To print: Click here or Select File and then Print from your browser's menu

This story was printed from silicon.com, located at http://www.silicon.com/

Story URL: http://comment.silicon.com/0,39024711,10003030,00.htm

Who should rule the wild, wild web?
'Uncle Sam, get to the back of the line...'

By silicon.com

Published: Tuesday 25 February 2003

Today's news that US Attorney General John Ashcroft is cracking down on any websites selling drugs paraphernalia has once again raised the complex issue of the legal jurisdiction which governs the web.

It's worth making it clear this isn't an argument about drugs - far from it - it is merely the latest instance of an unresolved question which continues to see law-makers and web users stumble repeatedly over the issue of 'who regulates what'.

For example, US web users cannot place a bet with a domestically-registered gaming site - but can punt away to their hearts content on sites registered in the UK - or more commonly in 'offshore' havens such as Bermuda.

Similarly US dope smokers will now have to shop overseas for their pipes and bongs - using sites which Ashcroft will be powerless to censure. There are doubtless several Dutch sites which will serve their purposes.

And speaking of the Dutch, this week a company based in the Netherlands, calling itself the 'Honest Thief' announced its intention to turn its corner of the low countries into a haven for 'illegal' file sharers, making the Netherlands to peer-to-peer networking what Switzerland is to international banking. Seizing upon the lack of cohesion in international law-making the Honest Thief believes it's onto a winner.

Over time this has become an issue which refuses to be resolved. In 2000 it was a Yahoo! auction of Nazi memorabilia which brought the issue to the fore. The French government wanted the offending lots to be removed because French citizens were accessing the offensive auctions. Yahoo! refused, becoming a cause-celebre of civil liberties activists in the process. Undeterred the French government took the fight to Yahoo! through the US courts arguing that the country of access should hold sway over country of origin. Eventually the courts found in favour of Yahoo!.

Similarly, conflicting copyright regulations either side of the Atlantic mean the fight to combat music piracy has hit a jurisdictional obstacle where some of the 'golden oldies' are concerned.

And then there was the ban on Google in China and the case of Joe Gutnik in Australia. In short, this is not an uncommon problem.

But what's to be done? Should the internet be declared a virtual 'state' with its own rules and regulations? If so, who will set these laws and who will enforce them? There are no easy answers. The conflict of cultures means it would be impossible to be all things to all people. But surely something has to be done. Thinking along national boundaries was fine 20 years ago but surely the internet has made such thinking outdated.

We want to hear your suggestions and comments on this issue, email editorial@silicon.com