PDA

View Full Version : Internet Regulation Article



Victoria7
March 14th, 2001, 09:23
Reproduced in the feeling of fair use :):

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
MAY 13, 2001

Attempts to govern the Internet raise concerns about feasibility, free speech
By Kevin McDermott
Post-Dispatch Springfield bureau

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Internet users of the future will likely find the World Wide Web cheaper, faster and as common and accessible as television.

But they could also find more restrictions, less anonymity and - taxes.

This year, as in the past several years, the Illinois and Missouri legislatures both are flooded with bills proposing to expand, prohibit, monitor, criminalize, protect or tax various corners of cyberspace. It has become an annual rite in statehouses across the nation and in Congress, as traditional politics struggles to keep up with mercurial technology.

Most of the measures won't pass. First Amendment and interstate commerce issues will sink some, while others will be deemed technologically unworkable.

But legal and technological experts say the attempt to govern the ungoverned Internet will likely continue until there is consensus on what the rules should be.

"I'm concerned because politicians sometimes don't have the depth of understanding they need to make informed decisions about Internet law," said Ray Schroeder, director of the Office of Technology-Enhanced Learning at the University of Illinois at Springfield.

He said state bans on Internet gambling and pornography, for example, won't work if they employ the traditional approach of going after the person who disseminates it - since that person could be anywhere. "Some of the legislation, you can look at it and say, 'This just isn't going to work.' "

Of more concern to groups like the American Civil Liberties Union is the message in much of the legislation that, because the Internet is a new form of communication, it isn't subject to the same protections of free speech and interstate commerce as other forms.

Mary Dixon, the ACLU's Springfield lobbyist, said she is focusing on stopping laws that seek to "dumb-down all speech on the Net to the level of a child."

"Once people are more used to the Internet . . . I would hope the futile efforts to pass blatantly unconstitutional law will wane," said Dixon.

Scores of Internet-related bills are pending in Illinois and Missouri. Topics include:

Sexual content restrictions. Both states have several bills pending that would outlaw sexual images and communications to children, or harassing e-mail to anyone.

Criminal activity. Illinois has pending measures to outlaw dissemination of data regarding marijuana or gang activity if the information is intended to further criminal activity. Other legislation would outlaw Internet gambling, Internet seduction of a minor, and "cyberstalking."

The marijuana legislation has become especially controversial, with critics saying it amounts to a ban on Internet discussion of an entire topic. "Could we ban an identical book?" asked Dixon, of the ACLU.

Gregg Durham, spokesman for House Republican leader Lee Daniels, countered that the Internet is different from printed books because of the element of availability. "A school library is not going to carry a book on how to roll a joint . . . but kids are finding that kind of stuff on school library computers," said Durham.

Mandatory filters. Pending Missouri legislation would require public schools and libraries with public Internet access to equip their computers with software that prevents minors from accessing pornography. (A similar proposal failed in Illinois last year, in part because critics say such filters are unreliable.)

Taxes. At least one pending bill in Illinois would specify that Internet sales in which the seller or the customer resides in Illinois will be subject to Illinois' sales tax. A competing measure would specifically prohibit the state from imposing sales taxes on Internet transactions.

"I think it's counterproductive to be imposing taxes on e-commerce at the very same time that we're investing hundreds of millions of dollars into this developing sector of the economy," said Rep. Jeff Schoenberg, D-Evanston, sponsor of the tax-prohibition bill.

Todd Maisch of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce disagreed, noting that Illinois law already contains a provision that requires Illinois buyers to "self-report" sales taxes if they buy products from other states.

"The Chamber's members are very, very interested in a level playing field," said Maisch. "We're not talking about new taxes; we're talking about enforcing existing tax law."

Terry Ganey of the Post-Dispatch staff contributed information to this story.

(c) 2001 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, postnet.com

********

OR, they could just leave well enough alone! How's that for an idea!

Of course, when has our wonderful government ever left anything alone... :)

Rodie
March 14th, 2001, 11:12
I bet that the only bills that have a chance of passing are things that make it illegal to "send harrassing e-mail to people" and make it illegal for minors to access porn. Those things certainly aren't legal now, they just don't have specific laws governing them, but that doesn't mean you can do those things and not be prosecuted.

Victoria7
March 14th, 2001, 18:09
I do like the fact that they're trying to crack down on porn and harassment online, but seriously, how is one going to regulate the Internet in the same way as one regulates a country, or a city? You can't. And as more and more laws are passed, there will be more and more restrictions on what law-abiding people can do on the 'net. That's my apprehension about Internet regulation.

In addition, what are they going to do on porn sites, put up a button that says, "If you're over 18/21 click here, if you're not, click here"? *rolling eye smiley - how are those done anyway?* Like any kid who's really trying to get on a site like that is going to click the latter...

To the Government: good idea, bad solution.

Todd
March 14th, 2001, 19:05
The government could always require that you register with: http://www.rsac.org

They could also require ICANN to release a .xxx TLD and require all adult sites to be on that TLD. Enforcement could be difficult but service providers in the US would most likely follow through with the law and most other respected companies would as well.

At least then if the parent/guardian uses IE they can set content ratings right in the browser for it and because it would be required by US law a lot more sites would have it there. Also with requiring all TLD's to use .xxx filtering software could very easily filter out a lot of the adult content.

It would be crucial to get Canada to agree with these laws. The argument is always that they could move the servers to another country but keep in mind that their main expense is bandwidth and it's probably not as cheap in other countries that don't have the infrastructure already ready.

Would it stop it? No, but it would make it more difficult for a majority of minors to view such content. I think most of the effort is to stop minors / adults from reaching pornography in public places like libraries and schools. If the child looks at adult sites at home it should be the parents responsibility.

Rick
March 14th, 2001, 19:32
As the internet is international in scope, any laws the U.S., government, or any other government, for that matter, chooses to enact would hardly apply to a web host outside their borders. U.S. law does not apply to, say, a person in El Salvador, publishing a porn site on a web server in Korea. So attempts to enforce any sort of internet content regulation would be futile at best. The most any government can accomplish would be to prosecute its own citizens for violations of the laws they enact, while fuming powerlessly about content of sites not under their jurisdiction, unless they had the audacity to close their borders to internet content, allowing its citizenry to access only web content published within that countries borders. Possible in some countries, a rediculous suggestion in most.
On the other hand... Most politicians specialize in being rediculous.

Webdude
March 14th, 2001, 22:11
Let me tell you about a little country called Saudi Arabia. They have one pipeline going in and out of their country. They block whatever they dont like. This includes just about any site with so much as a woman without the veil across here face (much less anything else), gambling site, sites where a keyword triggers a block, etc, etc. Being in Saudi is worse than being on AOL. Well, until direct two-way satellite connections is available there :-)

Course, then they will outlaw satellite internet there. You can get it now on the black market just like booze and anything else...but just like everything else on the black market, it is waaaay overpriced.

Anyway, politicians should just leave well enough alone...but there is always that --- trying to get his name in the books somewhere....They should stay out of it even in regards to spam, because once you let the Government in....well you get my drift. I'd rather put up with spam than the Government. Besides, they dont do anything about spam in your snail mail, what makes you think they will do anything about electronic spam??

Todd
March 14th, 2001, 23:18
They should stay out of it even in regards to spam...

Typically I would agree with you in regards to the government staying out of the Internet but I would disagree with this one. If I could personally sue spammers and get a criminal conviction out of them I would actually be able to stop these guys.

Customers complain about it as they place the mailto: links on their site and then come to me asking for help dealing with spam. Granted I can educate them at this point but that one email address is essentially "spoiled" once it gets on those lists.

A majority of these places indeed in the US as well. Again you can go overseas but if it was illegal to provide service to spammers we could at least try and stop them from getting a toll free number and other services in the US. Could it be stopped completely? Not right now, but we could at least decrease the spammers income and make it an unprofitable business which would cause them to get in to another line of business.

I don't care much about adult sites but I think the idea of requiring all adult sites to go to .xxx is fair. They can still have their .com's but it must redirect to .xxx so filtering software would catch it. Businesses, libraries, and schools could much easier filter content. This doesn't impact me so perhaps I'm overlooking something the adult webmasters would complain about.

I wouldn't make any exception for spammers. The judge can always just require community service + no computer/internet access for X period of time. If they said up to 5 years in jail it would scare off a majority of the spammers in the US.

I think what we would be doing is limiting illegal activities and then only limiting what TLD they use. If a firewall isn't there or filtering software enabled then you could browse freely. This is very different from Saudi Arabia's method of censorship.

Sort of off topic but what ever happened with Australia censorship debate? I think I heard it was passed but then I haven't heard anything. Did it go in to effect? Do they just block all adult content on servers in Australia or all adult content period?

Mandrake
March 15th, 2001, 09:08
Originally posted by Webdude
Let me tell you about a little country called Saudi Arabia. They have one pipeline going in and out of their country. They block whatever they dont like. This includes just about any site with so much as a woman without the veil across here face (much less anything else), gambling site, sites where a keyword triggers a block, etc, etc. Being in Saudi is worse than being on AOL. Well, until direct two-way satellite connections is available there :-)



Hmm... My celebrity image site sure gets a lot of hits from Saudi Arabia... About the third busiest country domain, I believe. :)

atlas
March 15th, 2001, 09:58
Originally posted by Webdude
Let me tell you about a little country called Saudi Arabia. They have one pipeline going in and out of their country. They block whatever they dont like. This includes just about any site with so much as a woman without the veil across here face (much less anything else), gambling site, sites where a keyword triggers a block, etc, etc. Being in Saudi is worse than being on AOL. Well, until direct two-way satellite connections is available there :-)


All they could do is have all ISPs have filtered access. There's no way that the connection coming in and going out of the country is somehow monitored -- it's virtually impossible to figure out what is being done from the packet level.

-mk

Webdude
March 15th, 2001, 13:14
Trust me, they have it exactly that way. King Abdul Aziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) is from where they block it all. I am forwarded many of their notices. Here is one from them to an IBM ISP called SBM in Saudi.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is an announcement from KACST/ISU
King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology
Internet Services Unit
----------------------------------------------
Dear Sirs,

Currently we are experiencing an unstable condition with our
proxies. We are working on the problem and we will update you
once we find out the nature of the problem.

Start time: 2000-01-17 05:30 (UTC)
End time : not known yet

Effect : Slow or no browsing

--
KACST /Internet Services Unit
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

By the way, It was the Americans who built that system for them. It is also Americans who are building a system to provide a way to bypass their little blockade.

atlas
March 15th, 2001, 14:24
Originally posted by Webdude
Trust me, they have it exactly that way. King Abdul Aziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) is from where they block it all. I am forwarded many of their notices. Here is one from them to an IBM ISP called SBM in Saudi.


Ok, I see, it's port 80 traffic that's totally filtered -- and set to use a proxy.

-mk