How the Internet Is Controlled Policy implications and the technical basis of the networked society.

How the Internet Is Controlled

Policy implications and the technical basis of the networked society

Structure of the Lecture

Some introductory thoughts Regulating the Global Information Society ‘Medium law’ – the new Internet regulation ‘Realpolitik’: US Control of the Internet The United Nations and the Internet Developing some principles for regulation

European Regulation of the Information Society

How do we achieve a safe, multicultural Internet?

BUT there is a serious problem

Terrorism and incitement to racial and religious hatred are rife online

Many Internet users have poor media literacy

Should we tolerate such views on the Internet when

we do not in the street?

How do we police the Internet?

Are the police competent?

Are they too targeted?

Do they have too much power?

Taking liberties online? Should police register all our surfing? Should we all be identified?

Principles of Media Law Internet: a global ‘medium of media’ Should we now talk of ‘medium law’? Media previously nationally regulated Satellite TV broke the state monopoly

‘Murdoch: Ringmaster of the Information Circus’ – Shawcross

Internet was DARPANet is statelessness a libertarian fantasy?

Is the state coming back in?

Media Co-Regulation

Freedom of expression is a constitutional principle

BUT the different mediaVideo, radio, printed press, film, gaming

Are evolving onto one MEDIUMThe ‘Medium of Media’

Internetdigital, ubiquitous, always-on

Legal Fiction

If it’s illegal offline, it’s illegal on-line OR “we can all be multinationals,

routinely living in multiple jurisdictions”

Which is right?

Current Policy Created Late 1990s ISP liability

DMCA 1998; EC Copyright Directives Telecoms regulation

1996 Telecoms Act as implemented by FCC and courts; 1997 ‘Convergence’ Green paper led to 2002 E-comms

Package E-commerce regulation

Directive EC/2000/31 formulated 1998-9 Trustmarks and SSL – TrustE and others

Privacy regulation Directive EC/95/46 ‘Safe Harbor’ (sic) agreement 2000 and 2002 E-Privacy

Directive Content self-regulation

Hotlines (IWF 1996) and Codes of Conduct (Safer Internet Action Plan 1997)

Taking Self-Regulation Seriously? Implementation of Directives patchy

Widespread reporting of abuses e.g. privacy

Implementation of self-regulation scratchy Widespread view of ‘Potemkin’ bodies

with no substance behind the glossy websites

Wide consumer adoption of broadband Digital Divide remains; mobile and wireless prospects Ubiquitous connectivity for digitally enabled Content creation and sharing

Creative Commons, Peer-to-peer, ‘rip mix burn’, mashing

Zoe Baird/Stefaan Verhulst

(2002 November) Governing the Internet: Engaging Government, Business, and Nonprofits, Foreign Affairs

‘‘The rapid growth of the Internet has led to a worldwide crisis of governance.

“In the early years of Internet development, the prevailing view was that government should stay out of Internet governance; market forces and self-regulation would suffice to create order and enforce standards of behavior.

“But this view has proven inadequate as the Internet has become mainstream.’’

Multistakeholderisation Industry/government paradigm of 1990s

Supplemented by academic/geek experts ‘Rough consensus and running code’ cliché

2000s NGOs join policy-making Civil society illegitimate and unaccountable

Claimed to be dynamic – but outside UN agencies? Note ‘progress’ at IGF and WIPO, as well as UNESCO Is it McBride mark II?

Is this a new paradigm or an activist phase? What’s new about it? Bits of Freedom/EDRI Electronic Frontier Foundation Chaos Computer Club

IGOs – Intergovernmental Organisations ITU – telephony UNESCO – culture WIPO – intellectual property WTO – trade UNDP – development BUT NGOs and civil society–

W3C, IETF, IAB, ISOC, ICANN

IGOs

National Governments

National companies

National Consumers

Internet Governance Forum

www.igf.org United Nations Secretary General 2006-2010

Met in Athens in 2006: Rio next month To discuss spam and:

‘capacity building’Digital DivideMulticultural Internet

Does Web2.0 need Regulation 2.0?

Two alternative futures (and the present)1. Do nothing – rely on 1990s settlement2. Co-regulation – enforced self-regulation3. User-generated regulation

1. Abuse buttons for stalking/inappropriate2. Rating by users – by self and others3. New forms of netiquette4. Dynamic feedback to site owners5. BUT does it need legislative pressure/surveillance?