Democratic Vulnerability towards Contemporary Cyber World or Should Internet needs to be Administrat

The digital events which prevailed during the last decades were from a significant matter towards the public awareness of cyberspace: commercial networks breached, the role of cyber monitoring remained distrustful and hacker groups gained more audience by infiltrating prominent websites in their extremist propaganda. On a certain extent, citizens feel vulnerable regarding these issues due to the truly expansive style of release news and sets concerning the contents but for the most individuals, cyberspace is recognized as a highly essential element of public daily activities which deserves serious attitude and method of approach.

Besides, contemporary society appears to be quite dependent on the digital information and communication technologies (ICTs) so there should be no stunning that cyberspace steadily convert into a more contested realm. Academic institutions modified information-sharing networks which remain fundamental for the entire global scientific infrastructure, new forms of citizen participation via digital tools achieved democratic revolutions in many states and stakeholders with rivalry interests constantly sought undeveloped cyber niches with the purpose to spread their marketing advantage. This combination of extremely cunning public and private processes obligates the democratic governments to re-establish their classical welfare order which not necessarily inspire positive social and institutional reactions.

Development of Cyberspace as a Theoretical Norm

If we attempt to comprehend the current mixture of administrative and legislative proposals, commercial strategies and citizens` expectations towards the cyber world we should first try to explain why the existing strong interdependence within these actors is so important. As we will discover below, the contemporary network connections found their structural origin from far more classical standpoint.

In their basis, the norms represent social requirements that impose non-formal standards and restraints on human behaviour in relation the preferences of public majority. Social norms evoke expectations since they often refer to a general sense of right and wrong and a rhetoric association with penalty and sanction. They apply to the outcomes of institutional interactions (e.g. citizens` adherence in organizational structures), customs, traditions and democratic conventions.

Moreover, the social norm theory which concerns a wide range of disciplines such as economics, sociology and philosophy is also tightly related to all aspects of a collective action and thus to human behaviour in cyberspace. The theory of so-called cybernorms examines both social and technical phenomena as a unity (April Mara Major 2000). Similarly to social norms, the cybernorms describe common public practices and obligations of users in Internet. They are procedures that have been evolved through the establishment of mutual web agreements and in favour to the preferences of users` majority, rather than reflecting on particular customer tendencies.

However, although cyberspace seems to illustrate a process of developing a community based on equality and collectivism, it is certainly not referring to the act of establishment a completely autonomous Internet society. The recent intensive public participation in cyberspace truly put the question for bigger administrative authority over the digital expanse on both global and domestic fields.

Cyber World and Modern Democracy

Modern history validates several major factors as most determinative for the cyberspace present status. Among all, the big data expansion and the advancing influence of democratic state into the digital affairs appear to be from greatest value (Deibert 2015). The invention and progress of social media and mobile connectivity enabled an explicitly extending volume of personal information shared with diverse network entities (e.g. apps, websites and e-mails). Most of these entities are privately owned by network service companies and corporations with residences in political jurisdiction different than the one in which the users providing the data are situated (e.g. Apple`s iTunes, Twitter and Google).

This transnational interaction between merchants and stakeholders would not be left unregulated by the democratic governments. Both institutionalists and lawmakers gathered together to create new and universal Internet legislation with the purpose to supervise the private sector activities in the digital domain. This is the case of the United States (U.S.) which manner of political pressure on the current cyber affaires demonstrates the strong willingness of American administration to be part of each realm of the national public practices.

U.S. Administration and the Network Neutrality proposal

Present U.S. institutional and public debates concerning the cyberspace liberty turn us back to the universal juridical issue of determining Internet (Read my article concerning European Data Protection Reform: Will Further Personal Data Restrictions be Beneficial for Network Freedom of Expression? ). In November 2014, the President Barack Obama made an official statement which introduced his vision for strict regulation of Internet access and recommendation for its equal treatment by both service providers and network owners. Since then, the discourses between government, tech lobbyists and citizens became arduous.

According to Obama`s administrative perception, Internet is a public utility so no Internet service providers (ISPs) should restrict its access or should create direct marketing contests related to data distribution and projects concerning its network functionality (Irwin 2014). Besides, Telecom operators which are nowadays the major regulators of cyber entry, speed connection and tax payment should leave Internet to continue being a reliable system of a content delivery which can be produced by anyone.

The American President`s announcement caused reverse institutional responses from the National Urban League, the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and the Federal Communications Commission which claimed that the treatment of broadband Internet service as a utility will lead to a break in business minority rights by restricting investments in still undeveloped areas and affecting the interests of already successful on the market network corporations (Wyatt 2014).

Nevertheless, the general public controversial opinion regarding net neutrality did not come to be a stress point only for the U.S. nation. After Airtel`s decision (i.e. the India`s largest mobile telephone provider and Asia-Pacific`s second largest mobile operator) to introduce data charges for Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) usage, numerous customers in the country became affected (Panigrahi 2014).

In December 2014, the company with nearly 192.22 million consumers determined to increase prizes for mobile phone services over the Internet such as WhatsApp, Skype and Viber. The costs which are, according many citizens, in contradiction with the principle of net neutrality will destroy the universal practice of cyber freedom related to data usage and digital communication procedures.

Demands Internet a Governmental Monitoring?

The case of Network Neutrality certainly confirms the strong influence of cyber space over different cultural and socio-democratic groups. Internet, as we know it today, has been formed by a non-digital global society (e.g. scientists, mathematicians, academics and IT specialists). This specificity makes the net tool reliable towards the citizens` demands but also dependent on the same institutional regulations and administrative procedures as in physical world.

Contemporary goals of Internet economy as regarding the private and marketing spheres seems to be concentrated mostly on personal financial aims rather than collective public improvement. Cyber commercial practices are not only crucial for the American or Indian nations. The minority communities in most world states continuing becoming more technologically consummative (i.e. of the 6 billion mobile devices in circulation over 4 billion are located in the developing world) (Deibert 2014). This fact makes the need of a governmental regulation towards Internet even more important since it provides access to specific consumption activities and to core welfare realms such as healthcare, education and employment.

The administrative proposal of an open Internet is maybe not the best as regarding the numerous corporative interests but broadband access to cyberspace will actually continue to allow innovation and competition within nations by excluding the potential for commercial monopoly in the field and by enabling citizens freedom of expression.

References

April Mara Major. ‘’Norm Origin and Development in Cyberspace: Models of Cybernorm Evolution’’, in Washington University Law Review. Vol. 78, Issue 1, 2000, pp. 59-111.

Deibert, R. ‘’The Geopolitics of Cyberspace After Snowden’’ in Current History: A Journal of Contemporary World Affairs. Vol. 114, Issue 768, Jan 2015, pp. 1-9.

Irwin, N. ‘’A Super-Simple Way to Understand the Net Neutrality Debate’’, The New York Times, November 2014, <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/upshot/a-super-simple-way-to-understand-the-net-neutrality-debate.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=0> (30.12.2014)

Panigrahi, S. ‘’Indians Plead for #NetNeutrality as Airtel Raises Data Charges’’, Global Voices, December 2014, <http://advocacy.globalvoicesonline.org/2014/12/31/indians-plead-for-netneutrality-as-airtel-raises-data-charges/> (02.01.2014)

Wyatt, E. ‘’Obama`s net neutrality bid divides civil rights groups’’, The Economic Times, December 2014, <http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-12-08/news/56839854_1_tom-wheeler-paid-prioritization-net-neutrality> (30.12.2014)

#politics #economy