Abstract
Global electronic markets, virtual organizations, virtual identities, virtual products and services, and Internet-related crime are growing in prominence and importance. In a world that is increasingly non-physical and borderless, what are government's roles, responsibilities and limitations?
Keywords
intellectual property, government in cyberspace, regulating the virtual world
Description
Grounding the research on Cultural interoperability
The virtual world (the Internet) is a paradise not only for information search and customizing (see D21 scenario: The new eWorld order) but also for all kinds of criminals (see D21 scenarios: Dodgems (cars) and Orchestrating Government, and D31).
Currently governments expend efforts in setting up a proper regular framework for eCrime cases. In the physical world governments know their role including obligations and restrictions with regard to crime prevention and prosecution. Every Nation found its own way to balance freedom and security, and set up laws to protect both. Physical borders leads to different nation depended individual rights of the corresponding population. But within the virtual world national borders (see D31) and with it national rights got lost, as well as governments protection. The impact of changing borders both physical and virtual becomes more and more important (see D21 Vilnius workshop uncertainty/impact matrix). What will happen if one or more governments undertake efforts to strongly regulate the Internet (see D31)? For instance to spy on someone?s email correspondence? The legal definition and therewith the protection of secrecy of the post variegates between countries. However there are no borders which would protect the individual for unauthorized violations of foreign governments within the virtual world. How to translate national law into the Internet (see D31)? There is a need to decide if national borders shall be the solution or international law. How to generate national borders in the virtual world? If regulation takes place (see D21 scenario: The new eWorld order) through international law who will execute the law? Who will watch the watchers? The Internet is the first medium that supports individual and mass, synchronic and asynchronic, supply- and demand-oriented, moderated and unmoderated, personalized and anonymous, open and encrypted communication at the same time.
The virtual world is a world of imagination, re-imagination where people can have multiple identities and change identity if necessary. For instance, if one identity is regulated by government, people will create a new one (see D21 The new eWorld order). What kind of virtual citizenship will appear (see D21 'Local wins: The Me, I, My World of mass self-segregation? and US workshop uncertainty/impact matrix, and D21)? Many people have a second life. They are working (see D21 Collaborative and highly networked society) and/or living within the Internet. Decentralisation as far as possible and with it anarchy is one of the fundamental structural attributes of the Internet. Hence self-regulation within the Internet is the most popular kind of regulation because governmental regulation is very hard and maybe impossible to transform properly.
Future research should identify what cases of internet crime, e.g. protection of intellectual property, minors, etc. (see D31) need to regulate by law, and when is self-regulation (see D31) the better solution. In the case of data and privacy protection, individual concerns might lead to the case that some people prefer to live in an internet free zone (see D21 scenario Local wins: The Me, I, My World of mass self-segregation and the US-workshop, and Brussels workshop). If an internet crime is discovered, prosecution will be required. Currently, there is a lack of effective laws, methods, measurements and technologies to prosecute crime in the virtual world.
The Centre for Socio-Legal Studies of the University of Oxford discovered existing laws, measurements and technologies are inappropriate to match the challenges of crime within the virtual world. However they pointed out, as well as experts from the Linz scenario building workshop (see D21 Linz workshop uncertainty/impact matrix) that transparency of the Internet (e.g. standardisation of processes) is a key success factor for regulative interventions within the virtual world. Concluding the Internet is not well understood.
Therefore research is absolutely necessary to discover the functional and structural basis of the Internet in general and to develop efficient and ethical correct laws and technologies to protect the individual and society. This will be an essential part in order to create an information society.
Research question
- How to translate national law into the Internet?
- How to prosecute a crime in the virtual world without coherence and appearance?
- What are the conditions for sustainability in the virtual world?
- What kinds of internet crime need to regulate by law?
- In which cases does self-regulation better match the requirements?
- How to regulate the virtual world by national or international law?
- What kind of virtual citizenship will appear?
- What money governments can extract from the virtual world, e.g. taxation?
Link to the final eight scenarios
The research theme eGovernments role in regulating the virtual world mainly results from several of the original 29 scenarios. In the final eight scenarios, the virtual world (the Internet) is mentioned as well. Several of the final eight scenarios point out the opportunities given by the virtual world for eGovernment purposes in regard to eServices (see Orchestrating government: EGOVRTD2020/navigation/work_packages/wp2_scenario_building/orchestrating, Social state and Empowering state), and for eBusiness purposes in regard to eMoney and for eParticipation purposes in regard to direct voting (see Scenario Ambient government>). Mainly the creation of a unique and secure virtual identity is mentioned (see Social state, Empowering state). Only in the latter scenario, the Empowering state, the development of a solid legal framework is claimed to be a necessity.
Link to the gaps and gaps storyline
Several of the gaps and gap storylines in (D31) focussing on privacy issues in particular monitoring ( see changing public values, automatic monitoring and enforcement, competition among nations)) by collecting information using new technology and profiling (see changing public values) are cases which need to be more investigated. The challenge to define a legal framework (see information access and transparency) in order to protect personnel data and virtual crimes such as, e.g. protection of intellectual property (see Intellectual property), hackers´ alliances and cyber crimes (see Cyber wars and crimes), illegitimately access to and use of citizens and organizations data (see information access and transparency, crisis management, eParticipation), is included in many gaps. The need for governmental regulation is already named in some gaps (e.g. see information access and transparency), as well as the need to set up a global international legal framework (see rationalize the legal framework for eGovernment, Standardization of laws, regulations and taxes). But on the other hand self-regulation is mentioned in some gaps (see lean government and incident politics), too. Mainly in those that are strongly related to government's strategy to focus on their core business. However, the discussion about eGovernment often leads to the discussion of new issues arising through the Internet as it is the most important channel for eGovernment, for instance virtual citizenship (see Virtual borders and citizenship) and virtual borders (see geographic boarders will disappear).
Link to the roadmapping workshops
At the Brussels workshop participants mentioned that the Internet is a world of imagination and re-imagination. In that world people can change their identity that makes regulation nearby impossible. If government regulates one people find and/or create a new one. This seems to be the end of the world we know it. Many people are already living a second life not only during their free time but also working and earning their money in the Internet. They are taking advantages of the fact that there will be no taxation if you build up a company in the virtual world. It is assumed that about 2 Million people are working in the virtual world. But figures are not reliable because it is hard to account the number of people in a world established to generate anonymity. Online companies are making high revenues without any taxation. One participant mentioned an internet taxation approach of the French government that aims at executing the taxation of online companies through cash flow regulation in close cooperation with banks. That might be the only possibility. But what will be if a virtual bank that cannot be regulated by governments comes up? What money governments can extract from the virtual world by e.g. taxation? Does virtual crime really impact the physical world? The virtual world is faster than any regulation can act. Governments are always in the pursuit mode. Coherence and appearance is mentioned as requirement in order to regulate the Internet. Acceleration of the regulation process has its own way on the grounds of democracy. It needs its time. What are the conditions for sustainability in the virtual world?
