Slashdot Mirror
Who Controls the Internet?
Graeme Williams writes " Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World is a frustrating book.
You'll stumble across something on every second page which will infuriate you, but it's also true that almost every page discusses an important legal case, raises an interesting question, or presents an important problem. By describing recent Internet cases and the international legal environment in which they have been resolved, Goldsmith and Wu have illuminated an area which deserves clear and systematic analysis. But the Internet is not a unitary thing to be controlled, and the authors don't clearly distinguish its various protocols and services." Read the rest of Graeme's review.
Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World
author
Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu
pages
xii + 226
publisher
Oxford University Press
rating
4
reviewer
Graeme Williams
ISBN
0195152662
summary
An excellent question with an imperfect answer
Disclaimer: This is a book about the law. I'm not a lawyer, although I am an Australian living in the United States who has sent email from China, all of which are relevant to this book.
Goldsmith and Wu's focus and principal conclusion is (p 180): "What we have seen, time and time again, is that physical coercion by government — the hallmark of a traditional legal system — remains far more important than anyone expected.". The situations and cases in Who Controls the Internet? clearly prove their point. They demonstrate that national laws are important to large companies like Yahoo!, but I don't think they prove their case with respect to individuals on the Internet.
The first part of the book, "The Internet Revolution", does an excellent job summarizing the early development of the Internet, including the extravagant claims of the early Internet and the Internet boom. People said some crazy things. Did John Perry Barlow really write (p 20), "I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind". Ouch!
The authors put a lot of emphasis on the importance of control of the root authority, but I'm not convinced. It's true that the the right to register domain names within a particular top-level domain (like .com or .tv) means that one company rather than another will make a lot of money, and it's certainly important to countries like Burindi how much of the revenue from its .bi domain they keep, but what about this from later in the book (p 168):
As lawyers, Goldsmith and Wu do an excellent job summarizing some important legal cases. On October 20, 2000, Barron's published, on a web site in New Jersey, an article accusing an Australian billionaire, Joseph Gutnick, of tax evasion and money laundering. Gutnick sued Barron's in Australian court and won. Comparing the libel laws of the US and Australia, Goldsmith and Wu say (pp151 - 152):
On page 158, Goldsmith and Wu summarize their agreement with the outcome of Gutnick:
Another theme of the book is that governments are not just necessary and effective, but also legitimate (p 153):
Goldsmith and Wu convincingly lose the argument about legitimacy when they discuss music copyright (pp 105ff). My issue with their point of view is that copyright is (or should be) a balance between the rights of the user and the copyright owner. If I buy a music CD, I believe I own it, and I should be able to transfer it to my PC or my iPod without the interference of a legally arbitrary DRM mechanism. Goldsmith and Wu mention only one side of this equation, the rights of the copyright holder. Whatever the legal analysis, Goldsmith and Wu are surely wrong about the popularity of pirated music (p 123): "A minority, the Slashdotters, with all the time and expertise in the world, have disappeared into darknets, and won't pay for music."
So why bother with this book it all (and why give it a four and not a zero)? Lawrence Lessig, who knows a smidgen more than I do about Internet Law, says this:
You can purchase Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Disclaimer: This is a book about the law. I'm not a lawyer, although I am an Australian living in the United States who has sent email from China, all of which are relevant to this book.
Goldsmith and Wu's focus and principal conclusion is (p 180): "What we have seen, time and time again, is that physical coercion by government — the hallmark of a traditional legal system — remains far more important than anyone expected.". The situations and cases in Who Controls the Internet? clearly prove their point. They demonstrate that national laws are important to large companies like Yahoo!, but I don't think they prove their case with respect to individuals on the Internet.
The first part of the book, "The Internet Revolution", does an excellent job summarizing the early development of the Internet, including the extravagant claims of the early Internet and the Internet boom. People said some crazy things. Did John Perry Barlow really write (p 20), "I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind". Ouch!
The authors put a lot of emphasis on the importance of control of the root authority, but I'm not convinced. It's true that the the right to register domain names within a particular top-level domain (like .com or .tv) means that one company rather than another will make a lot of money, and it's certainly important to countries like Burindi how much of the revenue from its .bi domain they keep, but what about this from later in the book (p 168):
For the Net to work — for computers all over the world to be able to communicate with one another — the root authority must reliably correlate IP addresses with domain names and uniquely match up both with a particular computer.It seems to me that Goldsmith and Wu are confusing the legal authority with the technical mechanism behind the domain name system. Computers all over the world communicate using IP addresses. Domain names are an important convenience, but only a convenience. Also, I'm not sure the authors appreciate the role of local (ISP) DNS resolvers as a cut-out between the user and the root. If the United States government turned off the root server, Comcast has a big financial incentive to make sure that my service isn't interrupted.
As lawyers, Goldsmith and Wu do an excellent job summarizing some important legal cases. On October 20, 2000, Barron's published, on a web site in New Jersey, an article accusing an Australian billionaire, Joseph Gutnick, of tax evasion and money laundering. Gutnick sued Barron's in Australian court and won. Comparing the libel laws of the US and Australia, Goldsmith and Wu say (pp151 - 152):
It reflects deeper disagreements between the United States and Australia about the processes that best secure truth, and about the relative value of robust speech versus reputation and uninhibited debate versus order.When did uninhibited debate become the polar opposite of "order"? In the US, the libel laws are limited by the First Amendment. In Australia, the libel laws are limited by what the people in power think they can get away with. It's perfectly reasonable to compare the libels laws of the United States with those in Australia, but it doesn't make sense to assume that the differences reflect something intrinsic about the preferences of the people in each country.
On page 158, Goldsmith and Wu summarize their agreement with the outcome of Gutnick:
Since Barron's chose to continue to do business in Australia, its consumers in the United States and Japan cannot legitimately expect to receive news from Barron's that runs afoul of Australian law.But earlier in the book (p 1!), they discuss a suit in French court against Yahoo's auction site for selling Nazi memorabilia. There they argue that Internet companies should apply the laws of each country only to users in that country, through the magic of geo-coding. So which is it? Can a US web site avoid being subject to Australian courts by tailoring content to Australian subscribers versus others? What if its geocoding algorithm isn't perfect? What if a US subscriber visits Australia? What if an Australian subscriber visits the United States?
Another theme of the book is that governments are not just necessary and effective, but also legitimate (p 153):
Even acknowledging that in places that in places like China the laws will often not reflect the wishes of people who live there, differences among laws in the many democratic governments in the world ... are presumptively legitimate.Arguably, there are more "places like China" than there are "many democratic governments". And it's common for laws not to reflect the wishes of the majority. But the biggest problem is with the presumption that laws can achieve legitimacy through democratic government. I prefer the presumption that individuals have rights, and that the legitimacy of the law flows from those rights
Goldsmith and Wu convincingly lose the argument about legitimacy when they discuss music copyright (pp 105ff). My issue with their point of view is that copyright is (or should be) a balance between the rights of the user and the copyright owner. If I buy a music CD, I believe I own it, and I should be able to transfer it to my PC or my iPod without the interference of a legally arbitrary DRM mechanism. Goldsmith and Wu mention only one side of this equation, the rights of the copyright holder. Whatever the legal analysis, Goldsmith and Wu are surely wrong about the popularity of pirated music (p 123): "A minority, the Slashdotters, with all the time and expertise in the world, have disappeared into darknets, and won't pay for music."
So why bother with this book it all (and why give it a four and not a zero)? Lawrence Lessig, who knows a smidgen more than I do about Internet Law, says this:
It is time that America learn an important lesson about the Internet — that however cyber the space is, it is also real, and subject to real space governments. This is the very best work to make this fundamental point. Goldsmith and Wu have made understandable and accessible an argument political culture should have realized a decade ago.The book describes an important period, and arguably an important phase change, in Internet history. It raises important questions. I just don't necessarily like the answers.
You can purchase Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
It is amazing to me that we have gotten this far without *more* control over the Internet. It is human nature to want to control or stop things you do not agree with. Look at the lengths the Chinese government will go to keep people from speaking their mind. Still, after all of these years, outside of these totalitarian countries I can speak my mind, be heard and not worry that I will see men in black that will carry me away.
Windows Admin Tools
Skynet controls the internet... haven't they seen the documentary "Terminator 3"?
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
The Internet is owned by Henry Van Staten.
In Soviet Russia you dant have to put up with these crappy jokes
Al Gore "created" the Internet. That does not mean he "controls" the Internet.
It is time that America learn an important lesson about the Internet -- that however cyber the space is, it is also real, and subject to real space governments. This is the very best work to make this fundamental point. Goldsmith and Wu have made understandable and accessible an argument political culture should have realized a decade ago.
An issue that can never be controlled, contained, adjusted, curtailed, etc., has to do with liberties. Take China for example; China has the most strict "filtering" (for lack of better terms) when it comes to content. They dictate what they want their people to see. No matter if its right or wrong, these are their laws and no other government has the right to impose their will on China. Same goes for the United States and other countries.
By throwing up a governing body to maintain a "control" over the Internet, would be a ballsy move on any governing body. These can lead to all sorts of wars whether its an economic war, political war, technological war, and so on.
Infiltrated dot Net
Who controls the interweb?
The Stonecutters. (We do! We do!)
it's dan quayle... obviously if he coined the term "internet" then he owns it...
although I am an Australian living in the United States who has sent email from China
That's a rather awkward chain of communication. He's a One Man Onion Router.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
You mean that crazy dude I found on the streets San Diego? Or was it Seattle, Sacramento... someplace beginning with "S..."
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Are Belong to Us?
-Izrun
Talk of the nation, may 26
Cmdrtaco
I bought the Internet for $29.99 after rebates.
Please add me to your newsletter.
Don't anthropomorphize computers: they hate that.
In Soviet Russia, the internet controls you.
"Master Blaster." Louder... "MASTER BLASTER!"
In the ninth doctor episode 'Dalek' we learned that Henry van Statten controlled the internet.
Auron may be different, Cally, but on Earth it is considered ill-mannered to kill your friends while committing suicide.
At /. the internet controls you.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
Isn't it our Internet overlords? And I, for one, welcome them.
Opps. Sorry, that's Barter-Town.
I don't see why people have such a hard time understanding the internet. It's similar to the global transporation system. There are many methods of transportation around the world: air, rail, water, roadways, and various combinations therewith. There is no singular authority controlling them, however, there are independent authorities that must work together to make transporation possible. Generally, like in the U.S, government is only a regulatory authority. In some countries, transporation mechanisms are actually state-owned.
In the U.S, roadways are "owned" by the state. The Eisenhower Interstate Highway System is subsidized by the federal government to promote interstate transporation. As a result, the federal government regulates interstate roadway travel. They routinely hold funding of this system hostage to strong-arm states into submission regarding various issues.
The various rail systems are owned by the private companies that built them. This is probably a clearer illustration of how the internet works. My guess is that you would have to pay to build a depot or stop somewhere along that rail. You would then have to pay another fee to run your own train on a given route. You may have to pay multiple companies if you need to travel on a section of railway owned by another company. In addition, you may have to pay additional charges based on the number of cars you pull AND the contents. All the while, nearly every aspect is regulated by local, state, and federal governments. Fun times.
I realize this is an oversimplification, but I don't see why people get so uppity about regulation and corporate control of the internet. Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken this long for the idea of a tiered system to come up. Now that the net has become ubiquitous in most of the free world, it was only a matter of time. I'm not saying it's good or bad; it doesn't really matter. Whether you like it or not, the current internet/web is a result of private enterprise and no one should expect to get it for free or unregulated.
Sometimes, I wish the whole thing would just die. If the net is tiered and Google has to pay a surcharge on traffic, you can bet your bottom dollar that Google will start charging you for searches. They will come up with some way to offset the cost. We all know who loses in the end.
People who understand the technical side of the internet control the internet.
People who do not understand the technical side of the internet keep asking who controls the internet because they need a person they can refer to and (eventually) threaten to hand the control over to them.
But as soon they (might) get that control they'll lose it again because they still don't understand it.
They will remain visitors or, better, guests who point with fingers and keep asking who is in charge of something they don't like. I use to throw such guests out of the door.
End of story.
to actually believe that crock of bull "the Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." I think a few Chinese and Egyptian bloggers would find something morbidly out of touch with that utopian view of things.
"I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind".
/. , the new home of the 'Slacker'!
Well, I come from
(ducks)
What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
No matter how hard may wish for it, the /. polls move at their own pace (speed has previously been clocked between glacial and tectonic, but there is a lot of randomness to it). It's useless to try and make them move any faster.
Though, to be quite honest, "breasts" might be a somewhat appropriate poll choice, assuming that it is (they are?) as stand in for the porn industry.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Or, at least, I decide what part(s) of the internet to show on my screen, what apps to view them with, and in what format they're presented. That's enough "control" for me. Damn bloody shame there are power-mongers in the world who feel the need for more than that.
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
He Man, Master of the Universe controls the Internet!
server gnomes control the internet.
We don't but we could. We use phone numbers all the time now. We just need some more open source software. How about a peer-to-peer DNS service?
Did John Perry Barlow really write (p 20), "I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind". Ouch!
He really did: A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. The whole thing reads the same as that one snippet. When he wrote about "the global social space we are building", do you think he meant MySpace?
Who Controls the Internet?
The Juggernaut, bitch!
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
I thought it was Dan Quayle
I'm curious whether the book discusses the fact that the Internet, and computers in general, have all been developed almost exclusively at public expense for most of their lifetimes, and by all rights should remain in the public sector.
"As Andrew L Shapiro, a contributing editor of the Nation, wrote in July, 1995: ``You probably didn't notice, but the Internet was sold a few months ago. Well, sort of. The US Federal Government has been gradually transferring the backbone of the US portion of the global computer network to companies such as IBM and MCI as part of a larger plan to privatize cyberspace. But the crucial step was taken on April 30, 1995, when the National Science Foundation shut down its part of the Internet, which began in the 1970s as a Defence Department communications tool. That left the corporate giants in charge....''
The telecommunication infrastructure was largely created at Government initiative for about 30 years, including both hardware and software, then handed over to private corporations in 1995. It is true that so-called `private' corporations (meaning, profit is privatized, though cost and risk are largely socialized) were often instrumental in R&D, but typically under Government contract. The basic ideas came from the public sector, as did the funding. That includes the Web, designed at CERN, but in the US the public contribution was overwhelming, as in the case of computers and electronics generally, in fact most of high tech. The system was run by the Pentagon, later the National Science Foundation (NSF). The real question should be the opposite: Why should private corporations be granted a huge gift by the public (which is unaware that it has done so)."
http://www.hinduonnet.com/businessline/2000/07/25
... just with the flip of a switch. Talk about power. Mwahahaha!
of a scene from american dad. *Stan Smith walks into a sci-fi convention, sees all the geeks* "Good God!...Who's manning the internet?!"
...all cock-blockery aside...
pay up.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
... was legalize Spam.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I control Inter-Net, and I always have.
No matter who owns it, only Netcraft can confirm when it dies.
This is my sig. There are thousands more, but this one is mine.
I do! I have it on 3 CDs here at my desk. You can get the expanded version on DVD too I hear.
Just one word: NOBODY .
That's precisely the point. In the event of a worldwide, thermonuclear war, the Internet and the citizens in "disconnected" contries would still be able to communicate with each other, to rebuild their lives and their communities.
Nobody controls the Internet, and yet everybody does. That's the point.
Yoda controls the fucking internet.
Good point, because there hasn't been any growth of the Internet since 1995 when the government handed the Internet we paid for over to those private corporations.
Things were better then.
Kaiser Soze?
It's all about root
... who controls the internet. We will just upgrade to Web 2.0. It's so much fancier...
Save yourself $3.92 by buying the book here: Who Controls the Internet?. And if you use the "secret" A9.com Instant Reward discount, you can save an extra 1.57%! That's a total savings of $4.21, or 19.07%!
If the net is tiered and Google has to pay a surcharge on traffic, you can bet your bottom dollar that Google will start charging you for searches. They will come up with some way to offset the cost. We all know who loses in the end.
Money is moved from one persons pocket to another. One of the merits of an efficient market is that costs are allocated to those who benefit.
[Google|insert name of corporate] makes money - benefits. If they think a faster response earns them more than the cost of being faster, they will pay, otherwise not. This is like the google pricing algorithm.
[tinfoil hat]There is not a great net loss until the beneficiary (payee) is not human - Kurzweil thinks the first AI intelligences will emerge around 2025[/tinfoil hat]
I'm not a doctor, but I am hungry, and my shirt has blue stripes.
$META_SIG_JOKE
I don't really like this comment "In Soviet Russia you dant have to put up with these crappy jokes". Person who wrote it probably don't even know that there are no more soviet russia. Moreover, there was no internet during soviet russia. I think that america should share internet with the world a little bit. :)