EDemocracy vs. Network Regulation
Contents
Internet Democracy vs. Network Regulation : Freedom Fighters!
Group members: Chelsea Lai and Duri Lee.
Initial Project Statement
With so many technological developments occuring on a daily basis, the world is becoming a much more efficient and convenient place to live in. The Internet allows people, on an international scale, to collaborate together in creating access to information, media files, and so on. However, this freedom of being able to view and access websites and to give and retrieve information on the Internet is being threatened by both governments and the Internet Service Providers through the use of content filtering technology. Our group will attempt to examine these threats and determine if the Internet, especially the networks, needs to be kept neutral or free from regulation.
Network Regulation
What Is Network Regulation?
In the past few weeks, have you read the news on the Internet about the protests in Tibet? Did you access any political blogs? If you did, how would you feel if the government told you that you did not have the right to do these activities anymore? Or, how would you feel if your Internet Service Provider announced that it wants to charge you a different price depending on the content that you see and access on the Internet every day?
Network regulation is basically what the last two questions address: the restriction of the content that you view on the Internet through a government's legislation or through an ISP charging its clients varying prices.
The Governments' Version of Network Regulation
There are many possible factors that can compel a government to regulate the Internet but the most unsettling factor that governments may be persuaded by is to protect their domestic and international reputation by restricting information available on the Internet.
It is important for a government to maintain a positive image within and outside its borders so that the country can gain faith and trust from its citizens, increase nationalism, and to increase investments and internationl trade. Nevertheless, it is also important that a government creates a positive image in an ethical manner. Ideally, the government should not interfere with the information that is available to the public but in reality, the level of government interference in public information varies from country to country.
Most recently, China hushed many sources on the Internet that attempted to provide the public with information regarding the Tibetan protests. According to a recent BBC news report, access to Internet Web sites, including BBC's own Web site, that dealt with the Tibetan issue were unavailable in China [1]. In fact, the Chinese government regularly blocks "foreign Web sites run by news organizations and human rights groups...if they carry sensitive information"[2]. If governments continue to take advantage of their control by limiting access to information, the Internet's ability to provide the public with information will be crippled.
The Internet Service Providers' Version of Network Regulation
To understand how the ISPs want to regulate the Internet, it is crucial to first understand a concept known as network neutrality.
Network neutrality is a concept that deals with the notion that all information available on the Internet needs to be treated equally. Therefore, all ISPS must ensure that they do not influence the content that users are able to access by guaranteeing that all Web sites load at the same rates and that users are able to go to Web sites that they want to access [3].
The importance of network neutrality was established first in the United States when major telecommunication companies publicly announced that they were thinking of reforming the current system of the Internet [4]:
1.) Prioritization of traffic
The ISPs support a new system in which two tiers exist. The first tier would include large commercial sites and content providers and the members of this tier would be able to receive faster network connection. The second tier would include the rest of Web sites who do not receive this "premium service" and so naturally, the members of this pier would face a slower Internet connection because of the limited bandwith.
2.) Increased dependency on ISPs
The ISPs want to "degrade" other services such as iTunes, Vongage, and so on by offering the customers with a variety of services such as phone, video, and Internet access.
Canada was introduced into the debate for network neutrality as the country's own ISPs began making plans of reforming the current system.
In order to achieve the modifications listed above and to enforce government regulation, the ISPs and the government are proposing to implement a technology known as content filtering.
An example of network regulation in it's earliest stage:
What Is Content Filtering?
Content filtering refers to a form of technology that is used to review content in a Web site or e-mail so that the user will not be exposed to objectionable content. Therefore, if the content filtering program finds any improper material, it will prohibit access or the availability of a particular Web page or e-mail. Although many people may be unaware of it happening, content filtering occurs quite commonly.
In fact, content filtering is often used by companies as part of their Internet firewall system and also by parents so that they can control the amount of content that their children are able to view on the Internet [5].
There are three common methods that are used to content filter:
- Automated text analysis: a software quickly scans a Web site to dermine if the site contains any key words or phrases that are considered to be objectionable. Therefore, if a particular site contains these words or phrases, access to this site is denied [6].
- Lists of appropriate or inappropriate URLs: two lists are compiled - a "white" list and a "black" list. The "white" lists contain Web sites that were determined by the network provider or regulator to be safe and legitimate whereas, the "black" lists contain Web sites that are deemed inappropriate. Therefore, a user will be unable to gain access to all URLs that are placed on a "black" list [7].
- IP filtering: an efficient method of content filtering that prevents a user from gaining access to all Web sites that are hosted by a blocked IP address [8].
Content that is usually considered blocked by the program include pornography and materials that are hateful and violent in nature. Therefore, it can be beneficial to society. However, content filtering is not yet perfect and so it tends to make mistakes from time to time. Moreover, various governments around the world are using this technology in ways that are objectionable.
- On July 21, 2005, the Telecommunications Workers Union went on a strike against Telus. The company blocked a Web site run by the union from its subscribers. However, in its attempts to block a single Web site, it ended up blocking 766 other sites. This major error was a result of the blocking of a single IP address. Although filtering content through IP addresses is efficient, it is troublesome because other legitimate Web sites that are hosted by the same address may end up getting blocked [9].
- HostonFiber, a small ISP in Edmonton, prevented its users from accessing a Web site that contained an online Goth/Vampire magazine. Although Internet users were provided with sufficient amounts of warning and contained legal content, the server still removed this site [10].
- Japan is currently proposing in using content filtering software to regulate its on-line news agencies to deal with increasing political dissent on the Internet. One of the country's leading content filtering software programs, known as DoCoMo, is notorious for filtering all materials that contain categories such as "religion" and "political activity/party" [11].
- In an attempt to show the negative side effects of content filtering, a Finnish computer programmer known as Matti Nikki published a list of secret domains that the government used to prevent child pornography. In this list, Nikki was able to show that regular pornographic Web sites were blocked. Therefore, this clearly demonstrated that it is relatively easy for legitimate Web sites to be blocked due to errors with content filtering technology [12].
Statistics
Here are some statistics for you to think about [13]...
- 3 in 5 Canadians concur that ISPs should be required to treat all content, sites and platforms equally
- 2/3 of Canadians disagree with the proposal that ISPs should be allowed to impose additional fees for access to specific content on the web
- 77% of Canadians agree that net neutrality policies protect the rights of Internet consumers
E-Democracy
E-Democracy: The Beginnings of Electronic Governments
Since the emergence of democracy in ancient Athens thousands of years ago, the meaning of democracy has gone through little change. Democracy in modern times like in ancient times can still be defined as political participation and political representation by the means of freely voting citizens of equal rights, it is only the means of how democracy is practiced that has been evolving with time (Riley & Riley, 2003). In today’s technology driven society, the practice of democracy has moved from using physical mediums to electronic ones. Electronic democracy or otherwise known as “E-democracy” is a by product of electronic governments (also known as e-government) and democracy (Clift, 2004). It has often been defined as a use of electronic mediums such as the World Wide Web, radio and television to promote general public participation and understanding of the government and its internal workings (Riley & Riley, 2003; OECD, 2003). Governments are now not only campaigning using physical mediums such billboards and public meetings but are now venturing into the World Wide Web to promote public interest and awareness. It is now possible to view political campaigns, political news and participate in political discussions with a simple click of the mouse (Clift, 2004).
A world wide trend of decreasing public trust in governments has long been known. It is not surprising that such a trend has developed considering the results obtained from a global survey conducted in 2000. In the United States, Twenty-eight percent of the people surveyed wanted to have a more accountable government, 18% wanted greater public access to information, 13% wanted greater government convenience and the remaining percentage was divided amongst other government responsibilities such as national and homeland security (Clift, 2004). Similar results were found in other countries such as Japan. Therefore, the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) believes strongly that with the help of e-democracy the decreasing trend of public trust can be reversed because it provides a means for public participation in policy making, it also promotes an open and accountable government and helps in the fight against corruption (Clift, 2004; OECD 2003).
There has been some criticism made by anti-e-democracy groups who believe using the internet to promote awareness, interest and gain support is biased in the sense that not everyone in the population has access to a computer, internet or knows how to use a computer or internet. Another criticism is that electronic media are only modes of promoting awareness, interest or support. It is not by any means a problem solver to the political or social issues that are being addressed via e-democracy (OECD, 2003). However, in a BBC report conducted in the beginning of March 2008, it is possible to see the positive effects of e-democracy in the recent crashing of the British Downing Street website due to the heavy traffic of e-mails protesting against road pricing pilot plan in Britain. Over 1.8 million people e-mailed the website to protest against the pilot plans implementation. Despite the fact that the British Prime Minister Tony Blair will implement the pricing changes regardless of the intense protest, the actions of the protestor have demonstrated to government officials the power of their voices with a simple e-mail and the power of e-democracy. Political parties in Britain and elsewhere have begun to allot increasingly more funds towards internet campaigning. Some government officials such as Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn have gone to the extent of posting blogs and launching websites to increase awareness and discussion of important issues such as the Labor policy (BBC, 2008).
E-democracy not only promotes greater awareness, interest and participation in government issues by the general the public, but has also drawn the interests and awareness of young people who are often disinterested in political affairs (OECD, 2003). Recent studies have confirmed that young people in general have a lack of regard for politics and often do not participate in political issues. The same studies also show that young people are dissatisfied with their lack of participation, meaning that it is not that they do not care about political on goings but there may be a lack of media in which young people can use to increase their involvement (OECD, 2003). An increase in awareness and interest of political issues has already been developing by means of unofficial media such as Youtube, public forums and blogs where people have uploaded U.S presidential debates and government issues such as the war in Iraq. Hence, if more government officials follow the footsteps of Charles Clarke and Alan Milburn in forming their own official discussion forums, blogs and websites it is possible to conclude that in the future more and more young people will be involved in government issues.
E-democracy: Transforming into a self-regulation tool for the Internet
With the gradual increase of online users the term e-democracy has also been transformed to mean a type of self-regulation of online information. As more and more users have begun turning to online media to promote awareness and post information, a type of regulation is required to ensure that only accurate information is being posted. This is why e-democracy is so very important to the Internet because the information that is being regulated by online users spans from political and social issues as mentioned earlier to entertainment media such as videos on Youtube. If regulation was left to governments and corporations alone, it could post any information it wanted without worrying about the accuracy of the information. With millions of online users monitoring information as third party users who do not gain any type of reward from posting and monitoring, the accuracy of the information accessed online can be ensured. For example, if the government attempts to post or publish information that contains propaganda to improve or maintain its public image, its “crime” will soon be uncovered by the millions of users who monitor the internet daily. Even if the government persists on the accuracy of the information, users can use other forms of online communication such as blogs and forums to inform other users about the truth and the actions of the government. In other words, false information will not go unnoticed and eventually corrected due to the vast numbers of people who use the internet today. As many say, two eyes are better than one, thus even if one user out of the millions was not able to notice an inaccuracy in the information being posted, another user will bound to notice it eventually.
With the existence of this self-regulation on the internet, users will not be able to only post partial information that they wish to disclose, but rather information as a whole. An example of self-regulation can be seen in 2005, when an anonymous user removed fifteen paragraphs worth of information on an article regarding Diebold’s e-voting machine that was posted on Wikipedia (Wired, 2007). However, it was not all at lost for finding the culprit of this “crime”. By tracing the anonymous user’s IP address, the culprit was found to be Diebold themselves who removed the vital information (Wired, 2007). The Diebold incident instigated an interest in many users to see whether or not other major corporations committed the same “crime” as Diebold through electronic tracing of anonymous users. One such individual was Virgil Griffith who invented the Wikipedia Scanner. The scanner monitors and tracks the millions of edits done by anonymous users and links them back to the users, which in many cases are large corporations (Wired, 2007). Thanks to the self-regulating devices on Wikipedia (Wikipedia Scanner and the millions of users) it is now difficult for large corporations and governments to deceive the public. Other examples of e-democracy at work are on Youtube, where if offensive videos are uploaded, other users have the opportunity to protest and request the removal of the videos.
Argument
By observing both the principles of network neutrality and e-democracy, it is easy to see that the regulation of the Internet undermines the right of all individuals to practice freedom of speech. As mentioned previously, it is not always considered negative for the Internet to be regulated. In fact, it is favorable to place certain restrictions so that the access to copyrighted materials or pornographic content can be maintained.
However, it is not necessary for the government or the ISPs to tell the people what needs to be done. Regular people, on a daily basis, ensure that the Internet is regulating in a responsible manner by flagging videos that are deemed to be inappropriate for younger audiences on Web sites such as Youtube, by contacting the Web site administrator for any offensive content, and so on. By limiting the freedom of speech through content filtering, the government or the ISPs prevent the people from fully utilizing their ability to police the Internet. Moreover, this technology is still unstable as it has tendencies to block access to legitimate Web sites as discussed earlier. In today's society, where democratic ideals are held in high regard, is it acceptable for a government or an ISP to declare that the people are unfit to maintain the Internet on their own? Obviously, the answer is no. After all, if the government or the ISPs get a control of the Internet, exactly up to what extent will they wish to exercise their power? This answer is unknown and this is precisely what makes the matter unsettling. Therefore, to prevent all the concerns regarding the amount of control a government or an ISP can have over the Internet, it would be better to leave the Internet in the hands of the multitude.
Conclusion
It is unacceptable to limit people's access to Web sites and their ability to actively participate in the Internet and so it is absolutely imperative that we, not as citizens of a country, but as citiznes of the Internet, to protect our freedom of speech. Despite this, a minimum amount of government intervention in the Internet is needed.
Michael Geist, a prominent defender of network neutrality, states, "There's clear incentive for those who have the economic interests to discriminate. That's why it's necessary to ensure that there's a level playing field and you have to do that legislatively" [14]. As demonstrated by this quote, the Internet needs to be kept democratic and free. Therefore, although a full regulation of the Internet is undesirable, it is crucial that the government protects and guarantees the rights of its citizens to network neutrality. After all, without the government's protection, the consumers may be vulnerable to the the efforts of the ISPs in establishing their preferred two-tiered system.
Therefore, Freedom Fighters believes that while it is important to prevent extensive government and ISP regulation of the Internet, it is in the consumer's best interest to allow the government to intervene in the Internet to simply protect his or her rights to network neutrality.
Solutions
If you feel passionate about the protection of network neutrality, here are a few things that you can do:
- Contact your MLA! "We need to demand that our federal government acts in the interests of Canadians to preserve neutrality". ([15]
- Join a group that is dedicated to the cause of preserving network neutrality such as Save the Internet.
- Stay informed. After all, the more you know, the better you will be able to defend the Internet!
Information Review
1.) Duri Lee
a.) Sackur's world: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/7312918.stm
b.) China Blocks YouTube Over Tibet Videos: http://www.cio-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=102009DH7FFI
c.) Introduction to Network Neutrality: http://whatisnetneutrality.ca/en/node/1
d.) Technology: http://whatisnetneutrality.ca/en/node/4
e.) Content Filtering: http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid14_gci863125,00.html#
f.) Content Filtering Technologies and Internet Service Providers: http://users.cs.dal.ca/~shepherd/filtering/ISPweb.htm
g.) Telus Blocks Consumer Access to Labour Union Web Site and Filters an Additional 766 Unrelated Sites: http://opennet.net/bulletins/010/
h.) Examples of Non-Neutrality: http://whatisnetneutrality.ca/en/node/5
i.) Japan seeking to govern top news Web sites: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/27/technology/wireless28.php
j.) Europe makes moves towards Internet censorship: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9064058
k.) Poll Finds Canadians Strongly Support Net Neutrality Legislation: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2272/125/
l.) Battle over 'net neutrality' arrives in Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2006/11/02/tech-neutrality.html
m.) The Internet: accessibility and net neutrality: http://www.nupge.ca/publications/Net_neutrality.pdf
2.) Chelsea Lai
a.) E-Governance to E-Democracy: Examining the Evaluation: http://www.electronicgov.net/pubs/research_papers/tracking03/IntlTrackRptJune03no5.pdf
b.) Realigning Governance:From E-Government to E-Democracy: http://www.crossingboundaries.ca/files/cg6.pdf
c.) Report on E-Democracy Seminar: http://www.rileyis.com/publications/research_papers/eDemBrussellsFeb04.pdf
d.) The Future of E-Democracy: http://www.usabilitynews.com/news/article800.asp
e.) E-Democracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy
f.) Promise and Problems of E-Democracy: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdf
g.) E-Democracy: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-02600.pdf
h.) E-Government and E-Democracy at the American Grassroots: http://www.umbc.edu/mipar/documents/EGovernmentandEDemocracy.pdf
i.) What is E-Deomcracy? An Introduction: http://conferences.arts.usyd.edu.au/viewpaper.php?id=122&cf=3
j.) E-Government and Democracy: Representation and Citizen Engagement in the Information Age: http://www.publicus.net/articles/cliftegovdemocracy.pdf
