Theories of Government Control of the Internet

Theories of Government Control of the earningscritic everyy analyse fair playrence Lessigs argument that the ability of governments to control symboliseivities within meshing is decided by the computes of meshing.The Internet enables individuals to access a sassy realm of homosexual activity1 and has usurped the lives of billions of people. Due to the effect that the Internet has on citizens of on the whole asseverates, many called for legitimate affaire. The increasing use of the Internet for mercenaryised purposes sparked initiatives to t unrivaled-beginning to legally tempt the system2. Internet traffic is carried over vast communication theory nedeucerks which argon owned and controlled by mankind and private sector providers. The European Commission has had to step in on a number of occasion were a merger of providers would be a breach of competition laws, imputable to the stake of the grocery store each provider has.3 Ian Lloyd states that the meshing i s similar to other dusts of communication as it is heavily regulated but it lacks specific legal provisions4. The Communications Act 2003 is said to put up few provisions regarding internet convention. At a national level, communication dominion has operated for years and internationalist agencies like the International Telecommunications Union adopts a more than functional position towards regulating. As the Internet is a global tool, policing and regulating it seems a grand legal and political question.Some argue that the internet is governed by internet users as they reach a consensus. Regulatory structures atomic number 18 seen to evolve on their own rather than develop in an organised way. Lawrence Lessig believes that governments attempts to regulate the internet ordain fail. He c formerlydes however, that governments may be able to regulate the computer architecture of the Internet and in turn it could develop into a form of regulation across all areas5. Lessig pro poses that internet sites should have greater power to severalise customers so as to recognise individuals credentials6. This form of indirect regulation would form a basis of self-regulation within cyberspace. He states that the state may affect Internet service providers (ISPs) from regulating an aspect which will pay it more difficult for it to do short letter.7 Further e-commerce will fall to greater involvement of the state due to the commercial nature of these trans follow outs thus do identification of parties easy. Lessig continues by warning that if the Internet is regulated by a closed code then the states effectiveness to regulate remains unchanged. If however, the Internet adopts an open code then it will act as a check on the governments power.8 The internet is defined by a set of protocols (TCP/IP) which are rules for how your computer will interact with a server and vice versa. These protocols make interaction possible as users deem on simple protocol of data ex change. A closed code has bo thered many which believe that an open code fits in with the set of the internet of free and easy file sharing. This code is a public code, which people may view with emerge gaining permission of others and so urge ons transparency.Alternative views state that the rise in e-commerce will result in greater input signal of the state, but there are enigmas connected to regulating e-commerce. Rowland Macdonald point out there are inherent difficulties when regulating e-commerce as it is not geographically or legal powerally restricted and there are also competing pressures whether to regulate or not to regulate as seen in Lessigs argument 9. Lars Davis states that two dangers must(prenominal) be avoided10. The first danger is under-regulation, as this would lead to the recognition that e-commerce is an activity that contains an unacceptable high element of risk and so it will prevent parties from people participating in commercial activity on the Inte rnet. This decrease in commercial activity will be no matter whether they are commercial entities or they are consumers. The second danger is over-regulation. The market would become rigid and inflexible which can be said to be the Internets most appealing feature. This in turn would lead to a stifling in development and perhaps in commercial entities setting up in legal powers which have less rigid regulations. Davis states that these regulation havens which have a reduced or minimal control is a distinct possibility. The overly strong control could be detrimental to the drawing card of parties conducting e-commerce. The benefits offered by e-commerce would be lost to markets with less rigid regulations and so sparing development would suffer in those countries which have rigid regulations.Rowland Madonald note a further difficulty in deciding where the scope of a picky states regulation should extend11. They ask the question whether it should extend to businesses that are bas ed in another state but which conduct business with consumers or businesses in the particular state? The geographical factors which usually make the scope of a jurisdiction easy to see are befuddled when relating to internet commerce. They use the character of the EC directive on reliable Aspects of Electronic Commerce in the Internal Market12 to show an attempt to prepare a balance point between outgrowth states and regulating e-commerce. The Directive recognises the difficulties which commercial entities face when having to take into account different legal regimes. The body politic of origin principle which EC member states adhere to, allow the regulations of one state the right not to be discriminated against the regulations of another. In other words, once marketed in the home state, it can be marketed in all member states. However, these regulations which provide a balance for e-commerce provide little help when transaction with commercial entities that are not based i n the EU. By use the Directive as an example, we see that incompatibility with its clauses regarding e-commerce could result in an action being taken and a case being brought in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and a judgment against a party. If the commercial entities are not EC member states then there is no classical organ which can force a party to comply with the regulations.Amit Sachdeva proposes that rules brass private international law are inadequate to deal with e-commerce13. Sachdeva states there are four solutions to the problem of regulating cyberspace and its jurisdiction. First, the laws could be expand to include the Internet. This suggestion is taken by Davies but as noted, the problem of an over-regulated system would be detrimental to many economies. Secondly, the establishment of a brand-new international organisation to propose a set of rules appropriate for cyberspace jurisdiction would be beneficial to governments when attempting to legislate. Thirdly, these decisions need to take into account commercial entities acting as a decentralised body of various actors and stakeholder. Lastly, he proposes a treaty based international harmonisation model where rules are certain and predictable and at the same time flexible in order to ensure that the potential benefits of this technology are meaningfully consumed by individuals14. However, Sachdeva warns that a comprehensive treaty based solution on all possible issues is an unrealistic target as the apparent youth of the Internet suggests that a number of complex issues are yet to be seen15.Georgios Zekos believes that new terminology, which recognizes the complexity of the Internet relationship and state, is necessary16. He suggests that a cyberspace jurisdiction should be used for cyberspace actions as their actions are only mat up in cyberspace. Zekos proposes that cyber courts and cyber arbitral tribunals could have jurisdiction to solve all actions taking place on the net and the e nforcement of their awards and decisions will be made accord to international conventions on internet enforcement and e-awards17. Therefore, cyberspace does not owe reign to any state but only to cyberspace itself.Conclusion in front adopting any model or any combination of different models, it must be remembered that the internet is here to stay, and so is the potential to commit and facilitate unlawful acts, and the resultant litigation by commercial entities or individuals. We have heard of Lessigs argument, but have also seen acts made by the EC in order to regulate internet use. Certainly, with growing numbers pool of Internet users and the growth of e-commerce, more breaches of law will arise and it is for the states to materialize an appropriate balance between over-regulating and under-regulating the Internet.BibliographyJohnson, D.R. and Post, D. Law BordersThe Rise of Law in Cyberspace (1996) 48 Stanford Law ReviewLessig, L. The Code and other laws of cyberspace 1999. freshly York, Basic Books.Lloyd, Ian J. Information technology Law 5th ed. 2008. New York, Oxford University PressReed, C. Angel, J. Computer Law The Law and Regulation of Information Technology 6th ed. 2008. New York, Oxford Universtiy Press.Rowland, D. Macdonald, E. Information Technology Law 2008. London, Cavendish.Sachdeva, A.M. International jurisdiction in cyberspace a comparative perspective. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 13(8), 2007 245-258.Zekos,G.I. State cyberspace jurisdiction and personal cyberspace jurisdiction. International Journal of Law Information Technology 15 (1) 2007. pp 1-37.Footnotes1 David R. Johnson and David G. Post, (1996)p.13672 indebtedness for breach of the statutorily implied terms as to the quality of goods in s.14 of the gross sales of Goods Act 1979.3 Proposed merger of MCI/Sprint and Worldcom. Case No. COMP/M.1741-MCI.4 Lloyd (2008) p.4575 Lessig (1999) p.496 Lessig p.50.7 P51. He uses an example of a mandatory traceability regu lation where software could trace the user when he provides minimal level of identification. The state could then legislate, making it mandatory for banks to do business with ISPs which have traceability software.8 Lessig p 1009 Rowland Macdonald (2008) p.243.10 Lars Davies- www.scl.org/content/ecommerce, s1.3.2. Report funded by the Society for Computer and Law.11 Rowland Macdonald (2008) p.244.12 2000/31/EC13 Sachdeva (2007) p.245.14 Ibid p. 255.15 Ibid p.256.16 Georgios Zekos (2007) p.217 Ibid p.36.