Laws on Internet

History shows that with the offspring of a societal changing invention comes a legal flux that requires parsing out to establish fair precedent. The Internet vividly displays this paradigm as issues dealing with the laws of networking sites, peer sharing programs, and security of the Internet continue to adapt. Just like laws of privacy and freedom regarding telephone, mail, and cellular phones were established overtime, the Internet required an entire different section of legal protection.

• The Internet refers to a broad web of digital communication and sharing through a peer to peer basis or website domain. Networking sites like Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter posed a difficult situation for lawmakers as these sites encompass the broad spectrum of the Internet and various ways to communicate through it. Although people share pictures, information, and content with friends and networks, there remains a certain level of legal protection to their information but laws of this nature continue to change. Court cases dealing with networking sites have ruled on laws of privacy, protection, and the very nature of free speech over the Internet.

• Peer sharing programs where users of the Internet can exchange music, video, and pictures pose another complex web of issues. No laws of the American system appropriately diagnosed the entanglement of copyright and privacy issues that these programs posed until the mid-1990s. Although laws of this nature dealt with similar corresponding issues in other areas, it remained difficult to adjudicate until some type of legal precedent rose from a certain consensus on how to process the legal ramifications of these programs. Even though some of these switched to paid versions that followed laws of copyright and protection, some simply allow their users to share whatever they would like at their own risk.

• The overall security of the internet also continues to adapt. Malicious software that can access other people’s information or fake websites that request credit card information required a new form of criminal prosecution. This type of theft and the prevention through stronger laws of individual protection remain in question in the American legal system.

The lack of clear boundaries and possession on the Internet creates an interesting predicament for judges that never before used, or would otherwise know of the intricacies regarding the world wide web. Laws of copyright protection and freedom of speech require further delineation as the Internet continues to grow and change.

New Technology

Court cases dealing with laws of new technology continue to set precedent for laws of future technology. With the advent of the telephone as new technology, courts had to determine a safe way to guarantee people’s right to privacy while also protecting the nation against criminals conducting internal crime or outside espionage through easier means. Similarly, email and cell phones created new difficulties for creating laws that governed new technology.

• Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone in the late 19th century and shortly after this time, the new technology required legal interpretation regarding laws of privacy and individual rights. Once the telephone grew to widespread use, police officers and investigative bodies would tap phones without any consideration to personal liberty. Since their were no similar forms of communication prior to this new technology, few laws of governance existed to combat this practice.

• After the Supreme Court ruled that wiretapping was constitutional in 1928, the judicial body did not issue more complete laws of wiretapping until 1967 in Katz v. USA. The decision handed-down established that a warrant was now needed to wiretap an individual’s phone.

• During the latter part of the 20th century, common wired phones became outdated as new technology allowed for mobile and eventually cellular phones. Laws of governance regarding mobile phones posed a specific difficulty in relation to individual protection. Since each cell phone call emits signal to the closest tower it is possible to determine the caller as well as their location in many instances. Although the preordained laws of new technology remain in terms of wiretapping (although no longer actual wiretapping), cell phone calls are easily intercepted by certain devices.

• Privacy concerns and laws of new technology regarding email continues to confound lawmakers. Since emails pass through multiple computers on the way to their destination they are particularly open to interception. Following the attack of 9/11, certain liberties were reduced as a supposed attempt to reduce the change for foreign or domestic terrorism. These included stipulations that allowed voice-mails and email to be searched under a normal search warrant as opposed to the wiretapping requirement of a court-ordered warrant.
Laws of new technology will continue to change as current devices continue to adapt to a globalized world. The sharing of information rarely occurs over actual wires anymore and this void that the internet controls in a court of law requires concrete explanations. The Supreme Court needs to set-up invisible boundaries of space that each individual is entitled to, regardless of the arena.

Federal Laws

During the late 1990s and early 2000s the peer to peer network, Napster, became a common program on tens of millions of computers. This new technology allowed individuals to swap and share music and video files effortlessly between computers. Once certain musical artists witnessed new songs on Napster before they entered major circulation, lawsuits were quickly filed in hoping that federal laws would find Napster negligent in their copyright infringement.

• Technology like the peer-to-peer network Napster require specific federal laws to determine the legality of their function. Since Napster worked unlike the current technology that maintain independent peer-to-peer networks, federal laws handed down by US court determined that Napster worked in accessory to massive copyright infringement eventually causing them to shut-down services and sell off their assets.

• Napster maintained active control over parts of the file sharing system, making them culpable to federal laws that sought to dismantle this technology. The primary reason for Napster–to exchange mp3 files between computers–allowed owners to pirate illegally transferred files and create mixes and compilations without worrying about royalties or copyright. However, the federal laws were geared towards the bigger software and technology pirates allowing and facilitating this illegal transfer rather than college students swapping music files back and forth.

• After the effectual eradication of Napster, several other peer-to-peer technology-oriented sites popped up, causing further strain on federal laws that failed to address the entire nature of copyright laws over the Internet. These websites engineered new technology and ways to keep actual file transfer off their central database and off the radar of federal laws. Although Napster only existed for a brief amount of time, it changed not only federal laws on technology, but the entire way the music industry functions and distributes.

• The main artists that brought initial suit against Napster were Metallica, Madonna, and Dr. Dre as pre-released songs and most of their entire musical recording careers were available by free download. Even though these specific suits were dismissed due to the larger suit against Napster by the respective recording companies, they gained much of the spotlight for bringing down Napster and continue to hear criticism–warranted or unwarranted–for these actions.

Napster and other peer-to-peer type networks brought a wave of new Internet technology and required a new perspective to understand the entanglement of copyright and personal freedom laws. Federal laws succeeded in defeating Napster, but once new programs adapted to these legal findings individuals again continued to swap free and at times illegal software without trepidation.

President Barack Obama made specific mention of the dangers surrounding possible threats to Internet security and safety, specifically involving banking, military, and civilian Internet use. To this end, President Obama named a new chief of Cyber-security to ward off possible domestic and foreign threats to the network that connects most of the worldwide computers. Internet laws could become a more streamlined process that stems from a central bureaucratic entity rather than a collection of court cases and laws that deal with situations perceived analogously.

• President Obama named Howard A. Schmidt new cyber-security coordinator to hopefully create Internet laws to combat misuse and negligent practices. The formed adviser to the Bush White House, Howard Schmidt’s professional career seemed to appease a wide-array of Internet related interest groups. In an official capacity, Schmidt will report to the National Security Council and his background in both military and law-enforcement places him at the precipice of the myriad possible threats to the Internet.

• The need for tougher Internet laws comes at a time of exponential worldwide growth in Internet usage. This year alone military and business Internet systems have illustrated their inherent weakness in fighting a range of possible intruders.

• The lack of centralization with the Internet poses additional difficulties in composing comprehensive Internet laws. Even if Schmidt and his fellow advisers are able to create effective Internet laws, the international community will not be party to these specifications. It is also inconceivable to imagine America breaking off from the international community to inspire stronger Internet laws so the only true option is to focus on stronger data encryption in both military and civilian computers.

• Many nations outright block or censor information that travels over the Internet due to possible political or security risk, but this contradicts the very notion of the Internet. Howard Schmidt as the new cyber-security coordinator will have to devise a way to insure that Internet laws do not impinge on individuals access to the Internet, but rather make it so unwanted intruders have no ability to access other secure systems.

President Barack Obama made Internet security a focal point of his campaign and first year in office, but with little to show for it in terms of progress or new Internet Laws. Many people are standing by in hopes that the naming of Howard Schmidt as the new cyber-security coordinator will not only make military Internet systems safer, but also civilian personal computer.

Internet Pornography

There have been many attempts to limit the exposure to Internet pornography on a larger scale then personal filters or content blockers. American lawmakers have tried numerous times to legislate and create online laws against the propagation of Internet pornography. Online laws limiting access to any legal content, as determined in America, have continuously been ruled unconstitutional in US federal court.

• Since the Internet is an international network and there are no international online laws that prevent the Internet publishing of pornography, each individual country chooses to address pornography differently. The general consensus is if an Internet publisher posts something that is legal in their country than online laws can not prosecute against them. However, access to Internet publications of content found to be illegal in the viewer’s nation is punishable.

• The trend of American online laws show the inability for lawmakers to address Internet pornography on any sort of large-scale measure. Publications that are otherwise legal in America have been shown to bypass continuous attempts at censorship. Many of these attempts tried to broaden the accepted scope of obscenity and thus make online pornography a possible target of online laws.

• One legislative attempt that illuminates the failings to clean up Internet pornography was the Child Online Protection Act. The Child Online Protection Act of 1998 attempted to institute new online laws that sought to make the Internet a safer place for minors. Although it was passed, the United States federal courts system has continuously struck it down as unconstitutional. The main reason for this determination is the wide-scope of the intended legislation. The Supreme Court felt that online laws can not block protection of free speech over the Internet regardless of the intent to protect minors. The Child Online Protection Act came as a part of a legislative effort to trim away the excess of Internet pornography and institute a series of online laws to block certain displays perceived as obscene.

National interest for the protection of children generally surpasses other forms of freedom and expression. The nature of the Internet renders this fact somewhat useless. Since viewing pornography is not illegal in America, as long as it displays legal actions, legislating against it poses a difficult problem. Online laws continue to be written, and conversely written-off, as unconstitutional due to their perceived limitation on freedom of speech. During the 21st century more pressure has been placed on families and computer owners to install software to block certain Internet publications in an attempt to prevent their children from accessing pornography.

Online Gambling

Historically, online gambling laws remained in a legal grey area that no law explicitly forbade. The passage of the SAFE port act, which carried a ride-on known as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, disallowed the transfer of funds from a financial institution to an illegal gambling Internet site. Much controversy surrounded the passage of the SAFE port act with the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement written on and caused several international gambling websites to crumble when they lost their largest customer base. Non-publicly traded Internet gambling sites ignored the new online gambling laws and continue to serve an American public eager to utilize their services.

• Until 2006, the only online gambling laws that officials referred to, took issue with specifically enumerated types of gambling. For example, the Federal Wire Act of 1961 was often cited as a legal deterrent that automatically initiated online gambling laws, but this fact never took hold unanimously and Internet gambling continued unperturbed. Generally accepted as a law to combat organized crime, the Federal wire act outlawed gambling by phone over state lines but some felt the notion of the law encompassed Internet gambling as well.

• Officials attempted to enact online gambling laws through much of the latter half of the 1990s, but to no avail and Internet gambling user-ship only steadily increased over the next decade. Enemies of online gambling laws note that many states that passed online gambling laws maintained a financial interest in disallowing Internet gambling due to their state-led lottery, horse racing, or casino gambling.

• Several international websites that hosted Internet gambling claimed staggering losses overnight after the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. Many of the publicly traded sites dissolved all-together, while others took deep cuts in financial earnings. Several large private Internet gambling websites bypassed the American online gambling laws entirely and still provide gambling services.

• The future of online gambling laws remain unclear even with the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. Several institutions favor a revenue-sharing strategy that will act as a tax on the dollars spent by American citizens on a state by state basis, but the possibility of such a plan remains to be seen.

Online gambling laws attempt to rationalize the blockage of Internet gambling by claiming the residual effects that gambling has on an individual and family, however there is hypocrisy in this statement considering state-run lottery and gambling systems. Even though congress passed law disallowing Internet gambling, people continue to gamble online in enormous quantity but the unlikelihood of a reversal poses an additional set of problems.

Laws Governing Internet Law

Internet Law, or cyberlaw, refers to the large spectrum of communications through which Internet users utilize. Since Internet Law can traverse several state boundaries, as the Internet represents an enormous international community, it remains up to each set of distinct state laws to decipher the legality or intended purpose of the issue at hand. The biggest issue with composing comprehensive Internet law is the separate legal fields it encapsulates in direct relation to the specific state laws of the nation’s governing body. Also involved in common formulation of domestic Internet law is privacy concerns and freedom of speech, both separate legal issues all together.

• State laws play a large role in the formulation of Internet law. Take for example an individual wishing to purchase a product from another sovereign nation or even state. Not only do local state laws apply to the situation, but also the state laws where the server that handles the purchase apply. Lastly, the state laws where the company resides also has legal prerogative to maintain their Internet law. The situation as described composes the nature of jurisdictional law in relation to Internet law. All parties to the transaction are accountable to only their specific state laws, but also subjected to the constraints of working internationally.

• Free speech in Internet law poses its own set of obstacles. Many nations outright block certain content, while others filter it through state recognized domains. The common denominator of Internet law and free speech again reduces to the separate state laws that govern all concerned parties. An interesting situation arises when considering the international constraints of contemplating free speech; what happens when an article is published in one country about a resident of another country where entirely different viewpoints on free speech and Internet law exist? No current means of adjudication exists to handle this type of concern.

• Privacy concerns also loom large in Internet law, where a number of cases have been brought in front of judges dealing with information obtained from semi-private networking sites. For example, if there is a case investigating a possible murder situation and there may be pictures on a suspects semi-private networking site that incriminate said suspect, does an accusatory body require a warrant or can they simply access the page through a shared friend or similar situation? Many states have dealt with this situation in different fashions, but the Supreme Court is yet to deal on the constitutionality of such paradigms.

Internet law and the various types of law that compose it, creates a complex web of situations that require the entire international community to address. Even in America, state laws handle Internet law mostly in the aforementioned jurisdictional fashion and require a stronger consensus on federal laws guaranteed throughout all the states.

Safe Internet

In the 21st century, Internet law began to assume its own legal field and as such, requires a specific attorney to navigate its trenches. Although relatively new, an attorney or firm of Internet law, generally specializes in a combination of fields and legal issues that include; defamation, libel, copyright, trademark, and privacy, among others.

• An individual pursuing a case that deals with copyright issues under the purview of Internet law will sometimes hire an attorney for a number of different issues. Website owners will often find sites that steal the design or textual components of their site and will hire an attorney of Internet law to hopefully get the pirate-site taken down or blacklisted by search engines. Content published on the Internet sometimes ignores copyright and all practical law, requiring an attorney specialized in the intricacies of Internet law to show just cause that the claimant controls creative rights to the content.

• Another issue that commonly graces the desk of an Internet law attorney are charges of defamation, regardless of how hard they often are to prove or issue judgement on. Specific Internet law regarding defamation continues to be parsed out as the content of publications on the Internet vary drastically in their intent. An attorney of Internet Law will often describe the defamation possibilities in terms of a casual conversation that would occur between friends in a bar that can be likened to a message board or a serious conversation like an Internet publication that is posted to a website like the Huffington Post. Clearly the intent of these different publications have a far different intent, and as such, have different classifications of Internet law.

• Issues dealing with privacy and internet law continue to burden the American legal system. An attorney of internet law normally attempts to win these cases by showing that the defendant maintained a certain level of privacy; either through networking sites or emails, and the findings through this end should not be administered due to the breach of privacy. The federal supreme court still has not provided a proper means of adjudicating these matters so an internet law attorney faces decisions on a state or municipal level.
Naturally, internet law would require a focus on multiple field of legal scholar due to its effect and use in all forms of life and society. Many firms focus on internet law by hiring a myriad lawyers that handle specific cases that deal with their legal focus.

Internet Security

Recent attacks on Internet security illustrate the need for new technology in protecting computer files. In early December, an Internet hacker gained access to certain computer files from the University of East Anglia. The University claims host to the Climatic Research Unit, a leading researcher and developer of new technology for tracking the effects of global warming. Although the national debate has leaned more towards the implications of the global warming research, many have noted the residual effects this could have on Internet security and new technology.

• The hacker that secured these contested filed sparked a national debate over the tools and methods that led to findings by many climatologists that suggest a trend of global warming. After the advent of new technology and research in the field, the national and global opinions of global warming heavily leaned in favor of these findings and commenced a worldwide effort to curtail these changes.

• Media and national officials tend to attach “-gate” on any issue that could ignite national debate as to further entice the public. Clearly stemming from Watergate, the implication of this suffix poses questions to the nature of the most current challenge now commonly refereed to as “climate-gate.” After Nixon became indicted on allegations of engineering the Watergate break-ins, few people contested his resignation and had he not been pardoned, the criminal charges levied against him. The nature of a physical break-in opposed to that of an Internet break-in comes into clear focus when delineating these two situations. Its as if once the information was hacked and became public knowledge, there was no entitlement to security. On the other hand, had this Internet hacker broke into the front door of the University and stole the same files, more focus would be attached to the head perpetrator engineering the robbery.

• The reason for highlighting this paradigm is to shed further light on the need for new technology to secure Internet files like a protected-home, making the actions of hacking more intrusive to the privacy of the individuals. People no longer comprehend the Internet as a new technology, but rather a fixture of a globalized world, however, many guidelines and laws continue to be parsed out on a national level that change the way the Internet functions.
Regardless of the information obtained by the Internet hacker, a necessity of new technology and Internet security requires national attention. The Internet remains a new technology and requires a system of morals and laws that reflect actual society, rather than a system of crooks and gimmicks.