Nets and nooses

Change, something that over time has become a lucrative buzzword championed by prospective and incumbent politicians, is often seen, or at least portrayed, as an overwhelmingly positive phenomenon and the key to an existence improved from the current one, for society in general and individuals alike. Yet this heady call for betterment, though preferable to the often counter productive nuances of negative campaigning, often overlooks the finer details of change as a concept; that it is commonly an arduous, weary process with long term rewards rather than quick gains, and that it can not only be effected, but must also be responded to at times. Change is not always necessarily a conscious decision.

Such has long been the case with technology; advances are made, but with new scenarios come unforeseen conundrums. Industrialisation of the western world brought advantages, but also endemic drawbacks for the people and industries it affected. The latest prominent technological revolution, the dawn and rise of the internet, is not dissimilar to this. It has brought greater efficiency and potential knowledge into everyday lives, but with that a plethora of issues, such as a threat to privacy, the menace of rife, unchecked disinformation and the presence of offensive, or even dangerous materials at the hands of younger, or more vulnerable individuals.

The political world, a realm which, though steeped in its own rites and traditions, must regularly adapt to the newly powerful or important forces within society, has made some slow but definite steps towards grasping the problems and solutions an internet era presents. The benefits and pitfalls of the internet within politics itself have become evident; politicians blog, “tweet”, campaign and update their constituents online, but are also becoming wise to the dangers of a new transparency offered by the medium; journalists have been keen to discuss the impact of political bloggers, such as Guido Fawkes and Iain Dale among the more prominent figures, on the upcoming elections, and public figures are ever wary of the enhanced scrutiny of a constant and ravenous news cycle.

More significantly, the internet has become an issue in itself that affects society and fuels political debates. Perhaps unexpectedly, internet access joined suffrage and legal representation in the admittedly unwritten list of things regarded as a a fundamental right, according to a recent poll for the BBC World Service, highlighting its growing importance in the public eye. Similarly, it was recently discussed as a tenet, and a strident, relevant aspect of modern society by the Queen, in spite of the monarchy’s seemingly anachronistic approach to the world. Fittingly, issues arising from the internet’s dominance and redefinition of various aspects of society are commonly fodder for news headlines, such as the recent controversy over deviant uses of social networking website Facebook.

Being now common in political discourse, and offering its own perks and dilemmas, the call for new laws concerning the internet is natural and expected, but must also be fair and considered. So, today’s passing of the digital economy bill in the House of Lords offers some hope of progress on the path to sanitising a somewhat untamed phenomenon, but with it numerous concerns.

The bill has some clearly positive traits. Plans to ensure universal broadband access by 2012, to bring about digital upgrades to public media and to involve large media organisations more comprehensively in the new internet age seem wise and forward-thinking if society views internet access, and content, as a good and deserved thing for all. Similarly, the concept of tax breaks for video games shows a more progressive eye being cast on the technology and culture of a fresh generation.

Other aspects of the bill, however, seem firm and perhaps necessary, but also unquestionably draconian. To the ire of the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights, measures to punish and deter the ills of internet use appear to verge on breaching an individual’s rights. Those accused of sharing files three times, for example, will see their broadband connection suspended, denying them further internet access. Another part of the bill, clause 17, initially proposed allowing the authorities to alter copyright law without consent from others. This was amended, but in a seemingly more draconian move, would now give the high court the power to shut down websites that host “significant” amounts of copyright-infringing material, leading to concerns over the future of major, highly popular hosts such as Youtube. Other concerns were voiced that these measures shared the wording and tone of regulations written by British music industry body the BPI.

Here, concerns are arguably valid, though they threaten to drown out equally relevant arguments. The internet, a home of unwarranted freedoms and potential abuses, may be in need of regulation, but not to the extent of an authoritarianism which blights the advantages it offers. Internet piracy is a problem to be tackled, but not at the expense of individual freedoms, and not at the dictation of corporate powers and their lobbyists, who arguably care more for their wares and income than the good of their clients. Similarly, websites such as Youtube may need to be managed more stringently, but there is a threat of stamping out their cultural input and the joy of their users in doing so over zealously.

Such cries must not be made, however, to the detriment of pressing discussion. Internet access may be a newly proclaimed right, but must also come with responsibilities of sorts. Piracy and any damage it causes to affected industries must be limited, and if possible, activities such as streaming and file sharing must find a legitimate form of existence. The internet, and the sweeping changes it will bring, may appear new and sudden, but any laws regarding these must first be considered at length.