[huridocs-tech] Bye-Bye Borderless Web

Bye-Bye Borderless Web: Countries Are Raising Electronic Fences

Ariana Eunjung Cha, Washington Post Service
5 January 2002

It is the modern-day equivalent of a border sentry. When visitors try to
enter UKBetting.com, a computer program checks their identification to
determine where they are logging in from. Most people are waved on through.
Those from the United States, China, Italy and other countries where
gambling laws are muddy, however, are flashed a sign in red letters that
says "ACCESS DENIED" and are locked out of the Web site.

For much of its life, the Internet has been seen as a great democratizing
force, a place where nobody needs know who or where you are. But that
notion has begun to shift in recent months, as governments and private
businesses increasingly try to draw boundaries around what used to be a
borderless Internet to deal with legal, commercial and terrorist concerns.
"It used to be that a person sitting in one place could get or send
information anywhere in the world," said Jack Goldsmith, a professor of
international law at the University of Chicago. "But now the Internet is
starting to act more like real space, with all its limitations." These new
barriers take many forms. One method is to simply restrict who has access
to computers and gateways to the Internet. Another is to make all
communications pass through filters that seek to weed out objectionable
content, such as pornography or information deemed to endanger national
security. Growing in popularity is software that attempts to match a
computer's unique Internet address with a general geographic location, a
technology that is becoming increasingly precise every day.

The debate is no longer about whether these barriers can be created, but
whether or not they should be. Even those who support the idea in theory
disagree on who should erect and maintain the electronic fences -
nation-states or Web site operators. The new borders provide what some call
a neat solution to the problem of how to resolve the often conflicting
policies of the roughly 200 independent states of the world on matters such
as gambling, commerce, copyright and speech. But critics fear that the
barriers will create an Internet that is balkanized. And civil rights
groups warn that freedom of speech will suffer, that the technology will
make it easier for oppressive governments to stifle nonconformist
viewpoints and that people's privacy will be eroded, especially because
some technologies can pinpoint one's location down to the latitude and
longitude.

"It's likely that the Internet of tomorrow will look radically different
from different parts of the world," said Lee Tien, a lawyer with the
Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco.

Already legislatures and court systems around the world have been
attempting to assert their country's authority over the World Wide Web.
Hong Kong's government, for instance, has been debating whether to pass a
law that would make it a crime for any overseas gambling site to offer
services to its residents. An Italian court in Genoa recently found the
operator of a Web site in another country guilty of libel. A French judge
has ordered Yahoo Inc. to stop selling Nazi paraphernalia because a law
there bans such practices.

Without an international treaty or mediation organization, such rulings
have so far been largely unenforceable on parties residing outside a
country's borders. But that has not stopped countries from drafting rules
for what is and is not permissible online.

At least 59 countries limit freedom of expression, according to Leonard
Sussman, author of "Censor.gov." Singapore, for instance, works with
Internet access providers to block any material that undermines public
security, national defense, racial and religious harmony, and morals. That
includes pornography and hate speech.

Some analysts say the barriers could grow with the development of
"geolocation" technology, which attempts to match a person's location based
on a computer's Internet address.

Quova Inc. of the United States, one of the leading providers of this
technology, claims it can correctly identify a computer user's home country
98 percent of the time and the city about 85 percent of the time, but only
if it is a large city. Independent studies have pegged the accuracy rate of
such programs, which also are sold by companies such as InfoSplit Inc.,
Digital Envoy Inc., Netgeo Inc. and Akamai Technologies Inc., at 70 percent
to 90 percent. The system is not foolproof; people can easily get past by
using special software programs to cloak their identity. But experts such
as Mr. Goldsmith, the Chicago law professor, say the technology need not
work perfectly to have an impact. These barriers act like checkpoints on a
country's physical border: They can be evaded, but most people probably
will not want to go to all the trouble. Gambling sites were among the first
to use the technology. When users from countries where online gambling is
illegal try to get on, they are either not given the option to place bets
or they are kicked out when they try to set up an account. "There are a
number of sites out there that just don't care about the laws. They are
perfectly happy to let U.S. gamblers in even though they know it's
illegal," said Jeremy Thompson-Hill, an account manager for OrbisUK, a unit
of NDS Group PLC of Britain, which provides the sentry technology used by
Ladbrokes.com, Sports.com and other betting sites.

"But most reputable companies want to be able to say to the United States,
'We're taking every reasonable precaution to prevent the use of our
gambling software in your country,'" he said.

The difficulty in recognizing nation-state borders on the Internet became
such a concern during the 2000 Sydney Games that the International Olympic
Committee effectively banned most Web video of the events.

Television stations had paid enormous fees for the rights to broadcast the
games on a country-by-country basis - NBC, for instance, shelled out $3.5
billion for the United States - and they were worried that piracy or even
legitimate online transmissions that were accessible to anyone, anywhere
might devalue the worth of those contracts. The IOC and many of the owners
of broadcast rights say that the accuracy rate for geolocation technology
is still not good enough and that they will not allow any Webcasts for the
Salt Lake City games in February. "There's no way to guarantee that your
broadcast would be confined to your territory and would not run in to
someone else's," said Kevin Monaghan, a vice president for NBC Sports.

Even if geolocation technology worked perfectly, some legal experts say it
would not be feasible because it would require Web site operators to know
the applicable laws in every country from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe.

"It would be incredibly burdensome to tailor content to meet all of the
different laws in all of the different countries everywhere the world,"
said Alan Davidson, a lawyer with the Center for Technology and Democracy,
a Washington research institute.



========== HURIDOCS-Tech listserv ==========
Send mail intended for the list to <huridocs-tech@hrea.org>.
Archives of the list can be found at: http://www.hrea.org/lists/huridocs-tech/
To subscribe to the list, send a message to <majordomo@hrea.org>,
with the following text in the message: subscribe huridocs-tech
To unsubscribe from the list, send a message to <majordomo@hrea.org>,
with the following text in the message: unsubscribe huridocs-tech
If you have problems (un)subscribing, contact <owner-huridocs-tech@hrea.org>.