Evolution of the Internet

In many of the readings for the week the authors give the impression that, because the Internet is so new a medium of interaction, the Constitution is hopelessly behind in its ability to address the activities of Internet users. Tribe, for instance, writes,

“The Constitution’s core values, I'm convinced, need not be transmogrified, or metamorphosed into oblivion, in the dim recesses of cyberspace. But to say that they *need* not be lost there is hardly to predict that they *will* not be.

Tribe’s underlying idea is that the Internet is going to continue to expand and always be one step ahead of regulation, despite the implementation (at least in part) of Lessig’s reccomendations to regulate the Internet through its laws, architecture, etc. This expansion, however, does not worry me greatly.

To begin with, I am hesitant to accept so quickly that the Internet is an autonomous entity that seeks to circumvent the law, thereby making any efforts at control merely temporary. The media regularly presents Wall Street in this light –trying to exploit every loophole and unregulated area for the sake of increasing profit margins– which might explain why the concept does not seem out of place as we read this week’s assignment. But I do not think it is appropriate to consider the Internet in a similar manner to Wall Street. As we saw in Froomkin’s “Introduction,” the internet is, and always has been a collaborative effort between many individuals. Certain websites may be worse at preserving civil liberties than others, but I argue that when the risks involved are exposed these websites either lose popularity or are treated more warily by their users. For instance, the stigma that people attach to posting personal ads on Craigslist is a direct result of the many cases of child molestation that such postings have brought about. Likewise, I believe that as the consequences of posting large amounts of personal information on Facebook become increasingly clear, users will begin to consider more carefully how, and even if, to use the site.

EJH’s blogpost this week asks us to consider the economic implications of the digital age, and I think we are right to do so. My economics background is admittedly limited, but I want now to apply an Invisible Hand of sorts to the Internet. Users will stop frequenting sites if they become aware that their rights are being violated, and better sites will replace them. This, I believe, is the best protection of civil liberties in a Digital Age where the law is usually going to be one step behind. The Internet will continue to evolve. But it is foolish to consider this evolution in terms of a spiraling out of control. Evolution tends towards order, and I believe that this will be the case for the Internet as well.