 |
Regulation of users A common form of regulation are official edicts by governments controlling the extent to which users may access and participate in the Internet. In 1996, for example, Digicom, the largest provider of electronic services in Pakistan, asked its clients to sign agreements that imposed a number of restrictions on the use of the Internet. Under the terms of the agreement, users were to be prohibited from using any sort of data encryption and to agree that their electronic communications might be monitored by government agencies. The agreement terms also prohibited the use of the Internet for voice transmission, apparently in order to preserve the monopoly over telephone and telex communications of the government-owned Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation (PTC). As well, users of Internet services would have to provide Digicom with copies of their National Identity Card (NIC) while foreign nationals would have to submit copies of their passport. Those refusing to do so would face disconnection of their services. In Malaysia, the government targets users who use Internet newsgroups to criticize the country or to carry out activities that are not permitted under Malaysian law. Although the government does not actively censor on-line communications, the Acceptable Use Policy at Jaring, the main Malaysian Internet line, states that "members shall not use Jaring network for any activities not allowed under any Law of Malaysia". |
|
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
|
|
In response to Malaysian students abroad who criticized Malaysia on the Internet, the government also considered various ways to curb such dissent, with the education minister proposing to cut scholarships of offending students.
For its part, China exerts strict control on which of their citizens can use the Internet. Prospective users must apply to the police to get Internet access and sign a pledge not to "harm" China's national interests. In neighbouring Japan, while there do not exist laws regulating what users can say and do on the Internet, a non-profit organization called the Electronic Network Consortium, which includes many computer companies, recently drew up guidelines that address in general terms the issue of "inappropriate" material on the Internet. The guidelines fall under the heading of, among others, "rules and manners for those who utilize PC (personal computer) communications services." It is worth mentioning that not only are governments imposing some form of regulation or set of guidelines specifically directed at users, but ISPs themselves have imposed their own direct controls on users of their services. Most often, such actions are outright forms of censorship. In late 1996, the Canadian ISP Information Gateway Services (IGS) removed a controversial Web page of one of its users following several complaints. The page, entitled "I Hate Lucien Bouchard", was critical of the current separatist leader of the province of Quebec. Although the author, an anglophone, claimed just to be expressing his political views, IGS, citing police as the authority, affirmed that he had published illegal hate propaganda. In the United States, in late 1997 the major ISP America Online (AOL) shut down a site that featured writings by serial killers. The action came in response to customer threats to boycott AOL as well as criticism by politicians. The site was hosted by a Florida writer who said she created it because of an interest in how serial killers think. The site included writings by serial killers about their murders as well as a "serial killer kit." To what extent, then, are ISPs liable for material posted by their users? There is as yet no definitive answer as to whether ISPs should not be responsible for material posted by third parties on their sites, or whether they ought to act like a publisher by regulating their users and demanding removal of content that they deem objectionable. Regulation of Internet Service Providers Government officials have recently tabled measures to regulate ISPs so that they assume some responsibility for supposedly objectionable material that is circulated on the Internet using their network. In Canada, a private member's bill was introduced in 1997 which would require that ISPs be licensed. The bill would give the Minister of Justice broad and unprecedented powers to regulate the Internet, ostensibly to "minimize the use of the Internet for the publication or proliferation of child pornography." The bill would also require ISPs to block access to identified portions of the Internet that carry child pornography. As well, no ISP would be able to permit in a knowing fashion the use of its service for the placing of child pornography on the Internet or the viewing, copying, or recovery of child pornography from the Internet. The legislation would also empower judicial authorities to fine or even imprison offenders. Elsewhere, in Australia, the government is attempting to implement and have enforced a code of conduct for ISPs. This year, the Minister for Communications and the Arts issued instructions to the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) enabling it to begin consultations with ISPs on new codes of practice for on-line content regulation. The move was part of a government plan to develop a "national framework that protects Australian citizens, particularly children, from offensive or illegal material online." The government decided "that as a general rule material that is considered illegal offline should be considered illegal online." The aim of the code of conduct is to encourage ISPs to respect community standards in relation to material published by means of their service and to ensure that they place a high priority on the protection of minors from exposure to material that may be harmful to them. The legislation would codify the responsibilities of an ISP in relation to objectionable content and other content that is of concern to the community. Rules for ISPs would include that they not knowingly allow a person to use their service to publish content that would be illegal under Australian law. The legislation would encourage groups representing the ISP industry to comply with the code of conduct agreed upon by all parties involved. Additionally, if the ABA is satisfied that a person is providing an on-line service other than in accordance with on-line service provider rules and is generally not respecting community standards, then the ABA would be able, in extreme circumstances, to apply to a court for an order requiring the on-line service to cease, or to be suspended for a specified period. Concerns have been expressed regarding this proposed code of conduct. Critics charge that the legislation is hampered by the fact that it can only affect material stored on Australian systems. The vast majority of content, they assert, comes from outside Australia. Most arguments against the code of conduct, though, are predicated on an apparent misunderstanding by the government about the nature of online services. An ISP is a distribution medium that has neither editorial control nor input. It is contractually bound to provide bandwidth and disk space irrespective of content and, as such, cannot fairly be held responsible for material that flows over it. In addition, ISPs placed in the role of censor, even if they could ever find the time and money to carry out that role, would likely cut extensively rather than risk the penalties associated with permitting possibly illegal material to remain on their systems. Regulation of the Internet itself Although the previous examples from Australia and Canada illustrate attempts at regulating a major aspect of the Internet, in the form of ISPs, neither country goes as far as Singapore, which, in 1996, instituted resolutions that provided for nothing less than the regulation of the whole Internet industry in the tiny island state. According to government regulations, Singapore's three ISPs, political parties that maintain Web sites as well as groups and individuals who run discussion sites on politics and religion are controlled and licensed by the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (SBA) and must abide by the agency's strict guidelines regarding "objectionable" content, ranging from pornography to "areas which may undermine public morals, political stability or religious harmony". Violation of the SBA's guidelines will result in the licence being revoked. In terms of material that is banned, the SBA guidelines say it will not allow content that "tends to bring the government into hatred or contempt, or which excites disaffection against the government." Among other material banned is content that, according to the government, jeopardizes public security or national defence; ridicules racial or religious groups; promotes gambling; involves the "gross exploitation" of violence, sex or horror; promotes occult practices; or involves the depiction of "sexual perversions" such as homosexuality. To assist in enforcing these regulations, the government employs at least eight censors to surf the Internet daily in pursuit of undesirable sites that the government then demands that ISPs block. Furthermore, a government-appointed panel of prominent citizens decides what is objectionable. For services that involve subscription, such as newsgroups, ISPs are required to exercise judgment on which services to subscribe to, in accordance with the SBA's guidelines. In order to protect young Internet users, schools, libraries, other ISPs and even cybercafes that provide Internet access to children are required to institute a tighter level of control on content, especially pornography. These myriad rules governing the Internet's operation indicate that the government treats it as a broadcast medium not unlike radio or television. However, the Internet differs significantly from these broadcast media, since it is the first truly mass medium; it is interactive and composed of a number of different ways of organizing, sending and accessing data. This variety of systems reflects the fact that the Internet incorporates characteristics of such media and communications systems as print, broadcast and postal services. Furthermore, in areas such as the level of choice and control afforded to the individual user, the Internet is unique. For instance, individuals can use electronic mail (e-mail), which permits one-to-one or one-to-many communication all over the world. There are Gopher sites that provide text-only information arranged according to menus. In addition, the World Wide Web allows for the display of many types of information, including text, images, sound and video, as well as interactive communication. And unlike television and radio broadcasting, an individual who accesses the Internet is not confronted with a particular site upon connecting to the Web. Rather, the information is deliberately selected; the user may select whichever sites s/he wishes to visit. Not only is this is a far more fine-grained process than merely selecting a television channel or radio station, but also, unlike these broadcast media, the Internet does not present the views of a few privileged speakers, but rather allows all participants to publish, comment on, and even refute, what they read. Because of such distinctions from broadcast media, attempts to regulate the Internet, as is being done in Singapore, impact heavily, and negatively, on free expression.
|
|
