Not true. There IS an 'owner' and there ARE people who 'control' it. The 'owner' assigns addresses and issues the communication rules. These rules that control how the networks interface with other -- how messages are addressed and delimited and so on. People don't simply shoot off a stream of bytes into the air -- those bytes must be formatted to a defined layout in order to get to their intended recipient.
As mentioned in other posts, communication is ALREADY proscribed in various ways.
That's a condescending and inappropriate attitude.
If someone is harassing me by telephone, your attitude is that I should disconnect my phone. However, public policy doesn't agree. Rather, they go after the offender. There are both laws and technology to protect the subscriber. The Internet is becomming a public utility and as such should include protections other public utilities have to protect end consumers.
The reality is that while streets are not 100% safe, there are ongoing continuous improvements. Roads are much safer than years ago, and the RATE of fatalities continues to radically decline.
As mentioned in other posts, the experience of business has resulted in various laws to regulate business activity so people have a high degree of confidence.
But in contrast, it seems that nothing is being done to improve Internet integrity. The 'movers and shakers' seem as stubborn as the car-makers were to install safety devices.
As others mentioned it's not that hard to come up with a consensus. Or the govt should do it, as it has for other venues.
Then we need laws passed by the govt to mandate this; just as the govt mandates proper behavior in other forms of commerce and communication. All autos sold in the US must contain mandated safety and emission standards.
Self-renewing contracts only renew automatically with the consent of both parties. Further, govt law may override or enhance contract provisions. (Contracts that call for racial discrimination, for example, are not enforceable and obviously renewable contracts need an exit clause.)
Seems to me the technocrats are ignoring the realities of how the rest of the business and social fabric of the country operates. (See the other post about Russia.)
Strawman. Irrelevent.
Nobody "requires" me to participate in a lot of things, like credit cards, a phone, a govt-issued ID card, having a driver's license and owning a registered car. However, not participating makes life awfully tough. Many businesses and govt agencies make it effectively difficult or impossible to do business with them except via the Internet.
Yes, we have locks on our doors. But we do not roll over and blandly accept the problems that make us put locks on our doors -- we fight back. Admittedly with various degrees of success and with controversy, but we do fight back. In NYC, nobody thought they could reduce crime and quality of life issues -- city life got really lousy in the 1970s -- but they managed to successfully fight back and improve things. You're simply shrugging your shoulders and saying "nothing can be done, so go lock your doors".
Sorry, but that answer is not good enough.
A lot of arrogant business people faced public scorn because of problems in their industries. They had a choice of cleaning it up themselves, or having the govt step in and clean it up for them. If Internet activists are worried about govt intervention (as responses here seem to indicate), they better clean up the problems on their own or it will be imposed upon them.
No longer true, as many companies and govt agencies have made it the primary information and communication source, and made more traditional sources (ie telephone and walk-in) unavailable.
So, what is being done about this?
TELECOM Digest Editor noted:
Excellent points.
Sadly, the responders here seem to demonstrate much techno-arrogance. This isn't anything new from the technocrats. I remember years ago how the systems programmers who had great power would demand things be done in a certain way only because they said so, not because the system itself mandated it. Application programmers could be the same way toward end-users. Remember the "do not fold/mutilate/spindle" backlash protests of the 1960s when people purposely did just that out of frustration with computers?
Other moderators feel the same way.