Should the Internet be Policed?

[himemiya1650]

No way in hell. To have internet police means there needs to be an internet government, internet laws and ultimately internet taxes. AND NOBODY LIKES TAXES.

 

[Zipa]

Certain aspects should be cracked down on without mercy (child porn and that kind of shit ) but the internet should not be policed or owned by any greedy corporation just so they can increase their profit margin (EA Activision Nintendo looking at you)

The internet does not and should not belong to anyone or any company, it is a resource for everyone.

 

[Dr. Pepper Unlimited]

The police already use the internet, they don't need any power over it.

Right here. This is exactly the answer. Police agencies already use the internet for research, to find suspects and already follow through when illegal activity does happen/is found on the internet. That is how it is now and that is how it should stay.

Giving an agency, whether it be the police or someone else, the authority to monitor and control one of the last safe spots for free speech is just asking to have it come back and bit them in the ass. The internet belongs to everyone in the world, not a single, or even a multitude, of agencies.

 

[Burst6]

Edit: before I get flamed, I'd just like to add that if some highly regulated compromise between the metaphorical black and whites couldn't be found (in other words, one providing nearly limitless freedom, but just flagged things like CP and hacktivists, then I'd sooner have the internet as it exists today.

Here's the problem though. Imagine assassins creed. Imagine that ubisoft added a new enemy that looks like everyone else, and acts like everyone else, and usually sneaks around in large crowds. When he gets close to you he steals something from you. The animation that something was stolen from you is very subtle and you probably won't notice it until you see that you lost something.

There are no arrows showing you where he is, all you know is that someone in that crowd has something of yours.

What can you do? You can't really do much other than be more careful.

 

[JesterRaiin]

Internet should be splitted on at least four divisions :
- Government
- Business
- News
- Playground

And that's all.
You're in the Playground, do whatever you want. Be anonymous, play, have fun, troll.
You're in News, behave. Be polite, or risk the wrath of banhammer.
You're in business - do the business. Use real credentials, e-signature, such stuff.
You're in gov... WHY THE HELL ARE YOU EVEN HERE ?

Simplicity.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm pretty sure all those things you listed are illegal in most jurisdictions and are enforced to a certain extent, however there's only a certain amount the resource limited police can concentrate their energy on and often more serious real world crimes are higher priority. Internet crimes aren't easy to prosecute either even if you go to the effort of tracking the perps down either, as in most courts an IP address isn't enough evidence for a conviction so forensics are needed, pushing up the costs further. I'm going to be honest here and say the only one of those crimes you listed that I really think is worth tracking down is the CP. I have no love for pirates or hackers, but I don't think their crimes are normally worth spending our taxes to find, unless they've been stealing real money I suppose.

Indeed, which is why the internet police are impractical and unrealistic.

I don't like pedos getting away with posting kiddies in questionable situations or hackers getting away with my credit card. But these ARE already crimes, and already difficult to enforce. Expansion of law enforcement sort of makes sense, but we don't practically have the resource.

And the original post plays it up as though these things aren't crimes, when generally speaking they are.

Also, in the real world, many crimes aren't readily enforced. In fact, they're less enforced than some cyber crimes, because of issues like logistics and severity. I mean, we did have "SWAT" called in on at least a couple members of lulzsec. And boy, were their mommies pissed.

But they don't get away with it because the police are okay with it, or even the general internet. It's virtually impossible to stop these crimes, or even to follow most of them.

 

[DEAD34345]

Definitely not. In the real world, we have to have some form of policing and we have to limit some of our freedoms in order to protect other ones. We can't have both the right to not be murdered, and the right to kill people, for example. On the internet though, no *real* harm can come to anyone. It's the one place where almost complete freedom is actually possible, why would we want to ruin that?

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I quite like the lawlessness of the internet, despite the evils it can sometimes bring into the real world. It makes it a place where one can voice opposition without much fear. Discussion of ideas you would normally not talk about in a real life situation. Dunno, would really change the way I'd act on the internet. I'd probably have a lot less fun.

 

[NerdElf]

No, the internet has to stay like it is now. No more censorship or whatever bullshit. The internet was created for people to anonymously interact with each other, a police would be devastating, and ruin our last bit of freedom in the world.
Also, the websites where illegal stuff happens are the websited people don't generally visit.

 

[Jodah]

No but seriously even if policing it was a good idea the practical aspects of it make it impossible. Cost, different legal systems, different laws, jurisdiction, interpretation of law...I could go on and on. The internet is the last truly free open forum. To start giving government control over it is a sign that Democracy is on the way out.

snip

You could start killing everyone and desyncronize!

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

What is also funny is the fact that even though we only have the "luxury" of presenting out thoughts to other people without "the man" shutting us up for a short period of time, some people think that it's wrong and we shouldn't be able to do that. Fuck those people.

I'm pretty sure all those things you listed are illegal in most jurisdictions and are enforced to a certain extent

Indeed, which is why the internet police are impractical and unrealistic.

And the original post plays it up as though these things aren't crimes, when generally speaking they are.

But they don't get away with it because the police are okay with it, or even the general internet. It's virtually impossible to stop these crimes, or even to follow most of them.

I think you're all misunderstanding exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about a big censorship/surveillance initiative with a bunch of "cybercops" dedicated to spying on and censoring citizens like in China. You're all very quick to jump to that conclusion, that any attempts to clean up the Internet is inevitably part of some Orwellian conspiracy.

What I'm suggesting is very simple: laying down a legal and technical framework to facilitate proper policing of the internet. By which I mean making the catching and prosecuting of serious cybercriminals a practical, achievable task. The goal is to make it possible for cops to do their job online.

There's just a few things that could make a big difference:
*Proper regulations on the use of proxy servers and file-sharing sites (not necessarily total deanonymisation, but a way to record information so that it can be accessed with a court order)
*Inclusion of computer crimes into standard international law, giving the United Nations International Criminal Court the power to convict cybercriminals in any jurisdiction.
*Special transport layer protocols that the police can use (once they have a warrant) to collect evidence from someone's computer remotely, akin to a wire tap.
*Most importantly, a way to circumvent data encryption. One of the biggest problems with convicting cybercriminals is that they tend to use full drive encryption. Which means there is essentially no way to collect any evidence of a crime without their password. And since there are laws against self-incrimination, it means the police are pretty much fucked. And nowadays, most external harddrives actually come with encryption software included. So police just have to hope their targets aren't smart enough to use this new technology.

 

[Antari]

The better question to ask yourself is CAN the internet be policed?

 

[Silas13013]

The better question to ask yourself is CAN the internet be policed?

^^ This. How do you propose to police the internet? There isn't a way to do it without a massive crackdown and the public won't stand for that.

 

[Sparrow]

The better question to ask yourself is CAN the internet be policed?

I think this kind of sums the thread up. Is it possible? How do we know such power couldn't be abused? How would we police such a thing - some kind of three strike system before your internet is turned off forever? We really need to answer such questions before we can say if it's right or wrong to do so.

 

[manic_depressive13]

The internet is policed... Whether it's policed effectively is a different matter. Also your proposal is nonsensical. No and a thousand times no.

 

[Wulfheri]

Internet should be splitted on at least four divisions :
- Government
- Business
- News
- Playground

And that's all.
You're in the Playground, do whatever you want. Be anonymous, play, have fun, troll.
You're in News, behave. Be polite, or risk the wrath of banhammer.
You're in business - do the business. Use real credentials, e-signature, such stuff.
You're in gov... WHY THE HELL ARE YOU EVEN HERE ?

Simplicity.

I like this idea, but who is going to pay for playground. If it's not commercial ...

In my opinion anarchy is the most wonderfull thing of the internet and I think there should be always exist a place where total freedom(with everything from troll to hatemail to political activism) is guaranteed.

 

[Helloo]

You're assuming that cyber crimes do not go unpunished. There have been many cases where people have been jailed for what they've posted on the internet.

For example, a number of people in England were found guilty when creating Facebook groups inciting more riots.

Not to mention all the hacking cases.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think you're all misunderstanding exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about a big censorship/surveillance initiative with a bunch of "cybercops" dedicated to spying on and censoring citizens like in China. You're all very quick to jump to that conclusion, that any attempts to clean up the Internet is inevitably part of some Orwellian conspiracy.

Since I was quoted in that, I have to wonder if you even read what I said before you included me in "you're all" since I said LITERALLY NOTHING to that effect, but I'm lumped in there anyway.

It's funny, as I was talking about the things you were railing against already being illegal and criminally enforced when possible, even citing Lulzsec. You know, contrary to your claims.

But nowhere did I say or even imply an Orwellian origanisation in terms of thought police. I was addressing precisely what you were talking about, these crimes that are actually policed on the internet. By police. Funny that.

However, since you brought me into it, I will point out that you jumped from that notion, which is admirable but misinformed, to "why is regulation bad?" And "Why do people oppose regulation?"

Well, that's a horse of a different colour, and if people are bringing up Orwellian sentiments in response, then it is well-deserved.

First, the major point:

These crimes are already crimes. Regulation does not make anything you described a crime, as it is already a crime.

Actually, let's put in a second major point:

These crimes are already enforced to the limits of practicality. Regulation does not change enforcement as they are already enforced.

Now, I'll try to lay off the bold for a while and I apologize for the redundancy in the statements, but it seems these things needed to be stated, redundantly or otherwise.

Generally, regulation of the internet has been opposed and viewed as bad because it imposes actual censorship and infringement upon legal things like free speech. SOPA is, for example, trying to follow the China/Iranian model of the internet. You know, fairly Orwellian. when you're asking why this sort of thing is a bad thing, it's no wonder people jump to the conclusion that you want thought police out there. You know, since that's what a lot of the regulation does.

Similarly, many of these bills give more power to the companies that control them. Not actual better enforcement or more policing, but more rights, rights that are not allowed in the analogous real world. As you were comparing the real world to the cyberworld before, I'm going to take the bold step and assume you actually meant it to be a fair comparison. In said comparison, you could be made a felon for singing happy birthday at a birthday party, under the SOPA legislation.

Do you understand the body of "regulation" you're asking about? If so, I have trouble believing you don't understand the opposition, or why you would think it has more to do with your initial argument than the Orwellian one you're railing against.

The DMCA didn't make it any easier to catch pirates, but it did make law-abiding citizens into criminals if they exercised their right to fair use. SOPA will turn them into felons. Felons, I might add, who can be attacked without due process or appeal.

Even the worst child molester, rapist or serial murderer gets a trial and due process; do you believe that someone who covers "happy birthday" or a file downloader deserves less due process than a child molester, rapist or serial murderer? Moreover, do you believe an ACCUSED copyright infringer, who may be innocent, deserves less due process than an accused child molester, etc. etc.?

Again, if Sony's HQ was broken into, even if wads of thousand dollar bills and paper trails of account information was discovered on the criminals, they would be given a fair trial and right to appeal.

Since this is already a long post, I'll sum it up briefly:

Policing on the internet as you propose is impractical, but it's already done. That's basically all I initially said. but since you brought up regulation and Orwellian themes, it seems you do not understand what legislation has been proposed, or you ARE supporting Orwellian measures. Not sure which. The above assumes the former, rather than the latter.

However, if you didn't name me for something I didn't say, I wouldn't have done even that.

Ironic, I guess, since you appear to support regulations that would allow such a misnaming to lead to people being labeled felons without appeal. Actually, that seems to be the crux of the matter here.

I hope you appreciate the irony here, and find this little novel informative. If you did not, however, you have nobody but yourself to blame, since you called me out for things I did not say.

 

[Wushu Panda]

-snip-
That's my opinion, anyway.
I'm interested to hear what you guys have to say, because I'm actually doing a thesis on this topic. So don't be afraid to disagree (as long as your counter-argument has a factual or logical basis).

no no no no no no no no no no no no

the internet should NOT be policed. Why?

because it is global. it has connected the world unlike anything that has ever existed. before the internet people only received information and knowledge from other countries by slow media. media which was censored, warped and filled with propaganda (WW II specifically). people had their mental images of foreigners screwed up so much people in Europe and Asia literally thought Americans were monsters crashing into their homes for the sole purpose of eating babies, and Americans pretty much thought the same of others.

it was a terrible time because media was being policed by governments. and you want to GO BACK!!??

to hell with that. people never REALLY began to understand one another until the internet was created. it allowed people on direct opposite sides of the Earth to communicate in REAL TIME to see that there are other people in foreign countries who are just like you out there. it allowed people to share scientific peer reviewed articles, music, books, video games, all sorts of technology research, etc.

if the internet becomes policed, all it will do is open up a new era for censorship and propaganda. if country does it, others WILL follow. countries will once again be shut off from one another, where do you think that will lead? how long before governments start banning content and breaking up sites that allow you to freely interact with others around the world...like this one. Youtube, facebook, google, forums, anything that contains free content is gone. the second the internet becomes policed is the second world progress comes to a screeching halt. "free flow of ideas" is going to be a story we tell our grandchildren about, just like VHS or cassette tapes.

EDIT: Just saw this article. techland.time.com [http://techland.time.com/2012/01/05/sopa-what-if-google-facebook-and-twitter-went-offline-in-protest/#ixzz1idW7PEZu] yeah, the beginning of the end.

 

[Something Amyss]

You're assuming that cyber crimes do not go unpunished. There have been many cases where people have been jailed for what they've posted on the internet.

For example, a number of people in England were found guilty when creating Facebook groups inciting more riots.

Not to mention all the hacking cases.

See, this was the point I was making, too. Cybercimes are crimes and are enforced. They don't catch everyone, but then, the same is true of physical crimes. It's the same over here, where people who threaten stuff on facebook tend to get visits from men in vehicles with blinky lights.