by Eric Lannak

Created on: April 16, 2008

Web sites that advocate attacks against the U.S. should (and probably are) monitored by the U.S, government. If only for this reason, the issue of whether the U.S. government should monitor the internet demands a "Yes".

Where would the blame be laid if a 9/11 type attack was clearly suggested on an Al-Qaida web site, and the U.S. didn't know, because policy banned the monitoring of the internet?

Rhetorical question. The U.S. would be hammered for its stupidity.

But should the internet be taxed? The U.S. and most states already have taxes to pay for the public costs of wires, transmission, and service to the communications network. The internet does not use any new resources and does not make additional demands on the public coffers. There is no reason for additional taxes.

Since the question is "Should the Internet be monitored AND taxed by the government?", the answer is obviously a "No". It has to be both. Monitor yes, tax no.

"HOW MUCH" IS THE QUESTION

Monitoring web sites for content that jeopardizes national security is one thing. Anyone can access these sites, and there is no legal reason why the U.S. government couldn't do it. In fact, it would be really stupid if the government DIDN'T do it.

If you wanted to interpret this question to mean, "monitor all internet traffic", then you're kicking a hornet's nest. Email is widely thought to be like regular mail, a private communication. Ditto for web usage. Since both use the same electronic media as phone conversations, they both have the same body of law applying to them.

In other words, if a court order is needed to tap your phone, then one should be required to tap your internet use. There may be back doors and secret passages to this data, but the government has to follow legal procedure to actually use the information.

A "Big Brother" scenario is unlikely no matter where the country goes on this issue.

Monitoring web sites, however, is something the U.S. can do freely without legal hassles... because information on web sites is "published" and publicly available. What they can do with it is another issue.

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS

The First Amendment provides for freedom of the press. The courts have determined that writings published on the web are subject to the same rules and protections as other published media.

And the internet is clearly a media covered under this amendment. There is no difference between someone typing out a blog or someone publishing a letter-to-the-editor in a local newspaper. Both are public

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>