Construct of the Internet- Cyberlaw Reaction Paper

In the reading, I was particularly interested in how the Internet’s origins as a military project resulted in an architecture that has presented problems for would be regulators. As the book discussed, the Department of Defense initially used ARPANET and then switched to the TCP/IP protocol suite, which due to its functionality and lower costs resulted in the expansive and unruly Internet we know today. The casebook mentions two specific architectural features of the TCP/IP protocol that appealed to the military as it made the switch—decentralized control and packet-switching.

The Internet does not exist on any central servers, and at this point the mass of the Internet makes the thought seem absurd. Instead, information travels over the internet hopping from place to place, in a feature known as redundancy. Like a hydra, if one path (or head) is disabled, three other paths can serve the same purpose. This was of course appealing to the government because any enemy attempting to infiltrate or collapse the Internet could not attack one specifc server. At the same time, this also makes it increasingly difficult for a regulator to chase down and disable access to an illegal software program, like DeCSS for example. If there were one server that a government exercised greater control over, then it would be easier than chasing down a program that is posted on one website and then replicated a thousand times by Internet users trying to prevent regulation. However this would create clear political issues because the questions would become who would maintain the server and who would have the power to regulate it.

The second issue relates to packet-switching, whereby pieces of information transmitted over the Internet are broken up into packets that are reassembled on the computer of the recipient. This system is preferable because it expedites transmission, and affords greater privacy. The military approved of this feature because it made it difficult to intercept or interpret messages (p16), but for this same reason it has become incredibly difficult for content owners to monitor files exchanged on P2P networks or torrents. If certain entities like governments, ISPs, or Hollywood were allowed to intercept and decode packets, it would do irreparable damage to people’s security on the Internet and their trust of the government.

However, the casebook also said that the “technical architecture of the Internet is always subject to change.” (p14) While there are certainly illegal activities, particularly copyright infringement, that would justify a reshifting of the Internet construct, these changes should not be made lightly because they would undermine the principles that have resulted in the amazing force for good that the Internet has become today.