Debating Internet Law at the Speed of Light: Confounds of Relativity and Incomplete Understanding

As many invested in the discussion are painfully aware, the speed at which technology is presently advancing severely complicates the design and understanding of any regulatory landscape that claims to properly account for the dynamics of an ever-changing social and technological topography. The resulting confounds associated with such rapid flux in an increasingly interconnected society amplify the need for regulatory coherence and adaptiveness, but at the same time such confounds make reaching consensus more contentious and politically elusive. Like oppositely situated observers debating between perceptions of an unfolding event while moving at light speed, those who debate the future of internet law are faced with the inherent confounds of relativity and incomplete information.

Particularly with respect to the pivotal issues of (a) how to draw the bounds of internet privacy and (b) whether to conceive of internet access as a fundamental right, these confounds have been on full display in the thoughts/actions of the legislative and judicial branches, as well as in opinions expressed throughout the vast spectrum of media outlets.

I. Relativity

On one side of the aisle, the internet has been dubbed one of the world's most destructive technologies, having the power to unite radical conspirators, reinforce niches of extreme and irrationally unfounded thought, and spread misinformation with virus-like ease. In stark contrast, some on the other side of the aisle have gone so far as to lobby for nomination of the internet for the Nobel Peace Prize, as it represents the driving force behind "a new kind of society in which massive interpersonal contact fosters consensus and understanding." While to some extent such an extreme divergence in outlooks is a reflection of the natural human tendency to gravitate toward extremes of optimism or pessimism during times of uncertainty about rapid societal transformation, both of these outlooks nonetheless seem to root themselves in "reasonable" concerns about the future of society, as appraised through looking-glasses equipped with conflicting personal visions for the future.

William Saletan, reacting to the death of a baby who starved as his parents were consumed by raising a virtual child online, warned that we could be headed toward a "Terminator-esque dystopia"; in the form of a spreading anti-social epidemic. The optimistic version, on the other hand, asserts that the more significant contagion will involve "cascades of cooperative behavior"; and outpourings of altruism like, for example, the rapid spread of donations witnessed throughout the recent Haitian earthquake response. The list of divergences in forecasts goes on:

• Some fear that the human tendency to have a self-confirming bias will lead to ideological segregation and a more "ghettoized, polarized and insular electorate," whereas others assert that the internet is actually more ideologically integrated than old-fashioned forms of face-to-face association.

• Older generations in particular often clamor that the internet negatively affects cognitive and emotional processing of information, whereas others might argue that some of these so called AD/HD-like propensities might be better understood as a "positive evolutionary ability for multitasking in a high-tech age."

It almost goes without saying that any political initiative that conceives of internet access as fundamental right must subscribe to the optimistic side of these outlooks, at least to some degree of potential. After all, how can one justify protecting internet access as a fundamental right without quelling these fears of destruction? And beyond these divergences in outlooks, the problem of relativity will inevitably rear its confounding head in the debate over balancing privacy and security interests. In some sense, the extent to which individuals place more or less subjective value on privacy interests revolves around one’s conception of individual "dignity." And so long as it can be said that there are a variety of legitimate claims to ideas of dignity, including the way Dennis Prager conceives it, any such debates will continue to be frustrated by relativity at high speeds.

II. Limited Understanding

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, JonathanBoyer