Code Writers and Code Breakers: Institutional Versus Community Control in Cyber Spaces
Spencer Watson
When the internet first opened its ports to the public in the early 90s, it was presented as an anarchist paradise, free of restriction and control. In the “location” of cyberspace, an individual can exist without nationality, ethnicity, gender, social class, or disability. The user crafts a digital identity as they choose, and explores the web unbeholden to government regulation or other authority. To idealists, cyberspace is a zone of free communication and information free of oppressive control to marginalize ideas. Instead, control is wielded by the community of users. Al Gore proclaimed in a speech that freedom of information on the web would usher in a new age of Athenian democracy (Hamelink 116).
However, the internet is no longer the egalitarian society idealists envisioned, if it ever was. Control and regulation has become prevalent on the internet through commerce (by corporations), legislation (by governments), and changes in distribution of information on the web (by academia). These institutions now offer top-down regulation on the net, from an institution to the user. This is not to begrudge them, because they do this to protect their investments on the internet; and the tools of control reflect these values. The internet community, however, offers strong alternatives to top down control in the form of user and community control, based on different values. These internet communities, in doing so, resist the expansion of institutionalized control. Institutions and communities offer very different ideologies and sources of control, bringing them into competition with one another.
Institutions of Authority
The influence of institutions and regulation has exploded on the internet. What was once considered an “unregulable” zone has become controlled significantly by corporations, governments, and academic institutions. Each of these institutions has a significant stake in the internet. Companies have significant economic investment; governments have the imperative to regulate citizens; academic institutions “business” is knowledge – extremely relevant on the “information superhighway”. In order to protect their interests on the net, each institution has added new layers of code and programs. Since computer codes on the web determine the capabilities of internet users, these codes create ways to influence or control users. Because code is not explicit, regulation can occur without their knowledge or consent. Sandor Vegh categorized the tools of control on the web into three types “censorship, surveillance, and containment” (Vegh 67). These tools are utilized out of necessity for institutions to protect their values. Commerce uses control to produce profit; Government to protect its citizens from objectionable or illegal action; and academic institutions to protect intellectualism. Thus, whether these methods of control are “good” or “bad” depend on their use and the perspective from which they are evaluated. Still, these regulatory codes and architectures undeniably have the purpose or potential to make the internet into a highly regulated space.
The greatest contributions to control on the internet have been instigated to safeguard commerce. At their core, corporations are businesses that attempt to maximize efficiency and profits, while minimizing cost. The internet provides a massive potential market, but also a number of risks. In order to promote their livelihood, corporations have developed significant technologies......continued in print edition.
