| |
Responses
to questions and statements concerning the topic given to members
of the Notre Dame Webgroup.(Learn
more)
Professor
Tricia Bellia
Patricia
Bellia, an assistant professor of law, teaches cyberspace and
the law including a course called Cyberlaw She can be reached
at Patricia.L.Bellia.2@nd.edu
The U.S. Government
has the right to make laws controlling access to the Internet.
If the question is one of the government’s constitutional
authority to make general laws about internet access, I would
say that yes, the federal government has that constitutional authority.
Congress has the constitutional power to regulate commerce, and
almost all federal internet-related legislation is premised upon
this power. The only question would be whether the government’s
action interfered with individual rights protected by the Constitution.
If you are truly talking about laws merely controlling internet
“access”--for example, laws that regulate how internet
service providers offer services--such laws would be unlikely
to interfere with any individual rights. They would be similar
to laws governing how telecommunications carriers offer phone
services. But if you are talking about something other than controlling
access--for example, if you are talking about a law that would
dictate what can and cannot be said over the internet-- there
might be individual rights concerns, discussed in response to
question 2.
If the question is not about the government’s constitutional
authority, but is instead about whether it’s a good idea
as a policy matter for the government to make laws controlling
internet access, I might give a very different answer.
The U.S. Government has the right to filter/censor information
on the Internet in interest of national security
I think that there would be significant limitations on the government’s
ability to filter or censor information on the internet in the
interests of national security, but the government would still
have some power to do so. Any such action on the government’s
part would have to be scrutinized under the First Amendment, to
ensure that it did not constitute an unconstitutional abridgement
of speech. But the government has some leeway to control information
in the interests of national security. Two real examples illustrate
the point. Several years ago, there was controversy over whether
the government could make it illegal to circulate bomb
making “recipes” over the internet. And a few
years ago, there was controversy over whether the government could
limit the dissemination of information about what the “worst-case
scenarios” would be in the event of disasters at particular
chemical plants, for fear that terrorists might use this information
to target an attack. Although the First Amendment protects speech,
courts have held that it does not protect speech designed
to incite imminent unlawful activity. The government can therefore
control speech about unlawful activities--how to make bombs, how
to manufacture drugs, etc.without running afoul of the First Amendment.
Again, though I take your question to be about whether the government
has the “power” to engage in this sort of filtering
or censoring--not whether it is a good idea as a policy matter
for it to do so.
What role can
the government play concerning National Security and the Internet
without infringing on current legislation?
Existing legislation
is unlikely to be a significant constraint on future government
regulation with respect to the internet, because Congress is always
free to discard previous legislation. The limitations on the government's
actions are likely to come from the Constitution--from protections
such as the First Amendment's limitation on government restrictions
on speech, and from the Fourth Amendment's limitation on interference
with a right to be free from unreasonable searches.
In the future, do you think Cyberterrorism will become
more prominent? If so, what steps can and should the U.S. government
take to counter such threats?
I do think that cyberterrorism
will become more prominent. So much of our infrastructure depends
on computers--from the telecommunications system, to power grids,
to systems for the transportation of oil and gas, to the air traffic
control system, etc. Some of the steps that the government has
already taken to secure key components of the infrastructure are
extremely beneficial. It will be important for the government
to get the best private sector experts in computer security--rather
than merely relying on its own experts--to work to ensure the
security of key infrastructure components.
|
|
Ms.
Sheri Alpert
Ms. Alpert
is affiliated with the Science and Values in Technology Program
and the Computer and the Computer Applications major of the College
of Arts and Letters. She can be reached at Sheri.A.Alpert.1@nd.edu
The Government
has the right to make laws controlling access to the Internet.
The legislative branch can pass laws to control access to the
Internet
(like they have done several times, like w/the law requiring public
libraries that want to get federal funding to use filtering software).
The judiciary branch can overturn just as many laws as Congress
can pass
(which they have also done), since these laws often violate the
US
Constitution.
The Government
has the right to filter/censor information on the Internet in
interest of national security.
See my reply above..."has the right" is the phrase I'm
getting stuck on.
Congress can (and generally does) do whatever it wants.I think
the more
important question might be "is the government right to filter/censor
information..." -- i.e., not "can they" but "should
they"?That make sense?
What is your
definition of Internet Security?
I can say that my notion of internet security has little to do
with the
filtering of content. It has more to do with protecting transactions
and
exchanges online (i.e., using encryption for the transmission
of personal
and/or sensitive information).
|
