Why an Internet Terms of Service will not work.

Today, you can find a Terms of Service (TOS) on almost any electronic device, or software. It is a company’s way of laying out the ground rules to using their products. Although nobody enjoys reading through a TOS, that is of course if you actually decide to read it, companies still have a right to create a TOS so that they can further protect their property. It’s a completely understandable method of letting us know that we are free to use their product, as long as we play by their rules. The reason a TOS will not work for the internet is because does anyone actually own it? Sure, the internet had its founders, but today, everyone who uses the internet has a stake in it. Whether it is a search engine, a social networking web site, or even a programming forum, we are all able to contribute in improving the internet. Therefore, I do not believe that it would be right for anyone to attach a TOS to the internet since I do not believe anyone can declare rightful ownership.

A possible fear I have with a TOS for the internet would be that it might contain a large number of unsettling conditions granted to its creator, which in this case would be the US government. Such an example that is found in most TOS documents is that any rights not granted to you in a TOS are reserved to its creator.

“The licensor (“Application Provider”) reserves all rights not expressly granted to You.” –Apple

“YouTube and its licensors reserve all rights not expressly granted in and to the Service and the Content.” –YouTube

“We reserve all rights not expressly granted to you.” –Facebook

This is all fine and well for only a product or service owned by a company, but for the entire internet, this seems like a very large and unspecified amount of power to grant to a single owner. Would the government even have to specify the services it will be monitoring? If the TOS will grant users the ability to use a list of specified internet services privately, will the government now reserve the right to monitor any other services not mentioned? It will be extremely difficult to pinpoint exactly what rights the government is granted through this TOS, which can ultimately lead to a severe lack of transparency. Unfortunately, this is something that the government is already well known for.

          Another possible fear I have with an internet TOS is that it is usual for its creators to hold the right to change their TOS at their discretion. This is not uncommon in a TOS, and similar clauses can be found for many products and services today.

 “We reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to change these Terms of Use ("Updated Terms") from time to time.” –Instagram

“The Services that Twitter provides are always evolving and the form and nature of the Services that Twitter provides may change from time to time without prior notice to you.” –Twitter

“From time to time, Microsoft may change or amend these terms.” -Microsoft

It is perfectly understandable for a company to write such a clause for their own product, but for the US government to be able to change its TOS on the internet could open up a number of disconcerting doors. To further explain, imagine that Version 1 of the US’s TOS would allow the government to record what web sites users have visited. This might be able to help identify users seeking information regarding illegal activities, but I highly doubt that this information would be sufficient enough for the government to preserve national security. Since it is only natural to require more information, Version 2 of the TOS might allow the government to monitor and record the activity of all social networking accounts. Again, this still probably won’t be enough information, prompting the government to find different ways to obtain private data. As a result, Version 3 of the TOS might allow the government to read personal emails, and download personal documents uploaded to cloud storage services. This now becomes a severe invasion of privacy, but because email is the main form of communication over the internet, it would only make sense that monitoring this data will greatly improve the effort in preserving national security. However, the problem with monitoring all of this data is simply where do we draw the line? I’m sure obtaining all of this information would not hurt national security, but it is being done at the expense of millions of innocent people. Ordinary law abiding citizens can now become possible targets of suspicion based on privately sent emails to other individuals. Since all of these methods of obtaining data can be justified in some way or another, how do we start to tell what’s too much, and what’s not enough? In a fairly recent article, the FBI made a request to a US court judge that would allow them to install a malicious program on a suspect’s computer in order to take control of the suspect’s web cam (Source). The request was denied on the grounds that it was too invasive, but it is a perfect example of the more advanced ways being introduced today that further the effort of spying on people.

For the reasons provided, I think it is best for the internet to remain unregulated by the government completely. There are simply too many boundaries to cross, and moral decisions to make that might actually do more harm than good. Instead, I believe that a much more sensible solution to providing some regulation on the internet is to leave it to those that helped create it. What I mean by this is that the various companies and users who provide a service on the internet should be the ones who are responsible for reporting, and preventing as much illegal activity as possible. For instance, web site hosting companies have shut down domain names related to the Virginia Tech Massacre, such as “BlacksburgBloodbath.com” and “SchoolSlaughter.com”, to prevent people from profiting over this tragedy (Source). Facebook regularly scans any new posts or chat conversations of its users for criminal activity, and in one case, they were able to report a man in his 30s to the police who had arranged to meet a 13 year old girl (Source). Moreover, Google has developed a hashing algorithm that tags, tracks, and deletes child abuse images from the web (Source). By no means will the internet ever be completely regulated to prevent all illegal activity, but too much regulation will take away the very thing the internet excels at, which is being an open platform to communicate and spread ideas. I truly believe that the best way to keep the internet clean is to leave it up to the ones who have a stake in it, which is just about anybody who uses it.