Public vs. Private uses of Cberspace in Monticello and Philadelphia

--Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine the public and private uses of Cyberspace in Philadelphia and Monticello. Although very convenient and easy to use Cyberspace is not always a safe place. While millions provide and use the services of the Internet for the good it serves and the beneficial potential it promises, the Internet certainly is not immune to the treachery of a small but insidious number of people who have furnished the Internet with a dark side: privacy invasions, lawlessness, intolerance and theft. In places all over the country Cyberspace has become a breeding ground for terrorism, racism, and other forms of inhumane harassment. In cities such as Philadelphia and Monticello citizens have gone as far as suing the city itself for the harassment that was issued to them over Cyberspace. I will argue that the resolution of this crisis will require cooperation between law enforcement personnel, citizens, internet service providers, cellular service providers, and special Cyberspace crime groups; also, it will require explorations of copyright and infringement laws to further insure the rights of the law and all participating parties.



--Statement of problem
As the world steadily makes its way into the future more and more people are turning to the use of technology for the function of everyday life, and as more and people begin to rely on the internet the more powerful it becomes. In the United States an estimated 429,138,706 different people visit cyberspace in the United States on a daily basis alone, even high different branches of the government such as the military, financial affairs, and presidential affairs are all accessed and recorded through Cyberspace. With a place that has boundless possibilities and a population that is almost mind blowing, the questions who really control Cyberspace and who has the right to divvy out its powers remains unanswered. In the cities of Monticello and Philadelphia lawsuits against the cities themselves have been pulled up by local phone companies and internet providers who feel as if the cities have tried to infringe on their money making schemes by equipping the citizens with free internet. The Solution for this problem will require the higher powers at be to act accordingly and create specific guidelines and boundaries for Cyberspace. By doing this terms among Cyberspace will remain clear therefore limiting the chances for a companies to lose money through the internet.


--Theory
As the world begins to be engulfed by this Cyber phenomenon, copyright and infringement are words constantly thrown around. Worldwide.net defines infringement as an act that disregards an agreement or a right, and it defines copyright as a document granting exclusive right to publish and sell literary or musical or artistic work. Because of its massive size it is hard to put boundaries on Cyberspace. I believe although this problem growing into something bigger than any of us can imagine that it can be contained with more help from our government it will also require the exploration of cooperation and fairness.


--Analysis
In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania the city of Philadelphia planned on doing something special for its citizens. As a surprise they begin to give their whole populations free Wi-Fi. Not too long before the city of Philadelphia made this decision local phone company Verizon wireless released its new internet plan equipped with high fast lightning speeds. After the release of the free Wi-Fi however, the internet plan Verizon had recently issued out began to back fie. When Verizon heard about the free Wi-Fi that was being issued out by the city they threatened to sue, insisting that the cities free wireless plan was infringing upon their internet plan. Furious about the lawsuit, the city goes behind Verizon’s back and gets EarthLink to provide the city with free Wi-Fi anyways, but after hearing this Verizon goes on to buy out EarthLink’s internet rights all together
Monticello, Minnesota also experienced the same problem. Not satisfied with current DSL and cable offerings the town of Monticello hatched an ambitious plan to wire up the entire community with fiber, build an interconnect station, and allow ISP’s to link up to the site and offer internet access over the city-maintained fiber links. After a vote on the measure passed in 2007, Monticello quickly moved to raise money and break ground, but was promptly sued by the local telephone provider, Bridgewater, a unit of TDS Telecom.
TDS had one main complaint. They argued that the project should not be financed with city bonds due to the fact that city bonds can only be used for the building of utilities. TDS charged that the project was not a utility and was instead an unfair use of government power to compete with private business.
In the end it was the state of Monticello that came out victorious. When brought to an appeals court in 2009, the court ruled that the decision was proper and that utilities certainly include internet access. From the ruling, Bridgewater concedes that the telephone and television services are utilities but steadfastly denies that internet services qualify as a utility.
Three (3) men have come up with different ideas about the way this problem could be handled. The first two (2) gentlemen, Robert Axelrod and William Hamilton, believed in the evolution of cooperation. The basic concept of this idea was that cooperation was the key to evolution and the devolvement of life. They believed that without evolution the advancement of our people would be halted. Their idea was backed with different types of strategies such as Prisoner’s dilemma and A Tit for Tat who offered different methods for solving this problem.
Cooperation is usually analyzed in game theory be means of a non zero sum game known as “Prisoner’s Dilemma”. In this idea by Axelrod, Subject “A” or subject “B” can choose between two (2) moves either “cooperate” or “defect”. The idea is if both players choose to cooperate both will gain, but if subject “A” cooperates while subject “B” defects, subject “A” will receive little while subject “B” gains more. If both defect however, both subject “A” and subject “B” will receive very little or nothing at all.
The problem with Prisoners Dilemma is that if both decision makers were purely rational, they would never cooperate, and we find this true in the situation with Minnesota and Philadelphia. In both cases since one player was willing to cooperate and the other one wasn’t, the player willing to cooperate (the cities) was able to gain, however the other player (the phone companys) received nothing at all. This situation not only furthers but proves Axelrod’s idea of evolution and cooperation.
A Tit for Tat is another basic yet effective game strategy offered by Axelrod and Hamilton. A Tit for Tat is a basic strategy where subject “A” makes a series of moves and subject “B” follows behind making a series of moves identical to those of subject “A”. By following this plan, subject “A” and “B” eventually conclude at a stalemate due to subject “B’s” neutralizing maneuvers toward subject “A”. Although it results in a stalemate where both players virtually receive the same outcome, it also can be avoided by detecting this strategy early.
This strategy also is seen working throughout this situation as well. As one player made a decision the other made a decision to not only topple the other but to also stalemate the other as well. Because the indecisiveness showed by both parties, the participation amongst the citizens began to dwindle down resulting in a lack customers for both parties.
The next gentlemen John Rawls believed in the idea of fairness and justice. Webster defines Justice as the moral principle determining just conduct, while fairness is defined as legitimate or free from dishonesty or injustices. The words similar, yet different, can be found within the definition of the other, and without these two working in cohesion then you are constantly left with unsolved problems.
With all the Cybercrime and lawsuits taking place, different programs established by the FBI and Department of Justice have been created to bring the Cyber Chaos to a halt. Psychiatrists and psychologists have also teamed up to help determined why people would resort to performing violent and other devilish acts toward innocent individuals.
In 1995, at the recommendation of what was then called the Computer Crime Unit, and is now the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS), the Department of Justice created the Computer and Telecommunication Coordinator (CTC) Program to protect the nation's businesses and citizens from the rising tide of computer crime and intellectual property theft by designating one or more prosecutors in every U.S. Attorney's Office to be responsible for these issues. In 2001, following a successful model developed in the Northern District of California that demonstrated the benefits of a unit of prosecutors working closely with the FBI and other agencies to establish a relationship with the local high tech community and encourage them to refer cases to law enforcement, the Department expanded the program in ten cities by designating Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property (CHIP) units. These units typically involved more prosecutors than under the CTC program and were specifically charged with building relationships in-district with the FBI, other agencies, and the local high tech community. New units have been added frequently thereafter. In 2005, the CTC and CHIP programs were combined into a unified CHIP program.
Dr. Chris Ballas, world famous psychiatrist gave seven main reasons why people commit crimes over the internet. The first reason was Necessity. He explains if you are extremely poor the need to survive has no means and stealing may be the first and fastest way to achieve what it is that you needed. The second reason was Convenience followed by emotions which is the third reason. The fourth reason he mentions is ignorance of the law. He gives examples such as people downloading free music from the internet. The fifth and 6th reasons he mentioned were a mental illness and pre-disposition. And the final reason why people turn to a life of crime is their previous environment. He goes on to explain how If a child grows up believing that certain criminal activity is acceptable (drug dealing, prostitution, cheating on taxes, etc.) it can often enhance their potential for crime. Also, sometimes when people are involved in "group" crimes there are those who really didn't want to participate but only do so because they have a need for.


--Conclusion
With all of these different factors working together in harmony the crime rate in Cyberspace will eventually diminish. Due to the fact that the law will begin to monitor the rules of the internet and enforce them more properly, it is all but too easy to say that the situations that occurred in Philadelphia and Monticello will not happen again.