Who Controls the Internet?

The internet from the viewpoint of many has turned geographical borders as being insignificant through erasing them and making the globe a huge nation. Governments on a daily basis are attempting numerous ways of managing the proliferation of the internet.  Goldsmith & Wu (2006) reveals that governments have attempted to manage the challenge brought about by internet proliferation on national sovereignty. Individuals could be able to locate ways in which government’s role is in forming a bordered internet.

As a matter of fact the internet similar to other communication technological ways has never displaced the government’s role on human governance.  Governments strive their citizens against any harm emanating from any source inclusive of internet. For instance, the Yahoo France Case offers a fine example of ways in which internet has been changed from a technology that ignores territorial law towards one that in actuality protects and enforces it. Regardless of the sturdy protests and defense extended by Yahoo, ultimately French government won the battle and Yahoo was demanded to modify their emphasis   to one which reiterates the national importance internet control.

According to Goldsmith & Wu (2006) national governments regulate the internet via the usage of coercion in their nation as compared to regulating the source external the borders. The article identifies the intermediaries along with how regulating internet intermediaries could impact the internet flow inside the national borders.

Control over intermediaries

Governments have struggled to regulate internet intermediaries’ power so as to control the flow of internet inside the national borders. Ideologies coupled with nation’s struggles within their national network states the bordered internet nature. According to authorities numerous illegal acts involve three parties namely: source, the intermediary and the target. Effectual regulation of these three parties permits the government in regulating conduct inside its borders. However controlling the intermediary is not the solution to controlling illegal trade since they will find some other loopholes and utilize them. For instance, if the states regulate the internet by controlling the internet, content providers will simply circumvent the intermediaries. Nevertheless governments have continued a crackdown on the intermediaries. Governments in addition invoke local laws blocking the foreign content provider by tracking the local search engine. In 2002, German and France blocked greater than 100 sites which were available on google.com. In the Western world Europe forms a region that uses ISPs in controlling unwanted internet content. Towards the East China from the beginning has been very adamant in allowing ISPs ultimate freedom. This nation has maintained close control over elements within the online transport pipeline. Saudi Arabia has placed servers linking state-owned online backbone to servers external to the Kingdom. This enables filtering illicit foreign content within foreign servers before it is allowed to get into the nation’s internet platform. 

In the early 2000s online cigarette vending was a very promising trade, particularly in India where taxes are inexistent on cigarette sales. The advantage of online purchasing was the tax avoidance benefit, it as no surprise that in 2004 the internet cigarette trade became a $1 billion industry in New York. Nonetheless this changed in the year 2005 when the Federal Bureau of alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms carried out a joint operation towards online sales. Their target was not the vendors but the intermediaries which were credit card firms. The bureau required the credit card firms to abolish the online cigarette sales failure to which they would face legal action. The absence of credit card payments the prevalent cigarette sites faded away since the intermediaries were eliminated.

In 2001, during the presidential elections James initiated a site known as voteauction.com that was aimed at attracting uninterested voters. This site offered a platform for purchasing their votes: the votes were to be sold to the highest bidder. This site was reported to be actually working with bids rising as high as $16.31 per vote. However he Chicago Board of Election Commissioners resolved to shut down the site saying that buying and selling of votes was illegal and ultimately voteauction.co was quickly shutdown.

Chinese Vs Australian Internet -Internet policies in these two nations are very distinct. Unlike Australian, Chinese policy is aimed at forming free internet for supporting economic growth. Nevertheless Goldsmith & Wu (2006) indicates that the nation possesses restrictions towards regulating political hazards external to its borders. Certainly, it is the same reason that social media sites such as Facebook, YouTube and twitter are disallowed for regulation reasons. To start with the Chinese authorities fear the civil societies along with activists. Secondly, Medias such as Facebook forms a platform which any topics are discussed openly: these topics might comprise of political issues, for Chinese authorities such debates could cause panics.

Chinese Vs Hong-Kong Internet -Owing to prevention elections oriented conflicts and violence, Instagram has been banned in China as a result of pre-democracy protests within Hong-Kong.  The Hong-Kong Umbrella revolution for weeks has been protesting regarding issues democracy.  

Coercion

Governments also use coercion to restrict the access of certain information within its jurisdictions. In the case of Yahoo, the French government argued that Yahoo was not immune to the law. Governments may also create policies that govern the way the internet is regulated. Through these regulations, the involved parties either obey the laws or are exempt from serving the audience within that country.

Goldsmith and Wu (2006) argue that there is always the necessity for some form of coercion in the government. This coercion helps to reduce the cases of violence, stealing and fraud within the country that is made possible through the internet.

In this regard, the government exerts coercion on internet providers and users by creating laws that govern the use and operation of the internet. To govern the illegal activities that take place on the internet, the government may create laws that govern contracts and laws. The government also prescribes certain activities on the internet as illegal or otherwise.

Internet service providers are also coerced to work within certain mechanisms. Google may be required to display content that is either pornographic or against certain laws like the copyright law. These regulations limit how far any activity can be made possible on the internet on the internet.

Other activities that are controlled on the internet include payments since they may result in fraud. If the government finds any offense on the activities of a certain individual or organization, the said individual may be forced to close down or taken through legal process that may threaten the operations of the company.

Companies that do their operations or do business on the internet like eBay are the most affected. Cases that can be cited include the case of eBay and a US publisher and that Microsoft on the acquiescence of the EU passport.

References

Goldsmith J and Wu T (2006). Who controls the internet? Illusions of   a borderless world, Oxford University Press