United States Terms of Service: Animosity's Downfall

            The US terms of service, the idea presented here at http://americanscience.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-contest-for-writing-new-social.html, is simply a horrendous idea for the United States. There are a large number of drawbacks in both utility and implementation that could never be factored into a non-intrusive design, as well as being impractical for the purposes of society.

The current model of the internet involves businesses (mainly telecommunication companies) building the groundwork for access, and then charging for use. The companies themselves are not owned by the government, and should not be forced to submit to the governments will. By forcing collection of data, the companies have the choice with receiving additional scrutiny and pressure from government agencies or using some of the revenue the companies have earned to appease the powers above them. The present model, while not ideal, is much better than the idea of a United States terms of service for the use of any electronic communications devices.

If a United States terms of service were to come about, it would streamline the process for the government to have access to everyone’s data. All the phone, internet and media companies would have no choice but to hand over any and all data that was not declared prohibited by the terms of service due to the contract being approved every time before a user enters the log in. Companies who refused (using the imperfect example of some type of metadata overlooked before the terms of service came about) could and would be fined; the process has now been automated and users signed away the right to keep such information private, even if the company disagrees with giving away information about its users.

While such a problem with companies is inherent with this system, there are other drawbacks and negative aspects. Deciding on an ideal age to allow users to start filling out the terms of service is important. If the user is a child, the implication of the contract is meaningless. If the user is forced to do it in primary school, the contract seems like an extra step that will be glanced over and accepted just to get to access the internet. If there is a test that has to be passed to ensure the user is familiar enough with the contract, this prohibits users below that age from using the internet (or even phones, since data can be gathered from those as well).

If the contract requires a test or certification to use the internet, this will have a negative impact on foreign users. People traveling on business, vacation or education will not have access, and probably will not have the time to learn about the certificate and take the test. The rest of the world lacks such a system of internet use, and it only detracts from visitors to the United States. Another issue is for those who do pass certification. If codes are given out specific to each person, it would have to be entered with each use of the internet. ISPs would have to have a wall that forces the user to enter the code every session before internet use. People would have to enter the code before using a phone or computer, and add a huge delay to any device when forced to listen or click through a terms of service.

Additionally, most users already click through a terms of service when joining a website, let alone one just to get on the internet for information. If users did not have to enter a log in or be certified, those people are unlikely to actually read the terms of service. This additional step only hampers users, and leaves people feeling annoyed for the extra hoops they have to jump through.

Considering both the Terms of Service model and the current model, the United States would be better off adhering to the current model over the Terms of Service model, if those are the only two options. The ideal method of internet use would be to have the internet inaccessible to government law, as it is a global network, and should not be policed by any one country. While it would be less likely for terrorist attacks to be seen using the internet, there would be no ambiguity that the government would need to decide between potential terrorists and users. The internet is a place of animosity, and by having a terms of service or heavy government involvement, it loses that sense of animosity.