During the past decade, our
society has become based solely on the ability to move large amounts of
information across large distances quickly. Computerization has influenced
everyone's life. The natural evolution of computers and this need for ultra-fast
communications has caused a global network of interconnected computers to
develop. This global net allows a person to send E-mail across the world in mere
fractions of a second, and enables even the common person to access information
world-wide. With advances such as software that allows users with a sound card
to use the Internet as a carrier for long distance voice calls and video
conferencing, this network is key to the future of the knowledge society. At
present, this net is the epitome of the first amendment: free speech. It is a
place where people can speak their mind without being reprimanded for what they
say, or how they choose to say it. The key to the world-wide success of the
Internet is its protection of free speech, not only in America, but in other
countries where free speech is not protected by a constitution. To be found on
the Internet is a huge collection of obscene graphics, Anarchists' cookbooks and
countless other things that offend some people. With over 30 million Internet
users in the U.S. alone (only 3 million of which surf the net from home),
everything is bound to offend someone. The newest wave of laws floating through
law making bodies around the world threatens to stifle this area of spontaneity.
Recently, Congress has been considering passing laws that will make it a crime
punishable by jail to send "vulgar" language over the net, and to
export encryption software. No matter how small, any attempt at government
intervention in the Internet will stifle the greatest communication innovation
of this century. The government wants to maintain control over this new form of
communication, and they are trying to use the protection of children as a smoke
screen to pass laws that will allow them to regulate and censor the Internet,
while banning techniques that could eliminate the need for regulation.
Censorship of the Internet threatens to destroy its freelance atmosphere, while
wide spread encryption could help prevent the need for government intervention.
The current body of laws existing today in America does not apply well to the
Internet. Is the Internet like a bookstore, where servers cannot be expected to
review every title? Is it like a phone company who must ignore what it carries
because of privacy? Is it like a broadcasting medium, where the government
monitors what is broadcast? The trouble is that the Internet can be all or none
of these things depending on how it's used. The Internet cannot be viewed as one
type of transfer medium under current broadcast definitions. The Internet
differs from broadcasting media in that one cannot just happen upon a vulgar
site without first entering a complicated address, or following a link from
another source. "The Internet is much more like going into a book store and
choosing to look at adult magazines." (Miller 75). Jim Exon, a democratic
senator from Nebraska, wants to pass a decency bill regulating the Internet. If
the bill passes, certain commercial servers that post pictures of unclad beings,
like those run by Penthouse or Playboy, would of course be shut down immediately
or risk prosecution. The same goes for any amateur web site that features
nudity, sex talk, or rough language. Posting any dirty words in a Usenet
discussion group, which occurs routinely, could make one liable for a $50,000
fine and six months in jail. Even worse, if a magazine that commonly runs some
of those nasty words in its pages, The New Yorker for instance, decided to post
its contents on-line, its leaders would be held responsible for a $100,000 fine
and two years in jail. Why does it suddenly become illegal to post something
that has been legal for years in print? Exon's bill apparently would also
"criminalize private mail," ... "I can call my brother on the
phone and say anything--but if I say it on the Internet, it's illegal"
(Levy 53). Congress, in their pursuit of regulations, seems to have overlooked
the fact that the majority of the adult material on the Internet comes from
overseas. Although many U.S. government sources helped fund Arpanet, the
predecessor to the Internet, they no longer control it. Many of the new Internet
technologies, including the World Wide Web, have come from overseas. There is no
clear boundary between information held in the U.S. and information stored in
other countries. Data held in foreign computers is just as accessible as data in
America, all it takes is the click of a mouse to access. Even if our government
tried to regulate the Internet, we have no control over what is posted in other
countries, and we have no practical way to stop it. The Internet's predecessor
was originally designed to uphold communications after a nuclear attack by
rerouting data to compensate for destroyed telephone lines and servers. Today's
Internet still works on a similar design. The very nature this design allows the
Internet to overcome any kind of barriers put in its way. If a major line
between two servers, say in two countries, is cut, then the Internet users will
find another way around this obstacle. This obstacle avoidance makes it
virtually impossible to separate an entire nation from indecent information in
other countries. If it was physically possible to isolate America's computers
from the rest of the world, it would be devastating to our economy. Recently, a
major university attempted to regulate what types of Internet access its
students had, with results reminiscent of a 1960's protest. A research associate
at Carnegie Mellon University conducted a study of pornography on the school's
computer networks. Martin Rimm put together quite a large picture collection
(917,410 images) and he also tracked how often each image had been downloaded (a
total of 6.4 million). Pictures of similar content had recently been declared
obscene by a local court, and the school feared they might be held responsible
for the content of its network. The school administration quickly removed access
to all these pictures, and to the newsgroups where most of this obscenity is
suspected to come from. A total of 80 newsgroups were removed, causing a large
disturbance among the student body, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, all of whom felt this was unconstitutional.
After only half a week, the college had backed down, and restored the
newsgroups. This is a tiny example of what may happen if the government tries to
impose censorship (Elmer-Dewitt 102). Currently, there is software being
released that promises to block children's access to known X-rated Internet
newsgroups and sites. However, since most adults rely on their computer literate
children to setup these programs, the children will be able to find ways around
them. This mimics real life, where these children would surely be able to get
their hands on an adult magazine. Regardless of what types of software or
safeguards are used to protect the children of the Information age, there will
be ways around them. This necessitates the education of the children to deal
with reality. Altered views of an electronic world translate easily into altered
views of the real world. "When it comes to our children, censorship is a
far less important issue than good parenting. We must teach our kids that the
Internet is a extension and a reflection of the real world, and we have to show
them how to enjoy the good things and avoid the bad things. This isn't the
government's responsibility. It's ours (Miller 76)." Not all restrictions
on electronic speech are bad. Most of the major on-line communication companies
have restrictions on what their users can "say." They must respect
their customer's privacy, however. Private E-mail content is off limits to them,
but they may act swiftly upon anyone who spouts obscenities in a public forum.
Self regulation by users and servers is the key to avoiding government imposed
intervention. Many on-line sites such as Playboy and Penthouse have started to
regulated themselves. Both post clear warnings that adult content lies ahead and
lists the countries where this is illegal. The film and videogame industries
subject themselves to ratings, and if Internet users want to avoid government
imposed regulations, then it is time they begin to regulate themselves. It all
boils down to protecting children from adult material, while protecting the
first amendment right to free speech between adults. Government attempts to
regulate the Internet are not just limited to obscenity and vulgar language, it
also reaches into other areas, such as data encryption. By nature, the Internet
is an insecure method of transferring data. A single E-mail packet may pass
through hundreds of computers from its source to destination. At each computer,
there is the chance that the data will be archived and someone may intercept
that data. Credit card numbers are a frequent target of hackers. Encryption is a
means of encoding data so that only someone with the proper "key" can
decode it. "Why do you need PGP (encryption)? It's personal. It's private.
And it's no one's business but yours. You may be planning a political campaign,
discussing our taxes, or having an illicit affair. Or you may be doing something
that you feel shouldn't be illegal, but is. Whatever it is, you don't want your
private electronic mail (E-mail) or confidential documents read by anyone else.
There's nothing wrong with asserting your privacy. Privacy is as apple-pie as
the Constitution. Perhaps you think your E-mail is legitimate enough that
encryption is unwarranted. If you really are a law-abiding citizen with nothing
to hide, then why don't you always send your paper mail on postcards? Why not
submit to drug testing on demand? Why require a warrant for police searches of
your house? Are you trying to hide something? You must be a subversive or a drug
dealer if you hide your mail inside envelopes. Or maybe a paranoid nut. Do
law-abiding citizens have any need to encrypt their E-mail? What if everyone
believed that law-abiding citizens should use postcards for their mail? If some
brave soul tried to assert his privacy by using an envelope for his mail, it
would draw suspicion. Perhaps the authorities would open his mail to see what
he's hiding. Fortunately, we don't live in that kind of world, because everyone
protects most of their mail with envelopes. So no one draws suspicion by
asserting their privacy with an envelope. There's safety in numbers.
Analogously, it would be nice if everyone routinely used encryption for all
their E-mail, innocent or not, so that no one drew suspicion by asserting their
E-mail privacy with encryption. Think of it as a form of solidarity
(Zimmerman)." Until the development of the Internet, the U.S. government
controlled most new encryption techniques. With the development of faster home
computers and a worldwide web, they no longer hold control over encryption. New
algorithms have been discovered that are reportedly uncrackable even by the FBI
and the NSA. This is a major concern to the government because they want to
maintain the ability to conduct wiretaps, and other forms of electronic
surveillance into the digital age. To stop the spread of data encryption
software, the U.S. government has imposed very strict laws on its exportation.
One very well known example of this is the PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) scandal.
PGP was written by Phil Zimmerman, and is based on "public key"
encryption. This system uses complex algorithms to produce two codes, one for
encoding and one for decoding. To send an encoded message to someone, a copy of
that person's "public" key is needed. The sender uses this public key
to encrypt the data, and the recipient uses their "private" key to
decode the message. As Zimmerman was finishing his program, he heard about a
proposed Senate bill to ban cryptography. This prompted him to release his
program for free, hoping that it would become so popular that its use could not
be stopped. One of the original users of PGP posted it to an Internet site,
where anyone from any country could download it, causing a federal investigator
to begin investigating Phil for violation of this new law. As with any new
technology, this program has allegedly been used for illegal purposes, and the
FBI and NSA are believed to be unable to crack this code. When told about the
illegal uses of him programs, Zimmerman replies: "If I had invented an
automobile, and was told that criminals used it to rob banks, I would feel bad,
too. But most people agree the benefits to society that come from automobiles --
taking the kids to school, grocery shopping and such -- outweigh their
drawbacks." (Levy 56). Currently, PGP can be downloaded from MIT. They have
a very complicated system that changes the location on the software to be sure
that they are protected. All that needs to be done is click "YES" to
four questions dealing with exportation and use of the program, and it is there
for the taking. This seems to be a lot of trouble to protect a program from
spreading that is already world wide. The government wants to protect their
ability to legally wiretap, but what good does it do them to stop encryption in
foreign countries? They cannot legally wiretap someone in another country, and
they sure cannot ban encryption in the U.S. The government has not been totally
blind to the need for encryption. For nearly two decades, a government sponsored
algorithm, Data Encryption Standard (DES), has been used primarily by banks. The
government always maintained the ability to decipher this code with their
powerful supercomputers. Now that new forms of encryption have been devised that
the government can't decipher, they are proposing a new standard to replace DES.
This new standard is called Clipper, and is based on the "public key"
algorithms. Instead of software, Clipper is a microchip that can be incorporated
into just about anything (Television, Telephones, etc.). This algorithm uses a
much longer key that is 16 million times more powerful than DES. It is estimated
that today's fastest computers would take 400 billion years to break this code
using every possible key. (Lehrer 378). "The catch: At the time of
manufacture, each Clipper chip will be loaded with its own unique key, and the
Government gets to keep a copy, placed in escrow. Not to worry, though the
Government promises that they will use these keys to read your traffic only when
duly authorized by law. Of course, to make Clipper completely effective, the
next logical step would be to outlaw other forms of cryptography
(Zimmerman)." "If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy.
Intelligence agencies have access to good cryptographic technology. So do the
big arms and drug traffickers. So do defense contractors, oil companies, and
other corporate giants. But ordinary people and grassroots political
organizations mostly have not had access to affordable "military
grade" public-key cryptographic technology. Until now. PGP empowers people
to take their privacy into their own hands. There's a growing social need for
it. That's why I wrote it (Zimmerman)." The most important benefits of
encryption have been conveniently overlooked by the government. If everyone used
encryption, there would be absolutely no way that an innocent bystander could
happen upon something they choose not to see. Only the intended receiver of the
data could decrypt it (using public key cryptography, not even the sender can
decrypt it) and view its contents. Each coded message also has an encrypted
signature verifying the sender's identity. The sender's secret key can be used
to encrypt an enclosed signature message, thereby "signing" it. This
creates a digital signature of a message, which the recipient (or anyone else)
can check by using the sender's public key to decrypt it. This proves that the
sender was the true originator of the message, and that the message has not been
subsequently altered by anyone else, because the sender alone possesses the
secret key that made that signature. "Forgery of a signed message is
infeasible, and the sender cannot later disavow his signature(Zimmerman)."
Gone would be the hate mail that causes many problems, and gone would be the
ability to forge a document with someone else's address. The government, if it
did not have alterior motives, should mandate encryption, not outlaw it. As the
Internet continues to grow throughout the world, more governments may try to
impose their views onto the rest of the world through regulations and
censorship. It will be a sad day when the world must adjust its views to conform
to that of the most prudish regulatory government. If too many regulations are
inacted, then the Internet as a tool will become nearly useless, and the
Internet as a mass communication device and a place for freedom of mind and
thoughts, will become non existent. The users, servers, and parents of the world
must regulate themselves, so as not to force government regulations that may
stifle the best communication instrument in history. If encryption catches on
and becomes as widespread as Zimmerman predicts it will, then there will no
longer be a need for the government to meddle in the Internet, and the biggest
problem will work itself out. The government should rethink its approach to the
censorship and encryption issues, allowing the Internet to continue to grow and
mature.

Bibliography
Emler-Dewitt, Philip. "Censoring Cyberspace: Carnegie Mellon's Attempt
to Ban Sex from it's Campus Computer Network Sends A Chill Along the Info
Highway." Time 21 Nov. 1994; 102-105. Lehrer, Dan. "The Secret
Sharers: Clipper Chips and Cypherpunks." The Nation 10 Oct. 1994; 376-379.
"Let the Internet Backlash Begin." Advertising Age 7 Nov. 1994; 24.
Levy, Steven. "The Encryption Wars: is Privacy Good or Bad?" Newsweek
24 Apr. 1995; 55-57. Miller, Michael. "Cybersex Shock." PC Magazine 10
Oct. 1995; 75-76. Wilson, David. "The Internet goes Crackers."
Education Digest May 1995; 33-36. Zimmerman, Phil. (1995). Pretty Good Privacy
v2.62, [Online]. Available Ftp: net-dist.mit.edu Directory: pub/pgp/dist File:
Pgp262dc.zip