Eric Lausten's weblog

In the readings for last week’s class, a contrast was demonstrated between the views of Lawrence Lessig and those of David Post. Specifically, Lessig argues that the code of cyberspace is like the architecture of realspace - “the code of cyberspace is its constitution”. Since the government, through direct and indirect means, seeks to regulate the Internet, he argues that, as in realspace, we should strive to enshrine our values in that constitution: “constituional values should guide us in our design of this space.”

Post situates himself in “What Larry Doesn’t Get: Code, Law and Cyberspace”, as the title suggests, contrary to Lessig. Like the English language, he argues that “the contours of the language we speak are best made by individuals and not by collectives.” He believes that the direction of cyberspace is best left to the devices of individual choice, where “those values can best be protected by allowing the widest scope for uncoordinated and uncoerced individual choice among different values and different embodiments of those values.”

Perhaps, though, both are correct. Lessig does not propose (in this essay, at least) how a collective or vox populi is to be constituted. Should it be through a sort of constitutional convention, where some cyber-delegates are elected or appointed to represent the people, in some sort of republican process, or rather, through a direct democratic opportunity, such as a referendum or plebiscite? Similarly, Post does not suggest how the individual cyber-user choices directly affect the regulation (or lack thereof) or organization of the Internet.

Consider that the collective is the assemblege of the masses of cyber-users, and that their individual choices, taken together as a “sovereign”, are in essence their votes; their adherance to one service, code or provider as a form of association, that supports or discards a particular policy or regulation. Certainly, this is in a sense a democracy and not an anarchy, since there remains structure, architecture, social norms and other forms of regulation - the constraint of the code remains. Yet, while not in the traditional sense of realspace, through the amassing of individual choice, a collective is developed, and a constitution shaped. And maybe for the better, it is able to adapt and respond as the mass of individuals choose in a manner far more quickly than in realspace, and does not discriminate as to race, are or location.

It may be that the definition of democracy I propose here has blurred into that of the “market”. But as cyberspace is as much a collection of private space as it is public space, and the code the constitution or architecture, the collective individual choices of cyberusers affects that code in a manner consistent with their choices. Thus, as democracy is defined as a government by the people; especially, by the rule of the majority, it would be hard to argue that Lessig or Post are wrong, as to this extent, I would argue they are both right.

Posted by Eric at 09:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A common thread among certain early Internet pundits and scholars was a general disposition against government involvment in cyberspace. The basis for these positions varies from political positions, such as Barlow’s libertarian opposition to government intrusion, to beliefs that the government is unable to functionally exert authority there, as Spar and Bussgang contend. An underlying assumption here is that the government will act, at least primarily as an entity of enforcement, that it will act as an authority.

However, modern governments serve many roles, beyond just regulating and law enforcement. Other governments roles include defending and protecting people and property; providing education and services; supporting commerce, sciences and the arts; settling disputes; constructing infrastructure; and so forth. It was, in fact, through a combination of these roles that government birthed the Internet itself. It would be difficult to argue against governmental roles for any of these undertakings. Thus, the argument should not be whether the government belongs on the Internet but rather what role or roles it should have there.

Nonetheless, the Internet poses challenges to many traditional government services. Some functions are tangible and not suited to cyberspace (i.e. weapons, modes of transportation, energy production, wildlife protection). People require security in person and online. Many services have historically involved interpersonal interaction, requiring the adaptation of both programs and the beneficiary to new interfaces. System security is critical for the effectiveness and faith in interactions involving financial or personal information.

But where the government has and will excel is in the provision of services involving information. Indeed, there is no doubt that the government’s role as an information provider has grown exponentially with its adoption of the Internet. Demographics, economic statistics, environmental data are but a sample of what government can and does publish online. While some government information on the Internet, through press material, “spin”, information control or other methods, may ultimately be subjective, it should not undermine the greater wealth of objective data and information available on line.

Thinking back to the days before modern (or at least my) awareness and use of the Internet, such information often required the active and mobile pursuit of it in terrestrial locations - libraries, repositories, government offices. Much is now immediately proximate. Whereas immediate government information in the pre-Internet revolution days may have meant the appearance on TV of a vertical spectrum of color, a long monotone beep, and an announcement of “this is a test of the emergency broadcast system. If this had been an actual emergency, the Attention Signal you just heard would have been followed by official information, news or instructions…,” today’s services are inumberable.

While the debate on the government’s control, enforcement and regulation of the Internet will persist, there should be little doubt about the presence and role of the government in cyberspace. There is much good work that government can do there, and there should be a strong constituency to support and shape this presence.

Posted by Eric at 05:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)