The Internet is seen as a source of knowledge, wisdom and resources for all kinds of information. It is one of the recent technologies that has made the world a global village. People are able to make friends, go to school and do business without leaving their homes. Job seekers no longer have to go from one street to another, but rather they use the Internet to find and apply for their dream job. Online shopping is now common and distance-learning institutions and open universities provide extensive online resources that aid education.
However, the recent story of the Delta State-born 2009 second runner-up of the Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria, MBGN, and the only daughter of General Frank Osokogu (rtd), Cynthia Udoka Osogu (24), whose body was discovered in a Lagos morgue a month after she was declared missing, having been murdered by the people she met on Facebook, has made some people question the safety of the Internet.
It is a sad fact that in modern media everything either has to be an evil, corrupting influence, destroyer of children and rapist of culture. Unfortunately, because it is a recent invention, the Internet - for all its potential - is repeatedly turned into Beelzebub's tool. The BBC once asked on its website: “Could you live without the Internet?” There were responses as straightforward as, “No, I couldn't”; “It has taken over my life”; “I was never like this before”; and responses as extreme as, “Kill all PCs”and “I would gladly do without many other things before I give up my Internet access”.
Another dark side of the technology is manifest in spurious activities of the online paedophiles. These days, Internet paedophiles are the “big bad wolves” of the online world. They look for children in their favourite age group. Particularly, they want children who do not get along with their parents and are just looking for someone to talk to. Because communication on the Internet is public and can be seen as anonymous, children often feel they are safe.
Paedophiles use social networking websites & chat rooms (sometimes posing as children or teenagers themselves) to initiate conversations with likely victims. They are skilled at eliciting as much information as possible about location, interests and even sexual experiences from children. The next step for the paedophile may be to show examples of pornography, both adult and child. If they can’t physically touch a child, they try to coax him/her into doing something sexual. If they can accomplish that, then such hapless child is more willing to meet and participate. The children will not talk about what they are going through. So who will tell the parents?
Last year, a Canadian girl, sixteen-year-old Amanda Todd committed suicide as a result of the harassment she was getting from someone she met online. The story started with an online paedophile persuading her to take off her clothes while the person watched on video chat. As time went on, the paedophile blackmailed her with the picture. Of course, there are many Amandas out there; and without the Internet, such an act could have been difficult to perpetrate!
Even worse than this lack of confidence over new technology is the media and politicians failing to monitor the threatening aspects of Internet technology. As yet, the Nigeria cybercrime bill has not been passed as legislators are somewhat indifferent to it. The bill titled, “A Bill for An Act to Protect Nigeria’s Cyberspace and Provide for the Prevention, Detection, Response and Prosecution of Cybercrimes and Related Matters” seeks to provide for measures of prevention, prohibition, and combating of cybercrimes and threats to the cyberspace and to prescribe punishment for cybercrimes.
Meanwhile, some people believe that they can address some dark sides of the Internet, most especially in matters relating to civil rights and spyware. In 2011 and early 2012, those behind PIPA (Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act) and SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) decided to intervene. SOPA is a proposed law with the goal of giving the US government and copyright holders additional tools to curb access to "rogue websites dedicated to the sale of infringing or counterfeit goods"; those registered outside the U.S are specifically targeted. PIPA, just like SOPA, is a United States bill introduced by U.S. Representative Lamar S. Smith to expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods. Its provisions include applying for court orders to bar advertising networks and payment channels from conducting business with infringing websites, as well as stopping search engines from linking to them, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to them. This law is expected to expand existing criminal laws to include unauthorised streaming of copyrighted content and imposing a maximum penalty of five years in prison.
As sexy as these two approaches are, they did not go down well with most people; those pushing the Acts were referred to as loonies. Organisations and corporations such as Google, Yahoo!, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, AOL, LinkedIn, eBay, Mozilla Corporation, Riot Games and Wikipedia among others opposed SOPA and warned that it would have a negative impact on online communities. Additional concerns like the impact on common Internet functions such as links from one site to another or accessing data from the Cloud were also raised. It was so controversial that January 18, 2012 was declared “SOPA Blackout Day” and almost all the notable websites across the world protested. Google, blacked out its logo to protest the two Acts – under the Google logo was a message that read, “Tell Congress: Please don’t censor the web!”. While written supposedly to make it easier to stop pirating of music, movies, and other media, opponents argue that the Acts are so penalising and over-reaching that they would essentially criminalise sharing and creativity. The billionaire Facebook developer, Mark Zuckerberg, in reaction to the Acts said the Internet was the most powerful tool for creating a more open and connected world and “poorly thought out laws” would “hurt the Internet”. The reason for the outcry against these Acts is not farfetched: the Internet operates on an international basis while the law operates on a territorial basis.
As it appears, contemplating stopping the Internet, judging from some of the dark sides of it, could amount to wiping out the entire human race. Is this not an indication that people who appreciate its efficacy cannot really do without it?
As with all things in life, it is up to the individual to find a balance between both the negative and positive aspects of the Internet. Enough awareness and education should be able to assist in dealing with the other side of the Internet. And if I may ask, could you do without the Internet?
Author: Dave Agboola
.jpg)
