,000 fine and two years 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 53).
Congress, in their pursuit of regulations, seems to have overlooked the fact that the
majority of the adult material on the Internet comes from overseas. Although many U.S.
government sources helped fund Arpanet, the predecessor to the Internet, they no longer
control it. Many of the new Internet technologies, including the World Wide Web, have
come from overseas. There is no clear boundary between information held in the U.S. and
information stored 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. Even if
our government tried to regulate the Internet, we have no control over what is posted in
other countries, and we have no practical way to stop it. The Internet's predecessor was
originally designed to uphold communications after a nuclear attack by rerouting data to
compensate for destroyed telephone lines and servers. Today's Internet still works on a
similar design. The very nature this design allows the Internet to overcome any kind of
barriers put in its way. If a major line between two servers, say in two countries, is
cut, then the Internet users will find another way around this obstacle. This obstacle
avoidance makes it virtually impossible to separate an entire nation from indecent
information in other countries. If it was physically possible to isolate America's
computers from the rest of the world, it would be devastating to our economy. Recently, a
major university attempted to regulate what types of Internet access its students had,
with results reminiscent of a 1960's protest. A research associate at Carnegie Mellon
University conducted a study of pornography on the school's computer networks. Martin
Rimm put together quite a large picture collection (917,410 images) and he also tracked
how often each image had been downloaded (a total of 6.4 million). Pictures of similar
content had recently been declared obscene by a local court, and the school feared they
might be held responsible for the content of its network. The school administration
quickly removed access to all these pictures, and to the newsgroups where most of this
obscenity is suspected to come from. A total of 80 newsgroups were removed, causing a
large disturbance among the student body, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, all of whom felt this was unconstitutional. After only
half a week, the college had backed down, and restored the newsgroups. This is a tiny
example of what may happen if the government tries to impose censorship (Elmer-Dewitt
102). Currently, there is software being released that promises to block children's
access to known X-rated Internet newsgroups and sites. However, since most adults rely on
their computer literate children to setup these programs, the children will be able to
find ways around them. This mimics real life, where these children would surely be able
to get their hands on an adult magazine. Regardless of what types of software or
safeguards are used to protect the children of the Information age, there will 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 a extension and a reflection of
the real world, and 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 (Miller 76). Not all
restrictions on electronic speech are bad. Most of the major on-line communication
companies have restrictions on what their users can say. They must respect their
customer's privacy, however. 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 Playboy and Penthouse have started to regulated themselves. Both post clear
warnings that adult content lies ahead and lists the countries where this is illegal. The
film and videogame industries subject themselves to ratings, and if Internet users want
to avoid government imposed regulations, then it is time they begin to regulate
themselves. It all boils down to protecting children from adult material, while
protecting the first amendment right to free speech between adults. Government attempts
to regulate the Internet are not just limited to obscenity and vulgar language, it also
reaches 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 destination. At each computer, there is the chance that the
data will be archived and someone may intercept that data. Credit card numbers are a
frequent target of hackers. Encryption is a means of encoding data so that only someone
with the proper key can decode it. Why do you need PGP (encryption)? It's personal. It's
private. And it's no one's business but yours. 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 is. Whatever it is, you don't want your private electronic
mail (E-mail) or confidential documents read by anyone else. There's nothing wrong with
asserting your privacy. Privacy is as apple-pie as the Constitution. Perhaps you think
your E-mail is legitimate enough that encryption is unwarranted. If you really are a
law-abiding citizen with nothing to hide, then why don't you always send your paper mail
on postcards? Why not submit to drug testing on demand? Why require a warrant for police
searches of your house? Are you trying to hide something? You must be a subversive or a
drug dealer if you hide your mail inside envelopes. Or maybe a paranoid nut. Do
law-abiding citizens have any need to encrypt their E-mail? What if everyone believed
that law-abiding citizens should use postcards for their mail? If some brave soul tried
to assert his privacy by using an envelope for his mail, it would draw suspicion. Perhaps
the authorities would open his mail to see what he's hiding. Fortunately, we don't live
in that kind of world, because everyone protects most of their mail with envelopes. So no
one draws suspicion by asserting their privacy with an envelope. There's safety in
numbers. 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, they no
longer hold control over encryption. New algorithms have been discovered that are
reportedly uncrackable 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. 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 him programs, Zimmerman replies: 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. (Levy 56). Currently, PGP can be
downloaded from MIT. They have a very complicated system that changes the location on the
software to be sure that they are protected. All that needs to be done is click YES to
four questions dealing with exportation and use of the program, and it is there for the
taking. This seems to be a lot of trouble to protect a program from spreading that is
already world wide. The government wants to protect their ability to legally wiretap, but
what good does it do them to stop encryption in foreign countries? They cannot legally
wiretap someone in another country, and they sure cannot ban encryption in the U.S. The
government has not been totally blind to the need for encryption. For nearly two decades,
a government sponsored algorithm, Data Encryption Standard (DES), has been used primarily
by banks. The government always maintained the ability to decipher this code with their
powerful supercomputers. Now that new forms of encryption have been devised that the
government can't decipher, they are proposing a new standard to replace DES. 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 (Zimmerman). 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). 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
something they choose not to see. 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 alterior motives, should mandate encryption,
not outlaw it. 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 government. If too many regulations are inacted, 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 non existent. 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 meddle in the Internet, and the biggest problem
will work itself out. The government should rethink its approach to the censorship and
encryption issues, allowing the Internet to continue to grow and mature. 
Bibliography
Works Cited Emler-Dewitt, Philip. Censoring Cyberspace: Carnegie Mellon's Attempt to Ban
Sex from it's Campus Computer Network Sends A Chill Along the Info Highway. Time 21 Nov.
1994; 102-105. Lehrer, Dan. The Secret Sharers: Clipper Chips and Cypherpunks. The Nation
10 Oct. 1994; 376-379. Let the Internet Backlash Begin. Advertising Age 7 Nov. 1994; 24.
Levy, Steven. The Encryption Wars: is Privacy Good or Bad? Newsweek 24 Apr. 1995; 55-57.
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