Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality is the principle that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should be impartial and neutral by proving equal service to all their customers. For example, this means that they cannot slow down internet services for competing companies (such as streaming services like Netflix), or speed up internet services for others on “fast lanes.”

Those who support the idea of Net Neutrality argue that without it, ISPs would have way too much power. ISPs would be able to slow internet to certain customers as they wished, and could potentially put competing companies and services out of business with this low quality of service. They could also raise prices if they know a service is in high-demand and requires a large band-width (like Facebook, for example). On the flip-side, if ISPs were to charge more to services that required more bandwidth, a smaller company that could be that big one day, would not be able to afford this higher price. The fair and level playing field that Net Neutrality offers is the underlying argument for supporters.

Those who are against the idea of Net Neutrality believe in the idea of a free market. These opponents believe ISPs have the right to distribute their networks differently among customers. With this free market structure, even if an ISP slows service for someone, or raises prices for customers using a higher bandwidth, that customer can just switch to a different ISP. This would force ISPs to strive for providing the best possible service to customers. Basically, opponents of Net Neutrality do not think it is right for the government to create laws that dictate too much on how ISPs run their businesses.

I believe Net Neutrality is a GOOD thing, since it creates an even playing field by fairly balancing the power dynamic between the internet service providers and the users of that service. Without Net Neutrality, as the supporters of it said, the power of the ISPs would be too large. With a lack of regulations, ISPs could do whatever they wanted, slowing internet for competitors, or companies who do not want to pay inflated rates. A free market would only work if you assume companies are going to act ethically, which is not an assumption you can always make. And as supporters of Net Neutrality said, a level playing field allows smaller companies to have a fair shot at competing with bigger ones.

Regulations for ISPs would have to be implemented to enforce Net Neutrality. To enforce these regulations, I think recurring audits of the service that ISPs are providing to their customers, to ensure they are equal in speed and quality, would work.

Since the internet is a public service, and available to anyone, its user should have as much opportunity to use it as any other user. The gatekeepers of the internet should not be able to discriminate. It is unethical, and Net Neutrality makes this idea possible.

Project 3: Letter To Observer

For project 3, our group wrote a letter to the Editor of The Observer, giving our points on why we think encryption is important, and why Apple should not unlock the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone for the FBI. The letter is linked to below:

Letter To The Observer

The question of whether or not encryption should be a fundamental right is an interesting one, because of the digital medium in which it exists. A court order can let the government into any house, building, safe, etc, but these are all physical spaces. Some may argue that data should also be something that the government should be allowed to see with a court order, but its medium allows it to be completely impenetrable. Doors can be forced open, but without a key, encrypted data cannot be touched by the government. I am still pretty conflicted on this issue, and whether or not this distinction should make a difference in laws. However, I do believe that allowing the government to get into encrypted data would require loosening of digital security, while allowing the government to get into physical spaces does NOT require loosening security. If digital security if forced to be lessened by laws, making it easier for the government to gain access to encrypted data, it’s also making it easier for hackers to gain access to this data. With this distinction, you can see why maybe the government should not have master keys to encrypted data.

So far, encryption has not been a too important issue in my own personal life. I’m sure if I was in possession of more sensitive data, or if I was a high-profile person, whose information could be considered valuable, I would find encryption to be a way more important issue. So because encryption IS so important (even though it doesn’t affect me, personally), the laws surrounding it should be delved into and settled, while also looking at the ethicality of these laws.

In the struggle between national security and personal privacy, I’m sure the government will win. While already seeing the measures the government takes to “ensure national security” through surveillance of phone calls and emails (that Edward Snowden brought to light), it seems that the government will always win, even when their measures seem over-intrusive and unethical. The government loosening encryption just seems to be the next step in a world where privacy is becoming more and more of a facade.

The DMCA and Piracy

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (known as the DMCA), “criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works” (Wikipedia). This relates directly to piracy since piracy is defined as the unauthorized use of someone else’s work, and when this “work” is digital such as music or movies, it falls under the jurisdiction of the DMCA.

The Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) creates a so-called “safe harbor” for the Internet Service Providers and other Internet intermediaries by protecting them against any copyright infringement liabilities, or any second-hand liability from the copyright infringement of others.

From an ethical standpoint, pirating online material like music or movies is absolutely unethical. By pirating, you are stealing a product that you would normally buy, therefor taking money out of the pockets of people who worked hard to create that product. However, I am a hypocrite, since I get almost all my music for free, and watch movies online all the time. The way I justify it, and the way I think most of us justify it, is by using tunnel vision and viewing the transgression as a singularity, thinking “I’m not hurting this rich artist by downloading this one song.” But in reality, with the enormous scope of the internet, and how easy the internet makes it to share files in this large scope, piracy is a bigger problem than we think. So although I do pirate a lot of my media, I find myself buying albums of artists I really like and respect, and buying blu-ray copies of movies I really love, to monetarily support these artists. However, it should not be up to me to pay for only the artists I like, and it’s certainly not ethical. It is a habit I am trying to change.

Especially with movies, where the reason I don’t buy them is because I’m only going to watch it once, streaming services allow you to rent media rather than own it. Netflix gives you month-long access to a wide range of movies and TV shows for the price of a single DVD. I think streaming services such as Netflix,  Pandora, and Spotify are a big step in eradicating piracy. However, I don’t think piracy will ever be completely eliminated, because of how easy it is to do, and how wide-spread of a problem it is.