The U. S. Government should not attempt to place restrictions on the internet. The Internet does not belong to the United States and it is not our responsibility to save the world, so why are we attempting to regulate something that belongs to the world? The Telecommunications Reform Act has done exactly that, put regulations on the Internet. Edward Cavazos quotes William Gibson says, “As described in Neuromancer, Cyberspace was a consensual hallucination that felt and looked like a physical space but actually was a computer-generated construct representing abstract data. )

When Gibson coined that phrase he had no idea that it would become the household word that it is today. “Cyberspace now represents a vast array of computer systems accessible from remote physical locations. ” (Cavazos 2) The Internet has grown explosively over the last few years. “The Internet’s growth since its beginnings in 1981. At that time, the number of host systems was 213 machines. At the time of this writing, twelve years later, the number has jumped to 1,313,000 systems connecting directly to the Internet.

“Privacy plays a unique role in American law. ” (Cavazos 13) Privacy is not xplicitly provided for in the Constitution, yet most of the Internet users remain anonymous. Cavazos says, “Computers and digital communication technologies present a serious challenge to legislators and judges who try to meet the demands of economic and social change while protecting this most basic and fundamental personal freedom. ” Networks and the Internet make it easy for anyone with the proper equipment to look at information based around the world instantly and remain anonymous.

The right to conduct at least some forms of speech activity anonymously has been upheld by the U. S. Supreme Court. ” (Cavazos 5) In cyberspace it is extremely uncommon for someone to use their given name to conduct themselves, but rather they use pseudonyms or “Handles”. (Cavazos 14) Not only is it not illegal to use handles on most systems, but the sysop (System Operator) does not have to allow anyone access to his data files on who is the person behind the handle. Some sysops make the information public, or give the option to the user, or don’t collect the information at all.

The Internet brings forth many new concerns regarding crime and computers. With movies like Wargames, and more recently Hackers, becoming popular, computer rime is being blown out of proportion. “The word Hacker conjures up a vivid image in the popular media. ” (Cavazos 105) There are many types of computer crime that fall under the umbrella of “Hacking”. Cavazos says, “In 1986 Congress passed a comprehensive federal law outlawing many of the activities commonly referred to as ‘hacking. (107) Breaking into a computer system without the proper access being given, traditional hacking, is illegal; hacking to obtain financial information is illegal; hacking into any department or agency of the United States is illegal; and passing passwords out with the ntent for others to use them to hack into a system without authorization is also illegal.

“One of the more troubling crimes committed in cyberspace is the illicit trafficking in credit card numbers and other account information. Cavazos 109) Many people on the Internet use their credit cards to purchase things on-line, this is a dangerous practice because anyone with your card number can do the samething with your card. Millions of dollars worth of goods and services a year are stolen using credit card fraud. No matter how illegal, many are not caught. With the use of anonymous names and restricted access to provider’s ata on users, it becomes harder to catch the criminals on-line.

The “[Wire Fraud Act] makes it illegal for anyone to use any wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreigncommerce to further a scheme to defraud people of money or goods. ” (Cavazos 110) This is interpreted to include telephone communications, therefore computer communication as well. There is much fraud on the Internet today, and the fraud will continue until a feasable way to enforce the Wire Fraud Act comes about. Cavazos continues, “unauthorized duplication, distribution, and use of someone lse’s intellectual property is subject to civil and criminal penalties under the U. S. Copyright Act. 111)

This “intellectual property” is defined to include computer software. (Cavazos 111) Software piracy is very widespread and rampant, and was even before the Internet became popular. The spread of Computer Viruses has been advanced by the popularity of the Internet. “A virus program is the result of someone developing a mischievous program that replicates itself, much like the living organism for which it is named. ” (Cavazos 114) Cyberspace allows for the rapid transfer and downloading f software over the entire world, this includes viruses. If a file has been corrupted before you download it, you are infecting your system.

If you then give any software in any medium to any other user you run the risk of spreading the virus, just as if you had taken in a person sick with the bubonic plague. “Whatever the mechanism, there can be no doubt that virus software can be readily found in cyberspace. ” (Cavazos 115) The Electronic Communications Privacy Act was enacted to protect the rights of the on-line users within the bounds of the United States. “Today the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) makes it illegal to intercept or disclose private communications and provides victims of such conduct a right to sue anyone violating its mandate. Cavazos 17)

There are exceptions to this law; if you are a party of the communication you can release it to the public, your provider can use the intercepted communication in the normal course of employment, your provider can intercept mail for the authorities if ordered by a court, if the communication is public, and your provider can intercept communications to record the fact of the communication or to protect you from buse of the system. If you are not cardful as a criminal then you will get caught, and the number of careful criminals are increasing.

Says Cavazos, “a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to anyone the contents o fa communication while in electronic storage on that service. ” (21) The sysop is not allowed to read your e-mail, destroy your e-mail before you read it, nor is he allowed to make public your e-mail unless that e-mail has already been made public. “Many systems monitor every keystroke entered by a user. Such keystroke onitoring may very well constitute an interception for the purposes of the ECPS. 18)

If the U/S/ Government is going to continue to place restrictions on the Internet then soon we will have to do away with free speech and communications. Says Kirsten Macdissi, “Ultmiately, control will probably have to come from the user or a provider close to the individual user… ” (1995, p. 1). Monitoring individual users is still not the answer; to cut down on fraud and other law violations a new system must be devised to monitor the Internet that does not violate the right to privacy and does not prevent adults from having a ight to free speech. The Constitution reads, “Amendment 1.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ” (1776). If you read the Communications Decency Act of the Telecommunications Reform Act, there are now seven words taht cannot be used on the Internet. A direct abridgement of the right to choose what we say. Yet the providers, who have the right to edit what is submitted, choose let many things lide.

The responsibility should lie with the provider, not the U. S. Government. Says Macdissi, “As an access provider, Mr. Dale Botkin can see who is connected, but not what they are doing. ” (1995). Yet almost all providers keep a running record of what files are communivated through their servers. Macdissi quoted Mr. Dale Botkin, president of Probe Technology, an Internet access provider, as saying, “‘There is a grass roots organization called Safe Surf,’ Botkin said. ‘What they’ve done is come up with a way for people putting up information on the internet to flag it as okay or not okay for kids. ‘” (1995).

The system is idiot proof. The information provider flags his web page as appropriate for children, the Safe Surf program will connect to the site. If the information provider chooses to not flag his web page, or to flag it as inappropriate for children, the Safe Surf program will not connect to the site. If this, or something similar, were mandated for the Internet the Communications Decency Act would be unnecessary. Says Eric Stone, an Internet user, “[The C. D. A. ] attempts to place more restrictive constraints on the conversation in cyberspace than currently exist in the Senate Cafeteria… ” (1996).

The liability is still with the end-user. The American, or fireigner, who sits in front of their computer everyday to conduct business, chat with friends, or learn about something he didn’t know about before. For us to take liability away from the end-user we must lay the liability on either the providers or on the system operators. Cavazos says, “the Constitution only provides this protection where the government is infringing on your rights. ” (1994). When the providers and system operators censor the users it is called editorial discretion. When the Government does it, it is infringement of privacy.

So why are we still trying to let the Government into our personal and private lives? The popularity of the C. D. A. with the unknowledgeable and the right conservatives makes it a very popular law. The left ant the knowledgeable are in the minority, so our power to change this law is not great. The Government also won’t listen to us because we pose less of a threat than the majority in re-election. This law will have to be recognized for what it is, a blatant violation of the First Amendment right of free speech, by the average citizen before the C. D. A. will be changed.

The Communications Decency Act that was signed into law by President Clinton over a year ago is clearly in need of serious revisions due, not only to its vagueness, but mostly due to the fact that the government is infringing on our freedom of speech, may it be indecent or not. The Communications Decency Act, also know by Internet users as the CDA, is an Act that aims to remove indecent or dangerous text, lewd images, and other things deemed inappropriate from public areas of the net. The CDA is mainly out to protect children.

In the beginning, the anonymity of the Internet caused it to become a aven for the free trading of pornography. This is mainly what gives the Internet a bad name. There is also information on the Net that could be harmful to children. Information on how to make home-made explosives and similar info such as The Jolly Rodgers and the Anarchist’s Cookbook are easily obtained on the Net. Pedophiles (people attracted to child porn) also have a place to hide on the Internet where nobody has to know their real name.

As the average age of the Internet user has started to drop, it has became apparent that something has to be done about the pornography and other inappropriate info on the net. On February 1, 1995, Senator Exon, a Democrat from Nebraska, and Senator Gorton, a Republican from Washington, introduced the first bill towards regulating online porn. This was the first incarnation of the Telecommunications Reform Bill. On April 7, 1995, Senator Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, introduces bill S714. Bill S714 is an alternative to the Exon/Gorton bill.

This bill commissions the Department of Justice to study the problem to see if additional legislature (such as the CDA) is even necessary. The Senate passed the CDA as attached to the Telecomm reform bill on June 14, 1995 with a vote of 84-16. The Leahy bill does not pass, but is supported by 16 Senators that actually understand what the Internet is. Seven days later, several prominent House members publicly announce their opposition to the CDA, including Newt Gingrich, Chris Cox, and Ron Wyden.

On September 26, 1995, Senator Russ Feingold urges committee members to drop the CDA from the Telecommunications Reform Bill. On Thursday, February 1, 1996, Congress passed (House 414-9, Senate 91- 5) the Telecommunications Reform Bill, and attached to it the Communications Decency Act. This day was known as “Black Thursday” by the Internet community. One week later, it was signed into law by President Clinton on Thursday, February 8, 1996, also known as the “Day of Protest. ” The punishment for breaking any of the provisions of the bill is punishable with up to 2 years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine.

On the “Day of Protest,” thousands of home-pages went black as Internet citizens expressed their disapproval of the Communications Decency Act. Presently there are numerous organizations that have formed in protest of the Act. The groups include: the American Civil Liberties Union, the Voters Telecommunications Watch, the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition, the Center for Democracy & Technology, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Internet Action Group, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The ACLU is not just involved with Internet issues.

They fight to protect the rights of many different groups. (ex. Gay and Lesbian Rights, Death Penalty Rights, and Women’s Rights) The ACLU is currently involved in the lawsuit of Reno vs. ACLU in which they are trying to get rid of the CDA. In addition to Internet users turning their homepage backgrounds black, there was the adoption of the Blue Ribbon, which was also used to symbolize their disapproval of the CDA. The Blue Ribbons are similar to the Red Ribbons that Aids supports are wearing.

The Blue Ribbon spawned the creation of “The Blue Ribbon Campaign. The Blue Ribbon’s Homepage is the fourth most linked to site on the Internet. Only Netscape, Yahoo, and Webcrawler are more linked to. To be linked to means that they can be reached from another site. It’s pretty hard to surf around on the Net and not see a Blue Ribbon on someone’s site. On the day that President Clinton signed the CDA into law, a group of nineteen organizations, from the American Civil Liberties Union to the National Writers Union, filed suit in federal court, arguing that it restricted free speech.

At the forefront of the battle against the CDA is Mike Godwin. Mike Godwin is regarded as one of the most important online-rights activists today. He is the staff counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and has “won fans and infuriated rivals with his media savvy, obsessive knowledge of the law, and knack for arguing opponents into exhaustion. Since 1990 he has written on legal issues for magazines like Wired and Internet World and spoken endlessly at universities, at public rallies, and to the national media.

Although this all helped the cause, Godwin didn’t become a genuine cyberspace superhero until what he calls the “great Internet sex panic of 1995. ” During this time, Godwin submitted testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, debated Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed on Nightline, and headed the attack on the study of online pornography. The study of online porn became the foundation of “Time Magazine’s” ontroversial July 3 cover story, “On a Screen Near You: Cyberporn.

Time said the study proved that pornography was “popular, pervasive, and surprisingly perverse” on the Net, but Godwin put up such a fight to the article that three weeks later, the magazine ran a follow-up story admitting that the study had serious flaws. The CDA is a bad solution, but it is a bad solution to a very real problem. As Gina Smith, a writer for Popular Science, has written, “It is absolutely true that the CDA, is out of bounds in it’s scope and wording. As the act is phrased, for example, consenting adults cannot be sure their online onversations won’t land them in jail.

Even something as newsstand-friendly as the infamous Vanity Fair cover featuring a pregnant and nude(but strategically covered) Demi Moore might be considered indecent under the act, and George Carlin’s famous ‘seven dirty words’ are definitely out. CDA supporters are right when they say the Internet and online services are fertile playgrounds for pedophiles and other wackos bent on exploiting children. Now, parents could just watch over their children’s shoulder’s the whole time that they are online, but that is both an unfair and an impractical answer.

There are two answers, either a software program that blocks certain sites could be installed, or parents could discipline their kids so that they would know better than to look at pornography. The latter would appear to be the better alternative, but that just isn’t practical. If kids are told not to do something, they are just going to be even more curious to check out porn. On the other hand, many parents are less technologically informed than their kids. Many would not know how to find, install, and understand such programs as CyberPatrol or NetNanny. The future of the CDA seems to be fairly evident.

It doesn’t look like the CDA is going to be successful. In addition to the Act being too far reaching in its powers, it is virtually unenforceable. As with anything in print, much of the material on the Internet is intelligent and worthy of our attention, but on the other hand, some of it is very vulgar. The difficulty in separating the two rests in the fact that much of the Internet’s value lies in its freedom from regulation. As Father Robert A. Sirico puts it, “To allow the federal government to censor means granting it the power to determine what information we can and cannot have access to. “