The Internet is not a single object, so no government, company or individual can control it. The Internet can be accessed in almost every country, but cannot be controlled by any one country. There is no "off" button for the Internet. Besides eliminating most of the computers or telephone lines in the world, the Internet cannot be shut down. This makes it resistant to control and regulation because, while a country may gain control over computers within its borders, there is no leverage against the whole system. (Sean Selin, Governing Cyberspace: The Need For An International Solution, 32 Gonz. L. Rev. 365, 369 (1996-97).)
The difficulty in controlling the internet involves the millions of users around the world. There is no central law governing the Internet because there is no central policy-making body that enforces Internet decisions. (Id. at 370.) Domestic solutions are inadequate because cyberspace has no geographic or political boundaries. This creates problems on such issues as content regulation, protection of intellectual property, privacy, and jurisdiction.
National governments, worldwide, are adopting Internet-specific laws. Governments have tried to enforce some control over the Internet, but those efforts are directed to the portion under their immediate authority. (Id.) The Internet has no respect for international boundaries; rules governing conduct are informal and no single government can enforce those rules on an Internet-wide basis. (Id.) International boundaries are not marked, activities on the Internet can take place anywhere and usually without the knowledge of the user. Such activities can involve several countries, any and all of which may try to exert control. When problems occur, questions as to who is responsible and where they should be held responsible will arise.
The French government recently dealt with the problem of imposing responsibility on the Internet. The French government banned a particular book in its country, however, before authorities were able to stop sales of the book, it was uploaded onto the Internet by using host computers in France and other countries. (Id. at 372.) Because France does not have the authority to ban the book from servers located in other countries, it was basically powerless to stop its distribution. Furthermore, France cannot legally prevent its citizens from downloading and reading the book over the Internet. This recent situation demonstrates the difficulty for a government to exercise jurisdiction over its citizens when the Internet is involved.
With jurisdictional issues still undetermined, nations have begun to restrict content on the Internet. Countries that restrict their citizen’s speech face the problem that the Internet provides a source of "illegal" information that is difficult to regulate. Because acceptable speech differs among various countries worldwide, the Internet remains a place of uncertainty for users and providers. In Germany, for example, the circulation of Nazi propaganda denying the Holocaust is illegal. (Sheri A. Dillon, Douglas E. Groene & Todd Hayward, Computer Crimes, 35 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 503, 541 (Spring 1998).) Such material, however, is easily accessible through the Internet. As a result, Germany has chosen to target Internet service providers ("ISP’s") in its efforts to curb the content problem. In a suit against an ISP, a German court held that a German subsidiary of a Japanese company is responsible for the improper advertising of its U.S. subsidiary. (John R. Schmertz & Mike Meier, German Court Holds German Subsidiary Of Japanese Company Responsible For Improper Internet Advertising Of U.S. Subsidiary, 4 Int’l L. Update 47 (April 1998).) The German subsidiary's web-site had a link to a U.S. web-site with an "illegal," (under German law) advertisement. (Id.) As a result, the German court issued an injunction against the German subsidiary. Other countries may follow Germany or instead, begin targeting the individuals who create "objectionable" web-sites. This uncertain liability will stifle the eagerness of individuals or businesses from providing information on the Internet or becoming ISP’s.
Even without enacting Internet-specific laws or regulations, nations already have plenty of laws that they can apply to Internet users and providers, such as consumer protection statutes and criminal codes. The Minnesota Attorney General's office in particular has been very aggressive in pursuing what it considers to be online violations of Minnesota law, filing a flurry of lawsuits against out-of-state advertisers and service providers. (Dan L. Burk, Federalism In Cyberspace, 28 Conn. L. Rev. 1095, 1096 (Summer 1996).) The Illinois Attorney General's office is equally eager to get into the cyberspace game. (Id.) The U.S. federal government, however, has recently suspended any new Internet-specific laws that a particular state government might enact. The Clinton administration has been conscious not to hurt the Internet’s potential as a global medium in the international marketplace.