INTERNET LAW BLOG
***WINNER*** 2015 Nissenbaum Internet Law Scholarship Essay – JAMES D. HAYES (Seattle University School of Law – Anticipated Graduation Date: May 2017)
How Can The American Legal System Improve Its Approach To Policing And Regulating Digital Technology Without Unduly Stifling Innovation And Civil Liberties?
As globalization increases at an unprecedented rate and technology sprouts from nearly every nook and cranny of our daily lives, and increasingly so, the growing phenomenon carries a handful of questions and issues as outdated laws struggle to keep it in place. In particular, digital technology poses many questions, as it is becoming a grounds for illegal distribution, copyright infringement, and a free-riding resource that takes copious amounts of time, energy, and labor to create. In response, the American legal system can improve its regulation and policing of digital technology by ensuring digital technology is taken seriously, valued and affordable.
To begin, digital technology must be taken seriously; this is to say the limitless accounts, usernames, and information – which seem largely scattered about in the digital space – must be regulated to better identify individuals on the internet. Currently, there is a digital spider web of genuine, false, and somewhere-in-between accounts; many individual users do not have accounts, while other individual users have multiple accounts, some with conflicting information – this must be better regulated. The legislature needs to propose that everyone, somewhat like their social security number – but not the identical number for security purposes – has a digital security number. From this, all users must use their digital security number to create an account on any digital technological software, interface, etc. By doing so, digital technology will be better policed because all individuals knows that their digital security number will always trace back to them and thus this will serve as a self-policing deterrent.
Further, it not only gives the government an idea of how many internet users we have, but also it allows further innovation because there is less security risk of pirating, given the increased surveillance on accounts. While this may seem intrusive at first, it proves no more invasive than a social security number itself, and much like a social security number the negatives of stolen identity, fraud, and others come with this; however, it will help clear up the digital spider web and pave a clear path to additional secure innovation, while simultaneously reducing the number of individuals who use the digital world as a playground on others’ hard work and privacy. Additionally, while this only applies to residents of the United States, due to jurisdictional reasons, it seems this may be one of the largest pirating categories of individuals; after all many countries have created their own versions of digital technology. Most importantly, it allows digital users to take their digital identity as serious as their actual identity, and this leads me to my next point; by taking digital technology and identity more serious, one can find the value in the product.
Secondly, digital technology must be valued. One way to accomplish this is for legal entities to raise awareness to the public demonstrating the time, energy, hard work, and effort into making the digital technology. Often times, those who fail to notice the value in a product, do not see it as worthy of the price and are not confident in paying for it. If we can increase individual perceptions on the value of the product, we can further increase the likelihood individuals will confidently buy the products as they see them as a product of hard work and worthy of the price. Additionally, Peer-to-Peer sites must be more heavily regulated. By having countless expensive products suddenly free at one’s fingertips it not only takes away the value these products have, but it also allows one to free-ride on others’ product of intensive labor and time. With this in mind, to make digital technology further valued and confidently paid for, it must be appropriately priced and made more readily available.
Thirdly, another self-policing technique is making digital technology more affordable. Programs such as Photoshop, Microsoft Office, and After Effects are quite expensive based on a minimum wage salary – some even costing more than entry-line computers. Given this, many resort to pirating of software because purchasing the digital technology poses too great a burden to bear, demonstrating that even if a product is highly valued, if it is not affordable, individuals simply cannot make the purchase. Further, many countries allow programs central to computer functioning, such as Microsoft Office, to be installed as part of the factory settings, not all computers do this in the United States; this leads to both individuals becoming more apt to pirate such programs and individuals not valuing a product properly, due to lack of exposure to the product. If more knew about technology such as Photoshop, more would know the value of the product, and if it were more affordable, more would buy it confidently. The legislature could mandate that computers are to come installed with basic software free for both the purpose of exposure to the products and cheaper costs to the customers. For example, it could be mandated that computer companies are to pay software companies a given amount per computer, which has their product installed, and as a result, the computer company could receive a small amount back per computer purchased – this not only benefits individual consumers, because the digital technology price is fixed into the computers price and also because it is purchased via manufacturer-to-manufacturer at wholesale, but also the software and computer companies.
In sum, the American legal system often faces difficult tasks of balancing freedom and regulation, but one alternative is self-policing. To achieve further self-policing in the world of digital technology, if said technology is taken seriously, valued, and affordable, it is likely more individuals will front the cost because they are more confident in doing so. After all, we all know few things in life are free, however, we also know that when one is not confident in buying an expensive product, which one does not take seriously, it seems highly unlikely one would accept the burden. To conclude, digital technology seems to be on a strong positive curve of ever-expanding and ever-increasing, action must be taken, but rights are to be protected, as a solution to the American legal system approach, we need to aim for deterrence, confidence, and self-policing through affordability, digital security numbers, and valued products.
***HONORABLE MENTION*** 2015 Nissenbaum Internet Law Scholarship Essay – ZENZELE OJORE (Rhode Island School of Design- Anticipated Graduation Date: 2018)
How Can The American Legal System Improve Its Approach To Policing And Regulating Digital Technology Without Unduly Stifling Innovation And Civil Liberties?
As digital innovation grows and internet access is becoming easily accessible to people from and the world, more individuals are invested in creating technology that not only makes the lives of its users easier but provides electronic material that is more advanced than what currently exist. Yet, as there will always be a steady rise in digital innovation there will always be legal concerns to where innovation ends and the need for and legal protection for its users begin. As the internet is this unlimited means to information, communication, and creation there are concerns as to if there should be limitations to its abilities, that might in turn stifle the ability for digital creatives to design products that help to move the nation further in advancements. Creation of digital media such as social media sites and blogs allow easy access to communication with people from every corner of the world but also allow for malicious members to gain access to other people’s information and private lives. In regulating such sites, is it ok to disrupt the innovated ability of quick communication because there are individuals who seek to use it with negative intentions? If anything there will always be people who choose to one up the system and go around the true intentions of digital technologies for malevolent objectives. The legal system might do better in understanding that these issues will occur and seeking to develop methods to weed out persons or companies that use media with negative intentions while still allowing people to create and distribute their innovated material to the world.
A step that would allow policing of digital technology to be carried out fairly is the creation of an Internet database that would allow individuals to reveal their concerns about certain technologies that they believe might be taking away certain rights and raising confidentiality issues. In the creation of this site people could file claims and these accusations could be investigated as to whether the legal assistance is necessary or not. Also, if the laws were directly geared towards just allowing the community to be informed about the limitations and possible privacy concerns about certain digital technologies and sites, individuals would be able to pick and choose which ones they might decide to use. This would allow advancement to continue while giving people the ability to see if certain sites would go against their privacy concerns from the beginning, consequently resulting in everyone having an understanding of what liberties and protection might be available to them. Individuals would not be able to state that they weren’t fully informed of what they were signing up for and people would have more access to information.
For example, in the most recent case of social media vs. civil liberty: Facebook has created a bit of a stir with the creation of something that have made many people feel like they were losing rights. In creation of Facebook’s new Messenger App that allowed their users to use a separate App from the original Facebook one to communicate with their friends via their phone; many people found issue with the App’s ability to share one’s information and location. This appeared to many as an invasion of privacy, although Facebook stated it was implemented to create a better service for its consumers. The program made many feel that their privacy was being imposed on and that innovation was more important than their rights.
This issue shows the problem that arises when modernization is met with a legal barrier that is in place. I believe the American legal system could go about situations like this and more by regulating technologies ability to access and manipulate it’s viewers information by requiring them to label the steps they are taking to protect the consumers privacy somewhere on their digital website or product. If a company were to state how they plan to protect one’s information at the start it’d be easier for a consumer to decide if it were the right type of product for them or not. Also, it is important for technology creators to let their consumer know if their information will be changed or updated, providing this information somewhere that is easy to read. Digital providers should also detail whether any changes will result in a change in privacy guidelines and they should state this upfront before the change begins, allowing people the chance to delete their account if they are uncomfortable.
Sometimes when sites update or change the way they have going about something they neglect to inform the consumers about all the changes that will be implicated. These results in anger from those consumers who feel they don’t have enough of a say in something that they are investing money and time in. Also, when sites evolve or upgrade their privacy settings are changed in result, in requiring that these changes be stated upfront people would be informed to what is happening to their information and whether they are ok with continuing to use this technology. Communication between creators of technology and those that use these products are essential to a society of well-informed citizens. Allowing the American Legal system to serve as a middleman between the law, technology advancement, and customer concerns would allow for a brighter future generation and progress in digital innovation to continue to thrive.
The advancement and progress of digital technology is reaching a point where many feel that one most choose to accept innovation while giving up their rights to privacy and civil liberty but the implication of certain limitations to this will not only allow advancement to continue but allow consumers to rest assure that they will not lose their rights to privacy.
***HONORABLE MENTION*** 2015 Nissenbaum Internet Law Scholarship Essay – SARA A. SIWIECKI (Chapman University- Anticipated Graduation Date: 2018)
How Can The American Legal System Improve Its Approach To Policing And Regulating Digital Technology Without Unduly Stifling Innovation And Civil Liberties?
A person is staring at you from outside your bedroom window. When people do this, we usually call the police and report a stalking incident. A different situation: A person is not staring at you directly from your bedroom window, but from a security camera at the building across the street, or maybe even the camera on your laptop, or the camera on your Xbox or PlayStation gaming system. This is just as scary as the person physically standing outside your window. However, the government is the person stalking you. It would not make sense to call the police on this one because the police are connected to the government. So, what do we do? The government has access to all of our calls, texts, emails, and even cameras in certain situations. Is this ethical? Who knows. Meanwhile, you are also terrified of a bomb being dropped on top of your house or someone coming to your town and shooting thousands of people. So, the government solves this problem by monitoring our digital technological devices in attempt to find information about planned attacks and prevent them from happening. No one likes to feel constantly monitored, but everyone wants to feel safe and secure, here lies the problem with digital technology. This problem can be somewhat fixed by improving the use of drones, Internet laws, and number of cameras and ridding of the tracking and storage of information without warrants.
One way that the government monitors its citizens is with the use of drones. Instead of using up lots of time and money to send people up in a helicopter on surveillance missions, search and rescue missions, and other activities, drones are more efficient because they do not need people to physically be in the craft and are able to fly faster than a helicopter. However, drone utilization can be abused when the government uses them without warrants and retains information that violates privacy liberties. Drones should not be used without warrants or without any probable cause. Flying drones around randomly is not an efficient use of technology. Drones also should not capture and retain unnecessary information that has nothing to do with crimes. They should not retain pictures or conversations without search warrants or other good reason because that is invading people’s privacy and inefficient for the government because they can get this information from conversations elsewhere, like phone calls or the Internet. The government can improve upon this regulation of digital technology by setting clear guidelines as to when drones need to be used and retain the information they capture in order to protect people’s civil liberties and improve upon efficiency of the legal system. Drones should be used with purpose and not for overbearing worry.
Another surveillance tactic that the government uses is the monitoring of the Internet. The Internet is used by basically everyone nowadays and people are willing to document their whole lives on the Internet in applications such as: Facebook, Instragram, and Twitter. Specifically on social media, many things that are said and done would not be acceptable in face-to-face life. The government should make what I like to call “Internet laws” that say what people can and cannot do/say on the Internet. Currently, there are some laws like this called “Netiquette”, but they are not very circulated on the Internet and few know about these etiquette rules. Threats are made online that go unnoticed and lots of bullying happens on the Internet that would not be tolerated if it were said out loud. While the government and police do take Internet threats seriously, there should be clear laws about what is and is not allowed, like how in real life people cannot shout “bomb” in an airport or “fire” in a crowded room, or pose as people they are not, such as a police officer or government official. If laws were laid out clearly, then the government could do a better job at tracking key words to catch people committing crimes and deter people from posting inappropriate things online, while not invading everyone’s privacy. This could prevent many crimes from happening, including human trafficking, online prostitution, and imposters. These Internet laws can be implemented on TV public service commercials and ads on the Internet. Also, in terms and conditions of certain websites, it should be made clear that by going online, a person is submitting himself/herself to be monitored by the government so that everyone knows they are being tracked. The Internet is a useful tool for many, a tool of proactivity and entertainment, but also a tool that should be taken seriously.
Lastly, the government can improve on its use of cameras. If there are more cameras placed in high-violence areas, then it might deter many from committing crimes in that area and it would allow more evidence for crimes that are committed. While this might seem that it brings more of the “stalking” I referred to earlier and violates many civil liberties since we would literally be constantly watched, as long as there are postings of camera surveillance so the public is aware of it, it would actually be violating less liberties. If there are more cameras outside in public, then less private information, like texts, calls, and emails would need to be monitored because the government would have sufficient evidence from cameras to convict people of crimes and would have no real need to monitor private information. More cameras would prevent crime, provide more evidence for crimes that happen, and protect people’s personal information.
One thing that the government can completely rid of to protect people’s civil liberties and improve the efficiency and reputation of the government is the constant tracking of private information without warrants. The government can continue to monitor public information, like what people post on public social media pages, but abstain from viewing people’s private information, like texts, calls, and emails, unless they have a search warrant or other plausible reason. The police are not allowed to just open anyone’s mailbox at any time and read their mail, so they should not be able to monitor and store people’s information online. Also, the government should not have constant access to people’s personal medical files or other incredibly personal data that a person may not want shared. Only information collected after a warrant should be monitored constantly. The warrant allows the government to go back and retrieve the evidence they want, rather than constantly monitoring everyone all of the time. To be efficient and not stifle innovation, the government should only track and store information from people who have committed crimes previously or who are suspicious and have probable cause to track and store information has been established. People deserve to have their liberties respected in a country that was founded upon personal freedom.
To improve the status of the American legal system without defacing civil liberties and averting innovation, the government needs to use drones efficiently, establish clear Internet laws, create zones of high camera surveillance, and abstain from storing people’s personal information without probable cause. America was founded on freedom and this freedom should be protected at all times. However, living in a safe country is as important as being free. All in all, it is nearly impossible to have a safer security system without sacrificing liberties. While some liberties may be sacrificed, innovation can be the way to find ways to make bigger and better technology that protects citizens yet allows for freedoms so that all will benefit. Perhaps someday we can even invent this technology that finds a way to protect everyone’s personal information by making that information only available to robots that protect America’s security. The future of innovation is imminent.
***HONORABLE MENTION*** 2015 Nissenbaum Internet Law Scholarship Essay – NICHOLAS JAMES GOLINA (University of Akron)
In today’s age of digital proliferation the forces of Internet democratization demand further regulation and policing. However, the dilemma is that this will undermine the very fabric of the interconnectedness of the digital world. The solution is that our policies must maintain a commitment to the principle of balance to allow for digital proliferation to be channeled through efficient regulation and policing. So in order for the American legal system to improve the regulation and policing of digital technology it must improve checks and balances against the National Security Agency and other law enforcement agencies, oppose net neutrality and focus on antitrust law, upgrade technological capacities of law enforcement agencies, and promote international coordination on cyber issues.
The balance between security and digital privacy is necessary to ensure the maximization of the key values within the social contract. Security and liberty were shown to remain in balance by John Locke in his second treatise on government who noted that “he will have to part with as much of his natural freedom to provide for himself as is required for the welfare, prosperity, and safety of the society.” Thus the philosophical construct that was envisioned was a balance of power between maximizing the common good along with the necessary checks and balances in place to prevent the unjust violation of liberty. This is an important theory in US legal practice and the formal term for it is called Equilibrium Adjustment. Orin Kerr of the Harvard Law Review explained in 2011 that in 4th amendment cases when technology proliferates and expands police powers judges normally try to expand protections to reflect the balance that was set before proliferation.
The issue with equilibrium adjustment is judges often have incomplete information on the scope of the technology. When programs are set up often times the checks that are meant to serve judicial functions are weak. The National Security Agency demonstrates this phenomenon in three ways. First, there is a clear violation of the principles set by the Supreme Court in Katz Vs. United States and United States Vs. District Court. David Sirota of the International Business Times elaborated in 2013 that the FISC (aka Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) allowed the NSA to have an ongoing warrant to obtain digital communications, which is a violation because prior judicial consent is required to obtain digital communications under the 4th amendment. The second is that the FISC lacks the hallmarks of traditional judicial oversight. In a D.C. District Court ruling Judge Richard Leon observed that judges operate best in an adversarial setting and the current FISC only hears the governments take on the law and the constitution. This is evidenced by the fact that the FISC only denied .03% of all requests for access and this is according to the Stanford Law Review in 2014.
The third way is that the NSA relies on flawed interpretations of the Patriot Act. In fact the Patriot Act’s own author has expressly said that the NSA’s interpretation of section 214 and 617 of the act is very abusive as it justifies the potential seizure of every American communication. It does this through the three-hop system, which the Guardian Newspaper notes that it evaluates the seizure of communication based on the people that are affiliated with the suspect and those affiliated with the affiliates. That’s why CNN reported in 2015 that a recent court ruling found that the NSA’s interpretation of the Patriot Act was found to be illegal.
There are two ways we can reform the system bearing in mind the current state of surveillance. We need to incorporate greater congressional oversight as they are politically speaking mandated by the American people to ensure efficient oversight. Second, we need to commit to structural reform of the FISA Court to allow for a more adversarial process along with a codifying of strict rules on the NSA’s boundaries in surveillance. This is needed to assure the American people that the NSA will not go beyond statutory boundaries as the NSA violated its own rules 2776 times and by the end of 2016 the Forrester Foundation reported that US technology sectors stand to lose 180 billion dollars in lost profits from the dilution of trust in US services. So the NSA’s failed attempt at digital regulation is representative of the larger trends including net neutrality.
Net neutrality regulations represent a continual trend among government agencies to implement what is called procedural opportunism. According to the Boston College Law Review the Federal Communications Commission’s procedural opportunism is defined as the use of policy mechanisms to expand the agencies scope of power. This is problematic in the area of net neutrality because such regulations could stifle innovation. According to the same report the FCC seeks to characterize broadband Internet providers as common carriers under Title II of the Federal Communications Act. In addition, the FCC wants to enact rules that will provide disincentives to charge content providers and block out content. Unfortunately despite these good intentions according to a study by Oxford University these regulations could result in higher prices for consumers and stifle the development of broadband Internet. As policymakers we can’t let that happen because according to CNN News the Supreme Court has ruled three times against this expansion of FCC power and in a study by the Public Policy Institute of California broad band Internet services are important to local economic growth. This is especially true for Internet entrepreneurs. In contrast to regulation we must focus on the recommendations of the Mercatus Center, which focus on anti trust law, which would move toward a better balance between promoting innovation and having proper regulation in place.
The motives of the agencies focus on the need for policing the Internet of terrorism and crime. Despite the criticisms I presented earlier, there are other ways that we can improve these aspects without endangering civil liberties and innovation. The controversies of the FCC and the NSA are representative of the larger trends that focus the need to upgrade capabilities of law enforcement. These would be preferable because under equilibrium adjustment technology has surpassed the ability of agencies to keep up with crime. One of the ways that we do this is to upgrade the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act to regulate existing technological services as it only partially regulates the wide array of telecommunications technology that exist today. The Brookings Institution explained in 2014 that this would give the government a basic level of access to new mobile technology in order to attain warrants for the arrest of criminals. We must be cautious in its application though because the Center for Democracy and Technology analyzed that the government is now trying to expand its capabilities beyond the legislation’s original scope. Thus the necessary checks and balances must be put in place or else the Harvard Policy Center explains that the US could relapse into a system of preventative law enforcement, which is contrary to our founding principles.
The most important part to ensure the balance between security, civil liberties, and innovation (which would prevent the relapse into preventative law enforcement) is to promote international coordination on cyber crime and terrorism with application of existing frameworks of international law. The need for is apparent because Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution calculated that cyber warfare has produced the largest transfer of wealth in the history of civilization. The Center for Strategic Studies explains that these actors are not constrained by checks, which make very hard to bust in the event of an attack that takes place. This is why coordination on these issues is essential to prevent a disunited front against these actors on the Internet. What is essentially happening right now is that other regions of the world are creating their own regulatory regimes for dealing with Internet regulation and cyber issues. This includes according to the Guardian a new plan to regulate the Web by the EU. This is the exact opposite of what should be happening because when the NSA tries to crack Tor or when nations act alone without consensus it risks tearing the Internet apart. Therefore what must happen is an abandonment of domestic oriented policy in favor of a strengthening of international initiatives to keep the Internet united while dealing with cyber issues under the checks of a strong international legal regime. This includes regulation under customary and human rights law, which appeal to the broader argument that initiatives must be expanded with moderate restraint.
In 2014 I wrote an article by Student World Report, which explains “in 1971, the Philosopher John Rawls of Harvard University envisioned a theory of Justice where the actions of states would be governed by consideration for the long-term interests of future generations. With a geopolitical application, these actions should involve a respect for a wide array of national interests in the international community. Only with this can we build a world order based on social capital between states with norms that govern the actions of the multitude of these states.” The challenges for this strategic vision are that we must reform the domestic aspects of our policy including the policies of the NSA, FCC, and law enforcement. In the realm of the international sphere the American legal system promote the idea of multilateralism to create the balance between innovation, civil liberties, and security in our policing and regulation. This will prevent an already looming catastrophe of the breakup of the Internet but will ensure that we have restraint over our actions. As noted by Dani Rodrick of Princeton University a democratic system of constitutional liberalism cannot promote the common welfare without the proper institutions in place to prevent us from becoming the enemies that we seek to destroy.
***HONORABLE MENTION*** 2015 Nissenbaum Internet Law Scholarship Essay – KELLY WALDO (Boston College Law School- Anticipated Graduation Date: 2018)
When the World Wide Web was created in 1990, even Tim Berners-Lee could not have predicted how much it would progress during the next twenty-five years. The Internet advanced rapidly and continues to advance rapidly to this day. The Internet is a place where individuals can communicate on a universal scale, where businesses can develop and grow, where economic development occurs, where people can act politically and create real change, and where somebody can share a photograph of what they prepared for dinner. With something so multi-dimensional and so far-reaching, it is no surprise that the Internet and the digital technology related to it is extremely complicated to regulate.
When addressing the issue of how to improve America’s regulation of digital technology, one must first speak to whether digital technology even needs to be regulated at all. The Internet serves as a level playing field. One individual has as much of a right to post on the Internet as any other individual. If one decides to compete with Google, he or she has every opportunity to try and create something that will compete. It initially appears that without regulation, the Internet would be truly open and free.
However, recent cases involving the FCC, Verizon and Comcast display a need for regulation. Internet Service Providers, such as Comcast, currently have a monopoly on the cable market. Because Internet is currently combined with cable access, companies like Comcast are able to charge additional fees to access certain areas of the Internet and have attempted to charge certain companies on the Internet additional fees. For example, Comcast stated that because more people access Netflix than a blog, that Comcast could charge Netflix additional fees. This action clearly hurts Netflix’s freedom to operate on the Internet and impairs the openness of the Internet.
The ability of an ISP to control the speed of certain websites and the amount of fees that certain websites must pay is a stifle on the civil liberties of these website owners. This ability opens the door for Comcast or Verizon to arbitrarily decide which websites they will allow and because of their monopolies on the market, ISPs would have an unseemly amount of control over the Internet. With the control of a monopoly over something so powerful and widespread, an abuse of power is almost guaranteed.
Another example of how regulation, better regulation at that, is needed is through the recent situation involving Instagram photographs. According to the Washington Post, Richard Prince, a controversial artist, printed out screenshots from other Instagrams, made slight adjustments, and sold the photographs in an art gallery for $90,000 each. Prince had the ability to profit so much from another person’s work without his or her permission because the Instagram copyright laws apply solely to the Instagram world. While Prince could have been successfully sued if he had taken the photographs and put them on his own Instagram, he cannot be successfully sued by using the photographs outside of Instagram.
Many individuals were unaware of their loss of possession of their photographs until Prince’s gallery, and many individuals think that this suppresses their liberties. One’s loss of ownership of his or her photographs appears to make it so that less people would post photographs and less people would share.
Even by just examining these two examples, it comes into light that many companies and individuals are attempting to and succeeding in profiting from information shared on the Internet, without actually having much ownership over it. While there are certain aspects of deregulation that seem principal, issues of property ownership and the fight for control of the Internet necessitate being addressed with regulation.
The current regulation on the Internet stifles civil liberties and stifles innovation in many ways. Website owners fear that they will be controlled with arbitrary fees by one authority. Many individuals fear that they cannot claim ownership to anything they discover or create if they put it on the Internet. This fear is detrimental because with a network so universally accessible, not sharing ideas could inhibit many types of beneficial progress that this world needs.
The Internet and its digital technology in America should be regulated like its government. As with America, one entity cannot control nor have the power to regulate something as significant and expansive as the Internet. As seen in the recent cases with Verizon and Comcast, allowing one organization to regulate the Internet leads to the opportunity to abuse power.
There should be three organizations, or “branches” used to regulate the Internet. Each group would have the ability to draft and create regulation, examine cases about the Internet and supposed infringement of rights and vote on both of these aspects. Each group is subject to checks and balances by the other groups. The organizations would work separately but together in their attempt to keep the Internet as deregulated as possible, but to create fair regulation where necessary. These three organizations, which currently do serve as the main authorities on Internet regulation should only be able to pass regulation through a system of debate and voting.
The FCC, ICANN, and the Internet Society are potential organizations that could serve as the main three groups that have the power to regulate the Internet within the United States. The ISOC also contains the groups, IAB, IESG, and the IETF among others within it.
However, although framed after the government, it is necessary that these three groups do not become political. The Internet cannot become another political venture where if liberals make up the majority of the organizations that the Internet will be censored more so for conservatives and vice versa. Politicizing the Internet would stifle civil liberties and the right to speak freely.
One requirement of these groups is to keep regulation on the Internet as transparent and comprehensible as possible. With the world at almost every single individual’s fingertips, it is essential that each individual be aware of the legal framework surrounding the Internet and have the ability to access these laws whenever necessary. It is crucial that these organizations look at the rules involving certain Apps such as Instagram to see if their rules are worthy to be laws applicable on all other forms of media or outside of media. It is imperative that ownership of one’s ideas and property be sustained in certain ways so that innovation and invention can continue to flourish.
The American legal system can improve its approach to policing and regulating digital technology by creating an actual system, with checks and balances. This system is essential for increasing the clarity of Internet regulation and allowing access and transparency to Internet law.
These groups, with the authority to regulate, should attempt to keep the Internet as deregulated as possible, but should create law where the ability of one organization to control or infringe on one’s rights is probable. It is clear because of the recent attempts by monopolies to control the Internet and the success of some in gaining the rights to other’s creations that a comprehensible organization needs to be created to ensure the fairness of the Internet. A three- organization system with checks and balances would hopefully allow minimal regulation to be created so that stifling innovation and civil liberties is avoided.
Congress is currently poised to create a number of restrictions on the ability of the government to search email and other digital content. While it is unclear what form such legislation would take, there is a bipartisan consensus that something needs to be done for two reasons: (a) United States citizens need to have more definable privacy protections in their electronic communications and (b) American companies are finding it difficult to compete globally because foreign companies are reluctant to buy American software and other applications that may provide a means for the government to spy on them.
Much of this debate was spurred by a 2010 case brought down by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. That case U.S. v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010). That case dealt with the issue of whether the government’s review of private email could constitute an unconstitutional search and seizure. The Sixth Circuit found that it did. As the court wrote,
Warshak argues that the government’s warrantless, ex parte seizure of approximately 27,000 of his private emails constituted a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.12 The government counters that, even if government agents violated the Fourth Amendment in obtaining the emails, they relied in good faith on the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq., a statute that allows the government to obtain certain electronic communications without procuring a warrant. The government also argues that any hypothetical Fourth Amendment violation was harmless. We find that the government did violate Warshak’s Fourth Amendment rights by compelling his Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) to turn over the contents of his emails. However, we agree that agents relied on the SCA in good faith, and therefore hold that reversal is unwarranted.
This case is notable because after it was decided, a number of internet service providers began to require search warrants for email. It is entirely possible that the standard for obtaining emails may be further refined once the current legislation reaches the president’s desk.
© 2014 Nissenbaum Law Group, LLC
Looking for advice?
We're here to help.
Contact the Nissenbaum Law Group to schedule an appointment at 908-686-8000 or feel free to use the following form to e-mail us. Please include as much information as you can to ensure that we are able to handle your request as quickly as possible.
2400 Morris Avenue
Union, NJ 07083
P: (908) 686-8000
F: (908) 686-8550
New York, NY 10005
P: (212) 871-5711
F: (212) 871-5712
1500 Market Street
12th Floor East Tower
Philadelphia, PA 19102
P: (215) 523-9350
F: (215) 523-9395
100 Crescent Court
Dallas, TX 75201
P: (214) 222-0020
F: (214) 222-0029