The Communications Decency Act 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." (1) 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." (Cavazos 10) "Privacy plays a unique role in American law." (Cavazos 13) Privacy is not explicitly 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 15) 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 crime 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
After the horrendous terrorist attack on the New York Trade Center a new Bill was passed by congress shortly after September 11, 2004. This bill is known as The Domestic Security Enhancement Act also called Patriot Act 2. This bill was designed as a follow-up to the USA Patriot Act to work in increasing government surveillance, detention and other law enforcement powers while reducing basic checks and balances on such powers. By the beginning of the year 2003 a draft of the legislation was available. Amongst the most severe problems the bill diminishes personal privacy by removing checks on government power, diminishes public accountability by increasing government secrecy, and diminishes corporate accountability under the pretext of fighting terrorism. Also the bill undermines fundamental constitutional rights of Americans under overboard definitions of “terrorism” and “terrorist organization” or under a terrorism pretext. Furthermore, unfairly targets immigrants under the pretext of fighting terrorism. (http://www.aclu.org/Safeand Free/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206)
A controversial modern U.S. Supreme Court decision is the McCullen v. Coakley case. An initial ruling for this case in Massachusetts, “…has made it a crime for speakers to ‘enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk’ within 35 feet of an entrance, exit, or driveway of ‘a reproductive health care facility.’ The law applies only at abortion clinics…In effect, the law restricts the speech of only those who wish to use public areas near abortion clinics to speak about abortion from a different point of view” (American Bar Association). This decision in the case has called for it to be heard again by the U.S. Supreme court as it is now a question of (1) if it is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment, and (2) if a past decision in Hill v. Colorado permits this law and whether or not it should be overruled (American Bar Association).
The Patriot Act has been under scrutiny and opposition since its creation following 9/11. When 9/11 struck it was clear that Americas intelligence was lacking in some specific way, but it was translated that America needed greater allowance for gathering information. The Patriot Act was signed on October 26, 2001, very close to 9/11. It can be concluded that the Patriot Act was signed with such extreme ability’s applied, because of how close it was signed after 9/11. The Act Greatly expands the liberty’s if law enforcement in their efforts to gather information, which in turn imposes on the privacy of the American people. The FBI has the ability to study any citizen suspected of terrorism, and has access to all their information. Wire Taps and other invasive action are allowed and granted by the Patriot Act. Was the Patriot Act signed to quickly? Are its measures to extreme? When is the line drawn on how much power the government can have? Is the Patriot Act effective enough that it is necessary? Should we as Americans willing to trade freedom for safety? Can the Patriot Act effectively stop or hinder terrorist attacks; has its stopped enough attacks to be validated? Another question is does America want a government that has that much power, how much are we as Americans willing to sacrifice, and how much more liberty’s is the government going take. If the government can pass the patriot act, what other legislation can they pass? In reality it all comes down to the American people, we are democracy but do we have the power in are hands? When finding all these questions one asks do we need an act that is in fact this controversial? Is the Patriot Act a necessary evil? To find this answer we have to answer all the questio...
In the early part of the twentieth century, the general idea was that all Americans should have phone service. The other general idea regarding phone service was that the government should assist in promoting this as well. As a result of these general ideas the telecommunications industry became a natural monopoly. AT&T, which traces its routes to the founding of the telephone, promoted a Single Policy, Single System geared towards Universal Service. Thus by 1920, AT&T emerged as the dominant telecommunications company. Until 1934 AT&T was highly regulated by the states with price control per the government's request to protect consumers from abuses often associated with monopolies. The Telecommunications Act of 1934 created the Federal Communications Commission, which took regulation to the federal level.
Cyberspace is a new frontier for American courts. In the past, when faced with new situations, courts have analogized older laws into the new situations. However, due to the many unique qualities of the Internet, courts have had a difficult time determining how to apply prior law in the realm of cyberspace. In the United States, the ultimate framework of our laws is the United States Constitution. The Constitution, and most especially the Bill of Rights, has entered arenas that the founders could not have imagined. Today, courts know that they must apply the constitution to cyberspace, but the question remains: how is it to be applied? The District Court in U.S. v. Pataki devised an interesting solution to the constitutional problems of cyberspace, by using the Commerce Clause in a situation where at first blush, the First Amendment would seem to be the constitutional provision to apply.
Kids from the ages 10-17 who use the internet are exposed to very graphic sexual content (Gonzales). Essentially, every inappropriate picture or video you see of a child had a horrific story to go along with it. “They are images of graphic sexual and physical abuse-rape, sodomy and forced oral sex-of innocent children, sometimes even babies.” Said Gonzales. With technology improving, it is harder to do have consequences for people who commit a crime; they could clean out their hard drive and never be caught. Therefore, there should be stricter federal restrictions for the content on the Internet because of cybercriminals, internet pedophiles, and cyber bullying. (Gonzales)
Internet a bad name. There is also information on the Net that could be harmful
Domestic Surveillance Citizens feeling protected in their own nation is a crucial factor for the development and advancement of that nation. The United States’ government has been able to provide this service for a small tax and for the most part it is money well spent. Due to events leading up to the terrifying attacks on September 11, 2001 and following these attacks, the Unites States’ government has begun enacting certain laws and regulations that ensure the safety of its citizens. From the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 to the most recent National Security Agency scandal, the government has attempted and for the most part succeeded in keeping domestic safety under control. Making sure that the balance between obtaining enough intelligence to protect the safety of the nation and the preservation of basic human rights is not extremely skewed, Congress has set forth requisites in FISA which aim to balance the conflicting goals of privacy and security; but the timeline preceding this act has been anything but honorable for the United States government.
It is a PC law in the United States that on a very basic level assurances people and relationship against different people who wish to preference from an Internet space name or trademark that is extensively utilized by a business or brand. Going before the approbation of ACPA the lacking validity practice of enlisting the space name of an unmistakable business or brand and a brief while later attempting to offer it to an affiliation that for the most part participates under that name was normal. In a few delineations, the extent name was not offered available to be acquired, but rather the registrant still attempted
"In 2018 the internet is a vital part of people's everyday lives. Almost everyone has a smart phone glued to their side and is constantly surfing the web for information or using social media. Kids, teens and adults all use the internet for one reason or another. The rise of social media in recent years with websites like twitter, Instagram and Facebook has expanded internet use greatly. People use social media to share pictures and fun information about their lives. People also use the internet for endless purposes other than social media, like to read informative articles, looking up the weather, or searching for the newest viral video. The important question that has arose from this internet takeover is how much should the government monitor
"I don't really like these internet regulations because they want to cut off a lot of websites that many people like. In some ways I do get why there putting on internet regulations on. There is a lot of bad stuff on the internet like people doing bad stuff. Like this is a example of youtube, they had terrorist videos and people dying and they were putting ads and sponsored on the bad videos. So the ads and the sponsors don't go on youtube and the sponsors give money to youtube for there ads being on youtube and so they deleted their contract with youtube and so they don't get paid anymore.
Although I did not use this site as much as I used the other two
First, a newer operating system can deliver better access to input and output devices. With barcode scanners, inventory guns, computer demonstrators, and order processes all running as separate entities, a system such as Windows 2000 could integrate the entire package. The days of using one terminal to enter a customer sale, and yet another to create merchandise tags and still yet another to reconcile inventory could be over.
One thing that supporters of spreading internet freedom are also pushing is that governments completely rid themselves of trying to control the internet. Jeff Jarvis is arguably the strongest voice on this matter. Jarvis says that “governments are the single point of failure for the internet and thus for the public’s tool of empowerment.” (Jarvis) He further details that the internet does “not belong to government” and that it “belong(s) to the public, who are using them to claim their rights as the public.” (Jarvis) John Perry Barlow said in 1996 in his piece “Declaration of Independence for Cyberspace” that governments do not have any right to control what goes on on the internet and that “(government) has no moral right to rule us nor do
Users can access all files of the operating system in the File explorer. Files can be found in any drive and shown to the user.