Fears over plan to regulate online services

Date: 25/07/1996

By Fiona McHugh

ACROSS the Union, people have already begun to browse through computerised shopping malls, pay bills from the comfort of their own homes, and even conduct virtual love affairs across ISDN lines.

Like the television and the phone before them, revolutionary online services such as PC-banking and tele-shopping should make life a lot easier for Europe's citizens.

But they could also create serious social problems.

The Internet is already being used to disseminate child pornography and racist material, and to hack into sensitive government and corporate documents.

It is possible, then, to imagine the emergence of a shadowy computer world awash with thieves, drug dealers and political subversives who, once their criminal deed was done, would be able to skip countries undetected.

Faced with frightening possibilities such as these, regulators have already begun to draft and adopt laws.

In the US, President Bill Clinton has signed a law making it illegal to distribute indecent material over computer networks - although the legality of that bill is being challenged in court.

In Europe, MEPs are trying to extend existing broadcasting rules to new services. But they are unlikely to get their way, as ministers are vehemently opposed to the idea.

Even so, the fact that the European Parliament is championing the interventionist cause has raised concern among industry officials.

They argue that the rapid growth of the multi-billion-ecu online business would be stunted by too many regulations.

“Over-regulation will discourage investment in online services,” explains John Frank of Microsoft, adding that his company does not want common-denominator legislation allowing only material deemed suitable for children on to the Internet.

The Commission sympathises with Frank's view, and has promised to take a light-handed approach to regulating the World Wide Web.

But it must also safeguard the single market. If no EU laws are introduced, the Commission argues, then a patchwork of national laws will emerge and that too could prove fatal to new services.

Hence the decision to propose the introduction of a 'transparency mechanism'. The measure would force governments to send all national laws affecting the information society to the Commission and EU partners for approval prior to their adoption. But it would not force them to harmonise national legislation.

Anxious to get it right, the Commission has launched discussion papers on issues as diverse as copyright in the information age and legal protection of encrypted services. A Green Paper on new services is due to be published in the coming months.

By consulting all of the interested parties, the Commission hopes to come up with a legislative framework which will protect citizens, while at the same time giving industry room to breath.

Enforcement is also likely to pose problems. Given the fact that publishers can operate from one country (with for example a lax legal regime) and still reach audiences in another (where rules are perhaps stricter), the regulation of computer services raises complex questions about jurisdiction.

Which laws, for example, should publishers obey - those in the country in which they are based or those in the country to which they are posting information?

One way of getting around such problems would be to install technological devices in televisions and computers which would allow viewers to block the reception of 'unsuitable' programmes.