Living in the Global Information Infrastructure -- some concerns [ some errors

[David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

             Living in the Global Information Infrastructure
                          -- some concerns


                              David Farber
        The Alfred Fitler Moore Professor of Telecommunication Systems
                  School of Applied Science and Engineering
                                  and
               Senior Public Policy Fellow of the Annenberg School
                       University of Pennsylvania


A brief discussion paper for the AAAS Conference on Legal, Ethical, &
Technological Aspects of Computer Network Use and Abuse. Aspen Institute
Center (Queenstown, MD). October, 7-9, 1994.






Vice President Gore has proposed that the nations of the world undertake
the building of a Global Information Infrastructure -- the GII. While most
leaders agree with the sprit of the Gore proposal -- namely to provide a
mechanism which could invigorate the world economy in the forthcoming
information age, many disagree with his belief that it will bring democracy
to the world. They interpret such statements as being another example of
American colonialism. It is this basic lack of uniform global agreement on
what terms mean, what rules apply to electronic commerce and what impact a
GII will have on their nation that underlies the comments I will make.
These raise questions about the universality of Cyberspace. I would like,
in this brief note, to ask a set of questions that may stimulate some
thinking in this area.


John Perry Barlow is credited with having observed that "Our Bill of Rights
is but a local ordinance in Cyberspace". He was referring to the fact that
the basic rights which we hold self evident are only self evident to our
society and are not accepted worldwide. Similarly our notions of morality,
law, right and wrong are European centric and are not accepted uniformly
worldwide. Our society is individually oriented. The rights of the
individual often take priority over the rights of society as a whole. This
view is certainly not a world wide view. Asia, especially Singapore, is
fond of pointing out that the Asian view puts the group first and the
individual  is viewed in the light of what is good for the group. What
"side" will Cyberspace citizens take in this very profound cultural
argument? Can both views live compatibly in a closely coupled cyber-world?


In Cyberspace individual national laws and customs, which are often
different and contradictory, may conspire to limit the ability of
individuals and corporations to freely interchange information, ideas,
images and spoken works even when those items are legal and appropriate in
the nation of one of the participants. Many societies currently, for
example, limit the availability of satellite dishes. Several governments
have equated internet access. along with the fax machine. as the prime
vehicles for external disturbances to their control of their society and
have stated that in the event of any future internal disturbances they will
severe the internet connections rapidly. What will be the impact of such
attitudes on international commerce and learning?


The privacy laws that many governments have reasonably instituted to
protect their citizens from having their personal information flow outside
the control of the laws of their nation raises many difficulties when on is
engaged in a GII environment. The establishment of directory structures
which involve some nation's citizens may be in violation of the laws of
that nation. Libel laws are traditionally national yet in Cyberspace, libel
is instantaneous and globally damaging. Is there a notion of global
liability? How do I sue a person in another nation? If I can, do we achieve
the lowest common denominator? Is there a global "right to privacy"? How is
it enforced? What happens to global commerce if there is not a common
understanding?


Many nations and cultures have dramatically different perceptions of what
is "proper" and not proper for its citizens to possess or  to view.
Consider an extreme case -- child pornography.  We in the United States
have strong laws which forbid the distribution. possession etc. of such
material -- other cultures may not agree with us or have different notions
of the control of such material. Suppose citizens of two such countries
send each other such material and the material transits the United States;
is storage on a US computer (without the knowledge of the owner of the
computer) against the law ?etc. Can or should the US intercept such
material and "delete" it, should they arrest the people when they next
enter the US, should they close down the computer used to store the
material.


Is there an international agreement on the transport of cryptographic
material across national boundaries?  Is there a right of "innocent"
passage -- that is , it is bound for another nation and just stops for a
short stay -- mail relays for example? What is the right of a nation to
monitor the contents or addresses of electronic communications that is
transiting their nation?


The reader may have noticed that mostly I have asked questions. I believe
that  answering theses questions will eventually require us to face the
real issues of national sovereignty in Cyberspace and whether or not we
will maintain for ever  the fiction of national boundaries that extend not
only into inter-planetary space but also  into Cyberspace.