For the first time in 33 years the Real Time Club last week opened
its doors to a newspaper to report on one of its events. The
occasion was to debate fundamental issues about the role of
governments as the Internet revolution moves fully mainstream
The debate was attended by 95 people who will influence and shape
the thoughts of decision makers on this issue as it becomes more
widely discussed in the national media and government over the
coming months.
John Riley reports
The motion:
This house believes that "Control of the Internet by governments
is imperative for the well being of society"
The Real Time Club
The Real Time Club was formed in 1967 by a group of young
entrepreneurs who were then at the outset of distinguished careers
in information technology.
The original objective of the club was to put pressure on the
Post Office (which at that time controlled telecommunications) to
liberalise restrictive rules on data communications and to speed up
the provision of modems and lines for this purpose. This was soon
achieved, and the club then continued as a combination of social
organisation, business network, and occasional
thinktank-cum-pressure group in support of the use of ICT and of
the UK ICT industry. The club has given evidence to House of
Commons Select Committees on several occasions, either directly or
in writing.
Today, 32 years later, the club has a membership of about 150,
drawn from all sections of the UK ICT community - the industry
itself, users, academia, politics, the civil service, the City, and
the media. The club currently has three major "think-tank/pressure
group" interests in progress: education, finance, and quantum
computing.
FOR
Harold Thimbleby is Professor of Computing Research,
computing science department, Middlesex University. He is a
co-author of the Church of England's report on the Internet:
Cybernauts Awake! Ethical and Spiritual Implications of
Cyberspace
In every area of life where things happen - from midwifery to
MoTs - we recognise the need for statutory regulation, often with
penal sanctions to dissuade the inevitable criminal elements.
"The first point to make is that the Internet is already
controlled. Microsoft, AOL and others control, by their closed
programmes, what we do. They are not about to tell us details, as
the recent Microsoft/US Department of Justice case made clear.
"Governments already controls many aspects of Internet business,
too. It provides legal frameworks, such as contract law, which
enable businesses to function.
"A major benefit of government control is that you can go to
HMSO and get, for example, the health and safety regulations. If
you want to change it you can get involved with the political
processes of the country.
"The Internet has changed. When it started, cheap notions of
'free speech' flourished. By 'cheap', I mean ignoring the costs,
including political accountability. But the Internet now interacts
with the real world. For example, our pensions depend on
e-investment, and so on.
"In civilised societies, we have always needed regulation. After
much struggle, we have come to realise regulatory frameworks, such
as contract law, are best laid down by representative governments.
As individuals we co-regulate our activities within those
frameworks, designed within constitutional and human rights
safeguards.
"The only frameworks that can handle the scale and significance
- and temptations - of the worldwide Internet are governmental and
inter-governmental.
"You will all have been frustrated by the problems of using
computers. They're unreliable, and you have to keep upgrading to
get bugs fixed. In short, quality of service is atrocious.
"It's hard to think of another industry that cost consumers so
much, and that denies responsibility for quality. It's got to
change if the Internet is going to be successful, but it will not,
unless governments regulate it.
"Obsolescence leads to waste. We bury nearly a million tonnes of
electronics annually in the UK alone. Every computer bought is
another one buried. It isn't financially competitive to recycle,
yet we can't sustain this. It has taken a European Directive to
wake us up to such environmental issues. Only governments can
impose on industry priorities that are not in industry's short-term
interests, but which are for society's well-being.
Orel de Guzman's Lovebug did £6bn worth of damage in the UK, but
he can't be charged. There is no redress. This is an argument for
government regulation. Had he broken a law, and we had
jurisdiction, appropriate action would have been taken, and he'd
have been deterred by the probability of prosecution.
"Governments are our representatives, and the regulatory
frameworks they impose come from us, at least while we support
democracy. If they are not quite right, they can be revised. We
know they are going to adhere to fundamental principles: principles
of proportionality, separation of powers, due process, and so on.
Governmental control promotes public good.
Brian Paterson is head of the encryption co-ordination
unit, The Home Office
"A fundamental aim of government is to protect the safety of its
citizens. For that reason it is essential that governments should
certainly control abuse of the Internet.
"The Internet provides a huge opportunity for developing
economic wealth, but it also challenges the safety of its users and
of citizens as a whole.
"Lack of trust is a major inhibitor of growth in e-commerce. In
one international survey 26% of contributors identified lack of
trust as the most significant barrier to e-commerce. Government has
a duty to respond to this situation, both directly and by
encouraging the industry itself to take action.
"Criminals have been quick to take advantage of the new
opportunities provided by the Internet. For example, it is
estimated that 4% of the revenues of the tightest run dotcom
businesses are destroyed by fraud - up to 20% of others.
"The police see a possible association between use of the
Internet to collect paedophile images and physically abusive
behaviour.
"Some people have used the Internet to harass individuals
causing deep distress.
"Governments must respond to such things.
"For example, it is implementing the 'high tech crime strategy'
to ensure those reporting crime get a helpful and informed
response; working with the Internet Watch Foundation to deal with
criminal or harmful Web content; and collaborating with industry on
the Scheme kitemark for e-commerce trust services.
"Governments are also working to combat attacks on the
infrastructure of the Internet itself, such as hacking, denial of
service attacks, or viruses.
The Council of Europe, for example, is working to update the
legal framework within Europe, and in the UK the Computer Misuse
Act deals with hacking.
"Criminals also use the Internet to communicate so interception
is a key tool in our struggle to control some of the most serious
organised criminals in the UK.
"To sum up, the power of governments must always be constrained.
But within the framework of democratic accountability and the law,
including the Human Rights Act, government action is the only way
to protect your safety. Do those opposing the motion really want to
prevent the Rule of Law?
AGAINST
Tricia Drakes, chairwoman of the Internet Society of
England's Advisory Board and deputy master of the Worshipful
Company of Information Technologists
The Internet is for everyone, and besides, how can governments
regulate something that knows no national boundaries?
"We are still in the midst of the evolving Internet revolution
which is bringing fundamental, radical transformation in every area
of business and society," she continued. "However, the instinct for
governments is to take control through regulation. But the Internet
is a global revolution open to us all to contribute and any attempt
to hold it back threatens to stifle the good it can do for the
well-being of society.
"The Internet is everywhere, all of the time," she stressed.
"Its freedom has enabled it to thrive to produce positive
benefits everywhere - not just for business but for education,
social welfare and for society in general. This revolution still
has much further to go. However, governments, in their desire for
control, focus on the negative aspects of the Internet rather than
the positive. They argue from a position of ignorance - many
politicians and government officials do not really understand what
the Internet is about or how it works. Many do not even use it,"
she said. So how then can governments possibly control the Internet
for the well being of society?
"Regulation will only impede progress here. Attempts to regulate
e-business in any one country will drive new business away to
others that are not regulated. Attempts to regulate general
connectivity will affect us all and our civil rights. Even if
government censorship and control were the answer to prevent abuses
there is no guarantee that they would work, as the Internet is
global. Effectiveness would depend on international agreements
across global boundaries.
"There is a general ignorance about what is needed to ensure
that the Internet makes a positive contribution to society - none
of us know, least of all governments. We need a general,
fundamental, healthy debate by all involved in the Internet to help
mould what is needed to achieve this. Until we have a clearer idea
of what is possible and practical the role for governments is
unclear and there is no place for regulation."
Christine Maxwell is vice chair of the Internet
Society, founder of CHILIAD Inc, and creator of the Magellan online
directory.
"Until we lose our freedom we don't realise how valuable it is.
If government really did regulate the Internet, 99.99% of us would
live to regret letting it happen.
"Take, for example, the freedom to find a place to go to look up
government regulations themselves. How many go to Her Majesty's
Stationery Office for information and how many can much more easily
visit government Web sites. The Government has invested a huge
effort into putting up Web sites so millions of people can find out
things far more easily than they ever could before.
"However, this new freedom of information access opened up by
the Internet would be compromised by government regulation.
"Governments say that regulation will help promote trust for
e-commerce. Trust is very important for the Internet, but what do
we mean by it? How do we measure it? For example, surveys have
found that 26% of people in the UK say they lack trust in
e-commerce because of the security issues. However, according to
polls, 52% say they lack trust in Tony Blair!
"Laws are made to help. In a civilised society the framework of
law should never interfere with communications - that can only lead
towards the controls countries like Burma employ.
"The fundamental issue is that everyone has to be able to
understand the advantages of having access to the Internet.
Ultimately, good interface design can only be achieved when program
engineers are not asked to be good interface design engineers as
well. It has to be spread out beyond the computer engineers to
everyone. Lack of regulation encourages such a climate to flourish.
The last thing we want is for governments to control the Internet
infrastructure.
"The debate should be about the burdens of proof. The Internet
raises problems, such as hacking, but the real question is that
although we have the technology, to be effective regulation has to
be cost effective"
"The Government can control the Internet. For example, the
Financial Services Authority says that anything on the Internet to
do with finance can be viewed by them"
"People need to be protected from their own stupidity and from
believing the last thing they have been told"
"The Government's key role in a democracy is to reach a
consensus about the common good. What is the common good on the
Internet? We don't know because it is a new world order, but at
least we have the mechanism to reach it"
"Everyone says the RIP Act is there to control criminal
activity, but any criminal knows that all he has to do is
communicate directly with another to agreed times"
The result:
The motion was lost. Of the 95 debaters, 14 voted for the motion
and 45 against.