Don't TOS Me, Bro.

            Creating a Terms of Service agreement for the internet is a bad idea. An internet TOS could not add any extra degree of protection or pleasantness to an internet user’s experience. It would not make laws easier to enforce, or deter users from breaking them. As countries already have laws and regulations in place to govern the usage of the internet, an internet TOS would only serve to further complicate these systems. If we take a good look at the implications of creating and enforcing this TOS, it is clear that it cannot be a practical solution to any of the problems that currently affect the internet and its users.

            First of all, it must be decided who would be required to abide by the new internet Terms of Service. The internet is a worldwide resource, accessible by anyone with a computer and an internet connection. Thus, any compulsory TOS for the internet as a whole would be an international endeavor, and one that seems impossible to complete. Every nation has different laws regarding the internet and the activities permitted on it. Getting every nation on board with the idea of a TOS is an insurmountable task alone, never mind creating meetings and agreeing on the rules to be outlined in said TOS. For this reason, we can immediately rule out a worldwide internet TOS, due to the differing laws and insurmountable logistics of creating a single system that all countries could find reasonable.

            Perhaps, then, the internet TOS agreement would differ in each country that chooses to adopt it. Here we see another issue with the idea, an issue that demonstrates that the TOS is not actually necessary. The “Terms of Service” of each country are already defined in that country’s laws. When one is a citizen of, or residing in, a country, one consents implicitly to follow the laws of the country. These laws include regulations on the proper usage of the internet. It is up to the internet user to know the restrictions that are already in place on his or her internet access. A Terms of Service agreement would be redundant and unable to place any restrictions on users that laws have not already outlined. In this case, the TOS could serve as a quick and easy reminder to the user of what laws are in fact in effect, but this seems like an unnecessary layer of complexity in the use of the internet, given that it could not change the acceptable usages.

            A Terms of Service agreement for the internet would also be unlikely to change users’ activities on the web. Many laws already are in place that govern internet usage, and they are ignored by a large portion of internet users. Piracy, for example, is an easy to observe case of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of citizens in the United States alone, ignoring laws put in place against an online activity. The widespread nature of piracy has led to the laws against it becoming effectively unenforceable, as there simply are not enough resources to pursue action against all infringers. Other, more malicious crimes committed on the web would also continue unabated despite a TOS. Those who break laws will continue to do so even if they are required to sign a TOS that states that they will not. An internet TOS that places further restrictions on usage would only further strain governments’ ability to enforce rules. A government who creates laws that it cannot enforce looks weak, and that is not an image that any government wants to foster.

            Finally, we must look at why an internet Terms of Service is even up for consideration. What makes the idea enticing? The average user of the internet gets along just fine every day without a Terms of Service protecting them. The central issue that makes users uneasy, however, seems to be privacy. With the NSA collecting data on US citizens, it can be discomforting knowing how much personal information is floating all over the web. Thus, a TOS in the United States might be enticing in order to protect online privacy. However, this TOS would be created by the government, as they have the duty to enforce it. The government would not be looking after the privacy interests of the people in its creation of the document. If the government has already been collecting data on citizens, there is little reason to suspect that their TOS will preclude them from continuing to collect it. Even if the TOS does appear to meet the privacy expectations of the people of the United States,  the government is no more, and possibly less, likely to abide by the rules than its citizens. The NSA’s spying could be construed as unconstitutional, so there is no reason to trust that they will abide by a new document if they are willing to skirt the Constitution. 

            A Terms of Service for the internet is an unnecessary complication to an already complicated web of laws regarding the internet’s use. If these laws are so impotent in protecting the rights of internet users, change should be made using the already established systems that have been in place since the creation of the country. International internet issues as well should be resolved through communication and the proper channels, as an international internet TOS is even more unlikely than national ones. A TOS could add nothing to these systems without enacting changes that could be better enacted directly, without the TOS. No internet Terms of Service could be practical to implement or serve to better the state of the internet and its users.