The Importance Of The Right To The Internet

SOPA, PIPA, and CISPA: though different, these bills were all presented with a similar goal in mind. These bills were intended to stop the digital copyright infringement of American intellectual properties, mainly in foreign countries, but the overly vague wording in the bills made it hard to decipher their real intentions (Yu). For a multitude of reasons, these bills were staunchly protested not only by American citizens, but they also received protest from numerous international groups (York). Though some may argue that SOPA, PIPA, or CISPA may have had some value, they did not have the intended result of ending digital theft, but rather invigorated a retaliating movement. The main

After the controversial data breaching incident, AshleyMadison.com owners face an enormous $578 million Canadian class-action lawsuit based on reports. Meanwhile, another high-profile account holder of the infidelity site has been admittedly exposed.

The internet is under attack by large corporations like your internet provider trying to slow down services like Netflix and other entertainment platforms and the reason they do this is to try and get people to switch over to their services.

America West recognizes that the internet can assist America West in enhancing its brand and creating communication and knowledge, but if not monitored, it can also be abused and ultimately become detrimental to the company. We have a company full of intelligent and responsible people who work hard and commit their work for the betterment of this company. Im not proposing this new internet policy because I think we have serious problems, I am suggesting we put into place a new internet policy with a goal in mind to prevent any problems in the future, either intentional or unintentional. This proposed internet policy is that internet usage assigned to an employee’s computer is solely for the purpose of conducting company business, but in the event that the employee is on break, there will be exceptions to that rule.

Technology is growing faster than ever before right now. And along the way technology invented items we now take for granted such as the telephone, the television, and the internet. Since the advent of the internet our world has become more connected by allowing users from the comfort of their own home to interact with people anywhere in the world. The internet has become a staple in the everyday life of the American. We use it to learn, reconnect with long lost friends, and so much more. But what happens when big service internet providers push to control what websites you can visit? Groups such as Save the Internet, the American Civil Liberties Union, and even the president Barack Obama have advocated for a free and open internet, which is also known as net neutrality. I believe net neutrality is vital to our modern day life in America. This is why I want to propose an amendment to keep the internet free. The amendment shall read: “The internet shall remain free and open and not be subjected to restrictions determined by internet service providers.”

At the point where Net Neutrality is upheld, as it is at this moment, all network access suppliers must enable equal access to applications and content, paying little respect to the source. If it were not authorized, your internet service provider could make it harder for you to access parts of the internet at its own preference. Vast web organizations could support their own business advantages without the guarantee of net neutrality, but for the time being, eliminating Net Neutrality could influence everything from web speed to the general access to the internet.

The modern day has evolved to one being heavily influenced by social media, a powerful platform for the public. As a result of that, it has become a platform for people to promote progressive ideas for society, as well has become a tool to promote hate. The United States government has a duty to regulate the internet as it potentially could be a tool for illegal activity and has proven to be a harmful tool if used maliciously, but to what extent is too much regulation? The duty of the US government to regulate the internet is one to ensure safety, but not one to violate the civil liberties and rights the country was originally built on.

The EFF is the leading non-profit organization defending civil liberties in the digital world. They are there to ensure that the rights and freedoms are enhanced as technology grows. They basically help to ensure that the rights of individuals are not violated with the use of technology. They use the unique expertise of leading technologist, activist and attorneys in their efforts to defend free speech online, fight illegal surveillance, advocate users and innovators and support freedom enhancing technologies. So they want to ensure that people are free to express themselves using technology, prevent people from being able to monitor you without authorization and helps the creators and users in the use and development

“…a principle that prohibits ISPs from speeding up, slowing down, or blocking any content on the internet.” This is a basic definition for the term Net Neutrality, which states that under the act internet service providers cannot change the quality of your connection based on what site you are browsing. This single principle has not only lead to controversial divide between citizens, it has also made visible fundamental differences in each sides beliefs. In this paper, I compare two possible explanations of this divide and stress how important this decision is not only to the future of the internet but to the future of company-customer relations.

The internet is the most important platform for ideas and thoughts to grow and spread, making it substantial. It’s important to keep it free and open for anyone without having to worry about being prioritized or shut out completely. The FCC has overstepped and has made it seem like safety is their main objective with the new ruling, but in reality its for control and sides with big businesses over the rest of society. The government should not interfere with the internet anymore then they are now, Anything more would give them too much control. Internet being regulated like a utility is bad business, Europeans who use internet being regulated is on average 30% slower than our current speeds. Not only will speeds be negatively affected but

The words, “Arguing that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say” were said by Edward Snowden who is a computer professional in America. Similarly, the essays “Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty,” “Web Users Get as Much as They Give,” and “Facebook Is Using You” from Nicholas Carr, Jim Harper, and Lori Andrews respectively points out that the internet privacy is good and bad. However, the articles by Carr and Andrews are based on the negative side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is not good. On the other hand, Harper’s article is based on the positive side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is good and scary, but people need to be careful of their own information and browsing histories, and websites. Jim Harper’s essay is more relevant and reasonable than the Nicholas Carr and Lori Andrews’s essays. However, Harper seems more persuasive to readers because he believes that the internet is good if people use it in a right way, whereas Carr and Andrews believe that the internet is not good at all.

Internet privacy is the security of a user’s personal data that is stored or published on the internet. The internet is an important part of every individual’s daily life. In today’s society, the internet is used by many different people for many reasons. It can be used for research, communication, and purchasing items. Without the internet, many things that are completed during the course of a day would be impossible or take time to complete. As people use the internet, everything is stored in a database that tracks and keeps any personal information that is entered by users. As users continue to use the internet to complete important tasks such as purchasing items and paying bills, their privacy and security become at risk. Although the internet can be seen to have a positive impact on society, it does have a negative impact. Since the internet can be accessed by anybody it can cause a lot of damage. Examples of internet risk include identity thieves, phasing, and scams. Due to things such as online shopping, banking and other e-commerce options, personal information is stored in the internet enabling many cybercrimes to occur. Cybercrimes are very similar to any regular crime; the crime just happens to take place on websites for criminals to hack and steal user’s information for their own personal benefit. Cybercriminals tend to attack users based on their emails, social media accounts, and web history because the most history about an individual is stored in those sites.

Dyson contends that there is an unequal access to computers because the computer and software industries are being forced to “upgrade their products constantly and new products remain out of the reach of the poor.” (Dyson, 1997) Barbour’s article simply states, “once we allow technology to define the good life, we have excluded many important human values from consideration.” (Barbour, 1993)

The US constitution offers certain fundamental rights and these rights deny to an individual violates equal protection. The right to privacy is explaining how an individual’s information is to be left alone and protected by the statutory law that a person is able to choose whether to engage in certain acts or not. The right to privacy is important because it contributes to enhance quality of life and separate from the public scrutiny.

I am opposed to such content on the Internet and therefore am a firm believer in