The three major wars of the 20th century (i.e. WW I, WW II, and The Cold War) have dominated the perceived relationship of the individual to government. While some claim that innovation in communication technology contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union; it is certainly true that the birth of the Internet and the death of the Soviet Union were nearly simultaneous. Whatever the truth of the matter, the Internet has come to pervade every aspect of modern life. The founders of many Internet technologies were Libertarians an believed that the Internet would help to fulfill the Libertarian dream of instituting civil society (as opposed to a political society governed by coercion).
Who Controls the Internet rejects this belief categorically. Authors Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu argue that the Internet has not made government irrelevant and that it never will. They contend that the Internet is destined to be bound to its territorial nation-states and that this is not such a bad thing. While earlier idealists believed the Internet would dissolve international borders, Wu and Goldsmith dismiss this view as Totalitarian. They argue that coercive government will always be needed, and they make some compelling points.
- Coercive government is needed to enforce contracts entered into on the internet. This is absolutely necessary to the growth of free and fair trade. Like it or not, the world has thieves in it.
- Differences in national values will result in laws that conflict. Australia might consider personal dignity of more importance than free speech; whereas the United States might hold free speech a higher priority. If territorial governments do not maintain sovereignty, then the global law will be that of the most restrictive governments.
They point out that no one-size-fits-all solution to communications law is likely to exist; that global society is simply to diverse. The book is an extremely interesting introduction to the Cyber Law issues that the world has seen recently, and will likely soon see. While the Authors are fairly openly indicting Libertarianism, they in some ways validate Libertarian precepts.
- That centralized all-powerful coercive government is less efficient than de-centralized parties acting in their own interest.
- That the central role of coercive government ought to be the protection of the individual’s rights (this is especially apparent in their assertion that government is needed to enforce contractual obligations entered into online)
Who Controls the Internet is a good read, especially if you are interested in the implications of the Internet on personal liberty and freedom. The book is full of detailed case studies of international legal bouts, while I recommend the audiobook if you’re getting it for research purposes, it might be worth owning a hard copy of this book.