People have interesting ideas about digital networks. They want their personal profiles to be protected. They don't want their credit card numbers sold, their personal files hacked, or their identities stolen. When exchanging personal information online, they expect the website to meet certain standards of encryption to prevent the data from being stolen. When information does get stolen, they expect the vendor to have resources and obligations to compensate and restore them back to their original state. Now the only way for these things to be secured is through structure. There have to be rules, there have to be ways of monitoring whether those rules are being followed, and there have to be ways to respond to infringements of them. These rules and the enforcement of them designate an implied government.
At the same time, though, people often want the internet to be an anarchy. They want the internet to be where they say what they want to say, show what they want to show, and do what they want to do...even if those things are not always legal in the physical environment. The idea of some authoritative police moderating that self-freedom is repulsive. When legislation like SOPA or PIPA is proposed some legitimately express concern over unintended consequences, however I have noticed a great amount of hostility simply at the idea of government involvement of any sort.
Perhaps there is a logical explanation to these two very real desires that seem to be at odds with one another. It might just be preservation of self-interest. It appears that people are fiercely in support of the measures that protect them, and fiercely opposed to the measures that protect others from them. People don't want their credit cards stolen, but they also don't want to stop their illegal torrenting.
This is an interesting dilemma. I think that in the next few years we will continue to hear more of this debate. Security is always an issues and recent advances in the net neutrality movement will kindle the fires of debate.
ReplyDelete