The Government And The Internet
The initial framework that provided the technical foundation of the internet — Arpanet was a government created thing. English scientist Tim Berners-Lee is credited with creating the world wide web, which was released into the wild in August 1991. The world was reconfigured through the interface of this medium, and everything changed, as it is wont to do when something this huge comes along.
The FCC Net Neutrality laws passed by President Obama reclassified the Internet as a telecommunications service, broadband was reclassified as a common carrier under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and this protected the internet from slow lanes. Ajit Pai and the Republicans on the board of the FCC recently repealed this.
Facebook and Google, who had been enjoying unparalleled success, and who own a fairly large proportion of the internet, got involved with some Russians and the Governments at home and abroad decided they needed to be slapped around a bit, until they stepped up to the plate and decided that they were going to take some responsibility for what happened on their networks.
This week at Davos, Theresa May, whose government has had sites with end to end encryption in its sights, and has had attention on the role of social media platforms in facilitating everything from terrorism to pedophilia, again called for more responsibility from these companies.
One such company, Telegram, singled out as the app of choice for terrorists and pedophiles, pushed back and claimed that they are merely a tool and are not responsible for what people choose to use that tool for. It sounds strangely like Zuckerberg’s “We are a technology company, not a media company” — working for an inelegant side-step away from the firing line.
One wonders why, if the government has the data to be able to level such an accusation, why they haven’t moved to arrest these people. To a degree, there is some truth in the fact that the tools are being left around for anyone to pick up, and these criminals are partly able to pick them up because of Government failure to incarcerate them.
But then look at the swathe of data that these tools gather about people, and then you have to ask, is it merely financial concerns or some kind of corporate bystander apathy that sees these companies failing to act on what, in another context might be called actionable intel? If enough red flags go up wouldn’t you want to tell the authorities?
How do you run a business where no one entrusts you with their private data, and is willing to communicate their private data using your service, when you are supposed to be a social media platform and that is an essential part of your functionality? Surely using a platform to commit crimes is a violation of the terms of service, and thus violates any contract a company has with a user to protect their data — those on the platform not using it for illicit purposes therefore do not need to worry.
We want the Government to protect us from both the inequality some companies would foist on the internet, and we want the Government to protect us from themselves and any inhibitions they might impose. It is a balancing act that is constantly being re-calibrated.
Since it first made its debut the internet has been a rapidly developing ecology which many factors play into the shaping of, and the way in which they interact and can impact on each other isn’t always as obvious as a surface read might suggest. The galvanizing effect of the rise of Trump and the alt-right were detectable if you knew where to look, and the conditions that allowed for the Russian interference also came from a place, and didn’t just emerge from nowhere. In attention economy some parts of the sea of information appear calmer until they are suddenly stirred up, and sometimes it looks like a perfect storm just happened along to do that, but other times you can see the weather system that is going to bring the tidal wave slowly being constructed.
How should the government deal with this often tempestuous medium? They are supposed to monitor and regulate, but how deep should they drill in order to be able to do this? When does a social movement make the transition into being something more worrisome? When does someone’s activity merit concern and possible intervention? How much does intrusion into the area of private conversation affect rules governing free speech? Erosion of liberty versus national security.
It gets even harder when you have a constitution that has as one of its most important ideas, the notion that the people can challenge and express dissent, and that preservation of the tools of free speech are essential to that. Part of the job of those in power is to protect this constitutionally enshrined right, which seems to be an idea that is almost counter to the way that modern governments operate. You cannot strike at it without striking at something very fundamental to the notion of what America is though. And, not being slaves themselves, the British also hold dear the notion that they can give voice to their inner most thoughts, and that any government that stands in the way of that is a tyranny and not very British.
So, will the current attempts to control the internet fracture it into different iterations, with something more outward looking and general for the public version of what it is, and something more underground and local for the private communications people wish to have. It will be interesting to watch — seeing how the social media giants reconfigure themselves if we do indeed end up with a less integrated whole as far as the web goes. And how will the government react to something less open and less easy to monitor? We shall see.
