Chinas One Party System Analysis

Chinas One Party System Analysis Zhiting Liu One-party system and multi-party system, how about China? As people know, most of the countries in the world they implement the multi-party system, like in U.S.A, UK and Germany. However, some of the countries use the one-party system to manage the government, like in China, North Korea and Cuba. So, what’s the different with one-party system and multi-party system and which one is the best one in the world? There are many question of the people, and people always argument with it. In my opinion, the United States is a dictatorship, but was a â€Å"clever dictatorship†, China have its own feature model of one-party system and people need for an effective monitoring system. So, what is the one-party system? And what is the multi-party system? One-party system is a type of state in which a single political party has the right to form the government, usually based on the existing constitution. All other parties are either outlawed or allowed to take only a limited and controlled participation in elections (Wiki, 2014). And a multi-party system is a system in which multiple political parties have the capacity to gain control of government offices, separately or in coalition (Wiki, 2012). When people talk the party system, they always talk the one-party system is dictatorship and multi-party system is democratic. In fact, multi-party system can have authoritarian and one-party system also can have democracy. And if talks about the dictatorship and democratic, we need to explain it first. The most primitive dictatorship is in the ancient China of Qin dynasty, the emperors said Shi Wu Ju Xi Jie Jue Yu Shang(Sima Qian, shih chi), these Chinese characters mean all the events need decided by the emperor. However as history goes, the connotation of dictatorship was shifted, in nowadays it is: A few people with their own will to governing the behavior of most people. Indeed, the countries such as the United States also have this. This will be talked about later. And the democracy, it is divided into great democracy and small democracy, great democracy is a kind of denial of governmental authority, the people were completely manage the country. In fact, the Chinese Cultural Revolution is an extreme great democracy. And the cost of great democracy is Chaos. Small democracy is a behavior which part of the people in a small range to management themselves. Small democracy is scientific and feasible, because the wisdom of ordinary people is limited, for their side of things, the management is reasonable and capable, but for high-level national policy it could not, even if they are given a great democracy with limited management power, they can easily be swayed by some political forces, thus becoming a puppet dictatorship under the guise of democracy. At first, how multi-party dictatorship. For example, in the United States, the United States is a two-party country. The two parties in the political philosophy of the left (Democrat) and the right (Republicans), but the two parties are deeply influenced by American consortium. The United States is the kingdom of money first, money can control the politic and it is legitimate. When in every general election, the major consortia will selected a good team, and be the financial assistant of their contestants†, they establishment of various campaign funds, go canvassing the people and make momentum to get votes. Theres only one US president is not receiving any money support and got success in the history of the United States presidential election, that is Lincoln. When the contestants successful campaign to become US president candidate, he is bound to reciprocate the consortium which support him. Certainly, his returns are not increased tax and other fees then repay to them, but the bias of the policy. For example, in some way George W. Bush launched the Iraq war was a feedback to the US arms group. This is the issue of administrative aspects. In the legislation part, although the Member of Parliament in the United States was elected by the popular vote, but they dont have an effective monitoring mechanism. Thats mean when a person becomes member, before end of the term, he is unfettered, so he get bribe from a big consortia is a very easy thing to do. If a bill is being reviewed but is conflict of interest, then there is no guarantee of stakeholders who would think some distorted ideas. This is a test of Members, but in this time, Members are not subject to the supervision and restriction by other agencies, so he could reasonably have been legally inclined to support or deny a bill, then get the benefits from one of the stakeholders. As long as a good price then there is no need to tangle up for re-election. For this hidden dictatorship, how many people can perceive it? In fact, as long as the control of the executive power (President) and legislative (Congress) it will be able to completely control the politics of a country, and in a country where money is worshipped, in fact, the money is in charge of everything. However, the spokesperson of money is consortiums and capitalists. In essence, the United States is a dictatorship, but a clever dictatorship. The American two-party system, in essence, is representing supported their capitalist camp, but nothing on the concept of fine-tuning, the Republican Party is absolutely conservative, and it always tend to be protect by big capitalists. The Democratic Party is relatively aggressive, they tend to give benefit to the general public. But what is for their shareholders to speak? Such as the fail policy like Obamas health Insuranceâ€Å", who can give financial support to this. Though my primary example is America, I want to briefly mention that these principles can also be observed in European political parties. The European political parties actually almost as same as America, if the West countries is absolutely democratic politics, then why do they not allow the ruling is a Communist Party candidate? Almost every Western country has the presence of the Communist Party, but all of them receive severe pressure. From this point of, the Western democracy is nothing but a hypocritical rule tool. Then lets see the strengths and weaknesses of one-party system. The first advantage of one-party system is its strong ability to mobilize. It means concentrating power, then we cannot ignore the economic miracles of the Soviet Union and the economic miracles which was being staged in China, both of them are faster than the capitalist countries when they development in the capital accumulation stage. The development results in Western countries are cost two or three decades. But in the Soviet Union and China, both of them were only need to take two or three five-year plan. (Wiki, 2014) One-party state, especially the Communist Party of the State, its national mobilization capability is very powerful, it will be better able to respond to some of the major events, such as war, from the Soviet Union to North Korea, the countries which are really powerful. The disadvantage of the one-party is the abuse of its strong mobilize ability. Since the individual level issues, the direction of the Communist Party of mobilization is not necessarily correct, such as the year of the Soviet Union, the government mobilize the national forces to engage in an arms race, and finally it was lead to economic stagnation and coup. And now, in the North Korea, the government regardless of peoples life, the country is to engage in military-first policy. And now Chinese official is too much lay emphasis on speed of economic development and neglects other aspects of construction and so on, this is an abuse of mobilization capacity, which is the foreign people who always talks the dictatorship of one-party system. Before I discuss the advantages of Chinas current one-party system and the advantage of multi-party system. At first we need to have a clear concept of the one party system and Chinas current one-party system, they are not a same thing. Although it is undeniable that Chinas current one-party system has many problems, but cannot be generalized. One-party system could have a variety of modes, for example, one-party system in A-mode, B-mode single-party system, C mode one party system, etc. If now China is use an A-model party system, and its not very suitable, it’s not mean that the party system B mode is not good either. As another example, a foreigner practicing the Chinese Kungfu, and he do the terrible job, but you cannot deduce the Chinese Kungfu is very bad in itself, this is the truth. Therefore, if the Chinas current one-party system are different with the normally one-party system or have some problems, that you can understand this is a new model of one-party management which are more suitable with Chinas policy and social. And China still need time to modified the issue and make it completely. In the March 3rd, 2010, there was a news posted in the Singapore’s newspaper, the tittle is: â€Å"Comparative Politics: Why Chinas one-party system is superior to the Western multiparty system.† (Newspaper, 2010) In this whole article, the author gives six advantages of China’s current one-party system. One of the advantages of Chinas one-party system is that the country can develop a national long-term development plan and maintain the stability of the policy, it didnt effect by different political party which have the different positon. The first part is the advantage of one-party system, its the powerful ability of mobilize, needless to say anymore. The second advantage of Chinas one-party system is the high efficiency. For the challenges and opportunities China can make timely and effective response, especially in response to sudden disaster events. The word High efficiency is used inappropriately. In fact, its still talks about the national mobilization, with the ability of Western countries, they are difficult to achieve effectively mobilize from the whole society, it is the disadvantaged of their ability to mobilize. But with the high efficiency is not an appropriate word to sum up the truth, because the Western countries they are advanced in science or technology and in the field of efficiency significantly they are higher than China. In the other side Science and Technology is the driving force of its wealth creation. The third advantage of Chinas one-party, is in this particular period of social transition, the government can effectively curb the spread of corruption. For the part three, it is obviously nonsense, because under the current one-party system which corruption is impossible to get effective control. In the Chinese one-party system it was absence of have an effective monitoring mechanism. Is the government suppress the corruption, we cannot see it, because we can only get the news which is the government want us to know. But if China can develop an effective monitoring mechanism in the future, then the one-party system can really more effective than a multiparty system to curb corruption. Because when that system have the power to protect the people, ordinary people can exert a greater influence on personnel appointment and dismissal, while the peoples passion of bottom level for fighting corruption is not self-evident, therefore, anti-corruption efforts can be more efficient operation in support of its system. In contrast, multi-party system, if party A corruption, they change to Party B, then Party B and back again corrupt party A, and so forth, the result is still the same. Taiwan does not is a vivid example? DPP ousted the KMT and they do the same thing (Truth in Taiwan, 2010). Therefore, the key to solve the eradication of corruption is not one-party or multi-party system, but the people become an effective monitoring mechanism. Chinas fourth one-party Advantage is the Chinese government it is a more accountable government. If it is a one-party ruling, it must take full responsibility for all the acts. And for the multi-party ruling, actually they always have a new beginning after the election, to know the stand or fall of a political party, just look the election. For normally people, they are not choose the best, just drive away the worst. They always only hold â€Å"this is not the best, but have no choice attitude to towards the new ruling party. As for the one-party system, although normally people do not have the opportunity to choose another, but they can reasonably and lawfully to oversight and reform the government. So, the multi-party system of government needs to take more responsibility, and to take full responsibility for their words and deeds, so that people do not have elections in the game again and again to choose more responsible government Chinas one-party advantage fifth is that in personnel training and selection mechanisms the government can avoid the waste of talent. This is completely nonsense, because the one-party system China has screened talent people earlier and only those talent who support their can get a good development, the other people who was nonsupport government not only give up them, but also given pressure, thats the causing many of peoples go abroad and live overseas. In that moment, the multi-party system countries develop a training system capable of supporting the all intellectuals, and theres no political part to affect them to study and get development. The Sixth advantage of Chinas one-party system is that it can truly representative referendum. For this section and the status quo it was seem to have a very big contrast. Because the people who live in one-party system countries they always get unfair threat, but in the multi-party system countries people were feel freedom. Overall, according to the opinion of Max, a mature party system is better than a multi-party system, but nowadays the one-party system is not mature so there is not happened. Whether a one-party system or a multi-party system, all need people to supervise, we need a completely monitoring mechanism. The monitoring mechanism of Multi-party is election system, but it is too irresponsible, it only show a complete new name after the election, there are no major aspects of change, and it only mend small ways to cope the voter’s trouble. And the monitoring mechanism of Chinas one-party have not been established. As long as China can develop an effective monitoring mechanism of the one-party system, like allow the normal people to participate in the personnel appointment and removal, it is more effective and more democratic than the way of voters evaluate. Reference page One-party System.Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 24 Nov. 2014. Multi-party System.Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 24 Nov. 2014. â€Å"Shi Wu Ju Xi Jie Jue Yu Shang† Sima Qian. Shih Chi, 101-104 BC. â€Å"Five year plan† Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 24 Nov. 2014. â€Å"Comparative Politics: Why Chinas one-party system is superior to the Western multiparty system.† Song Luzheng. Singapore united news, March 3rd, 2010. Web. 24 Nov. 2014. KMT vs DPP. Truth in Taiwan. Truth in Taiwan, 21 May 2010. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.

The Caucasus, Madagascar and Caribbean Islands: Biodiversity Hotspots

Biodiversity Hotspots The Caucasus: The Caucasus hotspot, historically interpreted as the area of land between the Black and Caspian seas, covers a total area of 580,000 km. Located at a biological crossroads, species from Central and Northern Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East and North Africa mingles here with endemics found nowhere else. One of the most biologically rich regions on Earth, the Caucasus is among the planet’s 25 most diverse and endangered hotspots. The Caucasus is one of WWF’s Global 200 ‘ecoregions’ identified as globally outstanding for biodiversity.The Caucasus has also been named a large herbivore hotspot by WWF’s Large Herbivore Initiative. Eleven species of large herbivores, as well as five large carnivores, are found over a relatively small area to be endemic. The 2002 IUCN Red List identifies 50 species of globally threatened animals and one plant in the Caucasus. Among the IUCN species, 18 have restricted ranges or are e ndemics. The Caucasus Mountains harbor a wealth of highly sought after medical and decorative plants, as well as a vast endemism of plant communities. [pic]Spanning the borders of six countries, the Caucasus hotspot is a globally significant center of cultural diversity, where a multitude of ethnic groups, languages and religions intermingle over a relatively small area. Close cooperation across borders will be required for conservation of unique and threatened ecosystems, while helping to foster peace and understanding in an ethnically diverse region with a history of contrasting political and religious views. The Caucasus is a hotspot of plant and animal species diversity and endemism important for the conservation of biodiversity on a global scale.High levels of landscape diversity in the Caucasus are largely the result of altitude variability in the region. The unique geology and terrain, consisting of three major mountain chains separated by valleys and plains, permit a variety of different microclimate, soil and vegetative conditions. Climatic conditions are very diverse, with precipitation ranging from more than 4,000 mm per year in the southwestern Caucasus to less than 200 mm a year in deserts in the eastern Caucasus. These wide ranges of climatic conditions are a key factor that makes this area such a biologically important area.The Caribbean islands: [pic] The Caribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot is exceptionally important for global biodiversity conservation, due to high levels of species endemism and threat. The Caribbean is home to approximately 11,000 plants species, of which 72% are endemic to the region. The vertebrates are also characterized by extremely high levels of endemism: 100% of 189 amphibian species, 95% of 520 reptile species, 74% of 69 mammal species and 26% of 564 species birds are unique to the Caribbean Islands.In terms of endemism at the genus (biological classification of living organisms) ranking level, it ranks third among the world’s 34 Biodiversity Hotspots with 205 plants and 65 vertebrate genera endemic to the islands. Species restricted to the Caribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot represent 2. 6% of the world’s 300,000 plants species and 3. 5% of the world’s 27,298 vertebrate species). The high level of biological diversity in the Caribbean is due to several factors. During the early Cretaceous (120 to 140 million years b. ), a chain of volcanic islands (called Proto-Antilles) began to emerge along the eastern edge of the Caribbean Plate in the Pacific Ocean. The plate drifted eastward serving as a stepping-stone route exchange of terrestrial organisms between two previously separated regions. By the Eocene era (58 million years a. c), the core of the Greater Antilles achieved their present positions. The Lesser Antilles are the active remnants of an ancient volcanic chain, and are younger than the Greater Antilles.Several islands have particularly rugged and mountainous la ndscapes separated by large stretches of sea, which resulted in the isolation of populations. The Caribbean has suffered from high levels of habitat loss since the arrival of Europeans in the 1490s. This destruction has reduced the hotspot’s original estimated 229,549km2 of natural vegetation to just 22,955km2(or just 10%). The loss of native habitat combined with other threat factors, such as introduced (alien invasive) species, has resulted in severe and widespread degradation of the Caribbean’s unique biodiversity.Currently, 755 plants and vertebrate species are at risk of extinction, making the region one of the biodiversity hotspots holding the most globally threatened species. Madagascar: [pic] Madagascar is an island off the coast of Africa which is known to have some of the world's most interesting animals. It has a land area of 600,461 km?. About 80 percent of the species found in Madagascar live nowhere else on the planet. Madagascar is the forth largest isla nd in the world and broke away from the mainland about 160 million years ago. Therefore, the hotspot is a living example of species evolution in isolation.Despite close proximity to Africa, the islands do not share any of the typical animal groups of nearby Africa, making Madagascar home to a vast variety of endemic species. The island contains 5% of animal and plant species on Earth, with 80% endemic to the island. Madagascar is thought to have 11,600 endemic species of plant, 57 threatened endemic birds and 51 threatened endemic mammals. 18,482km of the island is protected land. Western areas of the island consist of dry savannah with deserts found in central regions. The eastern side of Madagascar facing the Indian Ocean is tropical rainforest with a high level of rainfall.The island is also host to several high mountain ecosystems. These biomes each support contrasting species, portraying the contrasting ecoregions in Madagascar. Madagascar and the surrounding islands have a tot al of eight plant families, four bird families, and five primate families that live nowhere else on Earth. Madagascar has more than 50 lemur species which are commonly associated with the island and are the focal point for conservation. The carnivorous fossa is another example of an endemic species as well as six Baobab species (huge trees with wide stumps).There are so many species endemic to Madagascar that some ecologists have called it â€Å"the eighth continent†. Many of these species, such as the fossa, are now considered to be an endangered species, with only about 2,500 mature fossa individuals in existence. Tenrecs, a family of small omnivorous mammals, primarily find their home on Madagascar, with 30 species found only there, and just 3 on the African mainland. There are numerous other species endemic to Madagascar, including 14 unique rodents, 15 species of bat, various chameleons and geckos, over a hundred birds, and hundreds of beetles and other insects.Conservat ion efforts must proceed aggressively to preserve this unique Madagascar fauna. Specific locations in Madagascar which are renowned for high biodiversity are situated on the eastern coast which is mainly tropical rainforest. These areas have year-round warmth and receive a lot of rainfall. Interestingly, the soils in the rainforest are poor because most of the biomes nutrients are locked up in the vegetation. In terms of flagship species in Madagascar, Baobabs are considered to be flagship trees for landscape conservation in western Madagascar, unique and individual features to the island landscape.Madagascar has seven of the world's eight Baobab tree species, six of them endemic to the island. Another endemic flagship plant to the island is the traveler's tree or palm, pollinated by the island's flagship vertebrate species, the lemurs. The tomato frog is a flagship amphibian of Madagascar, found only in a small corner of northeastern Madagascar. Threats to biodiversity Of the 10,00 0 plants native to Madagascar, 90% are found nowhere else in the world. Madagascar's varied fauna and flora are endangered by human activity, as a third of its native vegetation has disappeared since the 1970s, and only 18% remains intact.However, there are several national parks which have been established to help protect many of the endemic species. Extensive deforestation has taken place in parts of the country, reducing certain forest habitat and applying pressure to some endangered species. Madagascar has a population growth rate of approximately 3%, therefore, with a growing population, more of the islands endemic species become at risk due to the increase in human activity and development.

Pre Internet Rules Or New Rules - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 12 Words: 3494 Downloads: 3 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Internet Essay Type Narrative essay Did you like this example? In 1996 at a conference on cyber-law, Judge Frank Easterbrook of the US Court of Appeals gave a presentation on Property in Cyberspace in which he argued that cyber-law as a strand of law did not exist, for the same reasons that there was not a law of the horse. He argued that Teaching 100 per cent of the cases on people kicked by horses will not convey the law of torts very well He believed that existing law would be able to convey all the salient points of cyber-law, and therefore it would be better if it was not taught, or did not exist. I am going to use his Horse Law as the basis for this essay and outline the way that pre-internet laws work in cyberspace (if indeed they do); identifying where real-world analogies are brought into the law by the courts and seeing where the law now is terms of cyberspace regulation. I will focus mainly on the criminal law, as civil regulation online has grown up mostly around business practices, and criminal law has and nee ds to be addressed by the Government. Are laws technologically-neutral? Should they be? Lawrence Lessig wrote a reply  [3]  to Easterbrook, which argued that We see something when we think about the regulation of cyberspace that other areas would not show us. Lessig did not defend horse law, but defended cyber-law from being ejusdem generis with it. Lessig believed that The anonymity and multi-jurisdictionality of cyberspace makes control by government in cyberspace impossible, and that made cyber-law unique and worthy of study. Lessig concludes the essay by predicting the values of real-space sovereigns will at first lose out during the growth of the Internet, and that part of cyber-laws job is to monitor the interactions and inevitable growth and change of these sovereigns in cyberspace. It seems that if you build it, they will come. But academic debate on cyber-law as a subject did not end there. Sommer  [4]  argues, like Easterbrook, that cyberspace is not a new pl ace for new laws but a new place for old laws. He believes that it will take a while for new practices to develop that need new laws  [5]  . He draws analogy with wire transfers referencing Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code, which codified over a century of wire transfer law, yet was built on no prior statute. So will cyber statutes or laws merely codify existing practices into a new arena? Or will they be new and different? In 1984, two hackers called Stephen Gold and Robert Schifreen gained access to BTs Prestel network and started series of (nearly) harmless pranks within the network  [6]  . They were eventually caught and charged with an offence contrary to s.1 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, which states A person is guilty of forgery if he makes a false instrument, with the intention that he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other perso ns prejudice. This seemed like the best charge that existed under the common law at the time, and on conviction the defendants appealed. Both the Court of Appeal  [7]  and the House of Lords  [8]  held that the instrument to which the offence referred to could not be forced to apply to electronic impulses, under s.8(1)(d) of the Act. Essentially, there was not an offence that existed that seemed to cater for the actions they pursued. The case of Gold and the increasing computerisation of important functions in numerous industries led to the Law Commission Report, Computer Misuse  [9]  where a new offence of unauthorised access was advocated. This eventually became law in the form of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (CMA). The CMA was written in a deliberately ambiguous style. Murray says it is well designed, mainly due to the fact that it avoids colloquial terms,  [10]  which would be hard to define by anyone familiar with them, let alone a court. The CMA was desig ned to catch a broad variety of activity and define it as criminal. But is this a good thing? It needed a lot of definition when it came to its application. Before Cropp  [11]  and the subsequent clarification  [12]  it was not even clear if two separate computers are required for an offence. It was this clarification that led to spate of employee-access cases that defined what the majority of the CMA offences would be. It took several years for a case on the CMA to land at an appeal court, in the form of DPP v Bignell.  [13]  Like many that had preceded it,  [14]  Bignell involved access to the Police National Computer (PNC). But the defence raised by the defendants was interesting, and according to a literal interpretation of the CMA correct. The offence of which they were charged was s.1 of the CMA, which criminalised access but not unauthorised use of authorised access. This was held by Astill J to be the correct. The CMA and its ambiguous wording had failed in that it hadnt criminalised some extra-curricular behaviour. The defendant was authorised to access the PNC but did so on that occasion for an unauthorised purpose. It is worthy to note that Astill J thought that a charge under s.5 of the Data Protection Act 1984 (DPA) would have been more appropriate.  [15]  This seems to be why he was reluctant to make the offence fit the crime, similar to the approach in Gold. We have had two examples so far of cases failing against defendants because they were charged with offences that were either not intended to apply to computer misuse or lacked enough definition to be clear. One technologically-neutral and the other so generic that it could almost be construed as such. Is this a reluctance of the courts to evolve cyber-law themselves or the Crown trying to make do without proper cyber-law? Two years after Bignell, the House of Lords revisited the same point of law regarding s.1 of the CMA and overruled it  [16]  . Accessing a uthorised data for unauthorised purposes was found to be within the remit of s.1. But was this stretching the law too far? It seems to broaden the scope of the CMA to include the specific offences in s.5 of the DPA 1994. Is it just to have two offences for the same action? Despite the final success for the Crown with regards to employee access, the CMA was clearly lacking in one major, developing area: Denial of Service or Distributed Denial of Service (DoS or DDoS) attacks. Murray stated that those engaged in DDoS attacks would probably only be liable for the installation of the Trojan software not the attack itself Legally this meant the UK was failing in its duties under the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime  [17]  .  [18]  This became one of the reasons behind the amendments of the CMA in s35-38 of the Police and Justice Act 2006. The amended CMA included provisions designed to catch DDoS attacks like s.3(2)(a) (guilty of an offence if he intends) to impair t he operation of any computer. But were these modifications necessary? It seems that one of the main victims of DDoS attacks were online gambling websites  [19]  but beyond this industry, were there people in need of protection? DDoS attacks are hard to relate to any real-space offence or law, with would seem to weaken Easterbrooks argument. It is hard to reconcile any of these actions and crimes with a real-space offence. There have been many attempts by the judiciary to do so, but why? Is it to explain the offence and reasoning to those reading the judgement? To help make sense of the actions to themselves? Why do these unnecessary allegories exist? An act of computer misuse does not only become a crime when it can be compared to a real-space offence. If this were the case, then to apply the Horse Law theory, any cases involving horses would have to be compared with humans, or perhaps objects. In DPP v Lennon  [20]  an ex-employee of a company was charged with an o ffence under s.3 of the original CMA. Lennon had used a mail-bombing program to send 5,000,000 emails to the company server, causing it to crash. This is a form of DoS attack, and the amended section s.3 was written to deal exactly with this type of action. In defence, Lennon submitted that he had no case to answer as the sending of the emails was not unauthorised, as he the server was designed to receive emails, and that was all he had done the quantity was immaterial. This defence succeeded at first instance, and the Crown appealed to the High Court, arguing that there was a difference between spam and bona fide communication, and that difference was consent.  [21] Jack J upheld the appeal, and reasoned by comparing the sending of an email to that of a person walking up a garden path of a private house. There is an implied consent that a person can walk up a path if going to deliver a letter, or wants to speak to the person inside, but the homeowner does not consent to a bur glar on the path or the letterbox being stuffed with rubbish. Jack J likened this last point to the result of Lennons actions. A bona fide email would have been accepted, but not the spam. This raises two points, however. Would just sending one hoax email have been a crime? One email would have been less likely to be considered an offence under the CMA. So the correct analogy would surely be that of posting 5,000,000 letters in separate trips up a garden path. Secondly why was the analogy needed? It was likely needed to justify stretching s.3 to fit a DoS attack. This and the above cases like Gold and Bignell involving statute stretched to breaking point illustrate that the CMA, as vague as it was, desperately needed the update that the PCJA gave it. It is also worth asking if using a mail-bombing program from one machine would these days cause a slow-down of a company server. The increase in broadband speeds  [22]  could well mean that DDoS now has to be used rather than a DoS attack. The upload speed of connections still lags significantly behind download speeds and Lennons emails would be likely to have little effect on a modern server. So this case could be argued to be out of date both in its point of law (as the amended s.3 now caters for DoS attacks) and it now would be technologically unlikely that a single machine can slow down a server. So now where does Horse Law stand? In Lennon, a real-world analogy had to be drawn to make the offence fit the actions. This would support Easterbrooks theory, in that the offence had to have a real world basis to work. But the court should not have had to resort to that as the amendments were already on the way. The relevant addition for Lennon, was s.3(2)(a): to impair the operation of any computer Could this have a real world counterpart? Perhaps slowing down a postman? Removing a garden path? These analogies start to fall down when you continue the metaphor. If cyber-law were truly Horse Law they would sur ely stand up? So far this essay has concentrated mainly on criminal law, and since Easterbrooks original title was Property in Cyberspace civil law must be considered also. Contract law is an area that has had a great deal to do with the early computer age e-commerce and the larger technology companies that exist today could not have prospered as they have done without contract law. Murray argues that this is the cornerstone of a modern society, and remains true of todays information society.  [23]  Contract law and the Internet has been given a good overview in Murrays book, but more detailed analysis will be brought to the analogies that the courts have applied to bring contact law into the 20th century, decades before the Internet. As already mentioned in Sommers article, there have been rules and practices relating to instant communication, with the emphasis on money transfer or contract formation, for over a century. The courts have had ample time to develop the law on its use. The Postal Rule applies in contracts made by non-instantaneous means of communication, and means that as soon as the acceptance of an offer is posted, the contract is formed. For instant communication like telex, telephone or fax, the contract is concluded when the acceptance is received by the offeror.  [24]  Lord Dennings famous passage at 332-334 can be applied easily to contracts online. Email is a good example of the postal rule still functioning online email is not perfect, not instantaneous and there is no sure-fire way to confirm that an email was received or read. So, the postal rule applies. When purchasing products online, some online retailers specify in the terms and conditions that the contract is concluded only when a dispatch confirmation email is sent.  [25]  This seems a good example of Sommers idea that cyberspace didnt bring about new practices, so old law can still be used to regulate it. But what forms of instant communication exist on t he Internet that are used to conclude contracts? Instant Messaging (IM) is one of the first, and oldest,  [26]  methods of communication online, but is it ever used to conclude contracts? The author would suggest not, although lately there has been an increase in companies offering live help via a flash chatbox, as a form of customer support.  [27]  But to think of a contract being finalised over that medium would be a great leap. In any case, if it were, then it is likely that the rules applicable to Telex, confirmed in Brinkibon v Stahag Stahl und Stahlwarenhandels GmbH  [28]  would apply. So where is Horse Law now? What effects are technology and the Internet having on older areas of law? Easterbrook and Sommer would believe that Internet Law is just a new area in which old laws can fill, but what about the Internet changing old law? One area where the Internet has had a great effect is injunctions. This equitable remedy available to prevent damaging information being made public, which effectively restricts the press, cannot stand once the information is already out there.  [29]  This exception to injunctions has been used recently to bring about the end of injunctions in a unique way, usually using social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter  [30]  . The Trafigura case broke because the MPs question in Parliament was being circulated on Twitter, so the information was out there. When allegations involving the private life of John Terry, the Captain of the England Football team surfaced, an injunction was not granted as the information was already out there and he would be unlikely to defeat the public interest defence.  [31] These cases show that Internet innovations can have a great bearing on areas of law once thought settled. It is not just old areas of law coming on to the Internet, but Internet phenomenon changing the way other areas of law act. How would it be best to study these interactions? The Internet def eating injunctions could be taught under Defamation, but where to tie all together as part of a larger debate about Internet governance? The social media cases have used the spotlight Lessig introduced to illuminate chinks in the armour of settled areas of law. Just as the Spycatcher book was for sale to commuters at train stations, the latest celebrity scandal arrives via an anonymous tweet. It is all but unstoppable, and at the very most, organisations seem to be only able to delay the information getting out. But where does legislation stand on cyber-law since the CMA amendments? In the wash-up of Parliament before the 2010 General Election, the government pushed forward the controversial Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA). But recently Talk Talk and BT, two ISPs, have been granted a judicial review of the Act by the High Court.  [32]  What the most important provisions in the Act, though, are relating to punishments for copyright infringement. Section 9 deals with most of the se, and includes provisions that allow the Secretary of State to direct OFCOM to assess whether technical measures should be implemented in cases of persistent infringement. The fullest extend of the measures allows Ofcom to force ISPs to suspend the service provided to the subscriber.  [33]  Leaving aside the arguments about Internet access as a human right, this provision does not fit in well with the Horse Law theory. For Easterbrook to be correct, the provision would have to have some other application in real-space or a use away from cyber-law. This is not now just an analysis of an unruly horse damaging property, but an internet-only provision. There is no real world equivalent of cutting someone off from the Internet. People are not banned from using telephones, roads or public transport generally, yet here we have a provision which can restrict access to a vital part of a modern society. The author now argues that Horse Law has come full-circle and has ended. In contr ast with the vague terminology of the 1990 CMA, the DEA is explicit as to its technical terms and definitions. It uses phrases like internet service providers and requires information to be sent to the electronic or postal address held by the internet service provider for the subscriber.  [34]  Although the Act is careful not to mention email directly, the inclusion of a provision specifically allowing for contact electronically would have been unthinkable a decade ago. To show advances in understanding recently, he law has allowed contact via a variety of new mediums;  [35]  and these little inroads technology and Internet are making into the legal system are further evidence of cyber-law being an individual subject. The DEA was not technologically neutral. The language and definition make that clear, and despite virtuous arguments about the practicability of the measures themselves, this Act would find it hard to function correctly beyond cyber-law if it were technologi cally neutral. If it were technologically neutral, it would make no sense at all, perhaps having to refer to restriction of access to a series of network of services. It would be so generic and its language would refer to a looming elephant in the room. It would be make little sense. In recent years there has been an increase in laws surrounding the use of the Internet and computers. Some have related to civil law and some criminal. The initial civil provisions seem to have had more success that the criminal law, owing much to the fact that practices havent changed greatly with technology, but have increased in speed. A letter in the post may take two days and emailing to conclude a contract can take two minutes, but still get lost along the way. This supports part Sommers argument well, in that the Internet was not a place to develop new practices, just a place for old practices to move into. It also helps that the instant communication of the 20th century paved the way for civi l law online, with business developing practices that were adopted universally to promote certainty filling in the gaps. With regards to criminal actions and consequences, initially the CPS tried to shoe-horn new actions into old laws, and the courts seem stuck on the idea that computer crimes need to be compared to real-world crimes for them to make sense. But it is not known to whom the explanation is owed (the author hopes it is not the judiciary themselves). To many people today, even an offence as specific (and technically useless) as it is an offence to access the C: drive of anothers computer without permission would make sense and need no analogy to translate into the real world. Technologically neutral laws have been tried and failed; even widely generic laws havent worked properly until an update. It is now clear that the laws that do work are ones that take into account the exact purpose and authorisation of the people involved (Allison). Cyber-laws need to be techn ologically aware and precise, because that is part of the nature of computers themselves. But they also need to avoid slang in order to target people who would try and argue a defence on a definition of a word that doesnt exist outside of a message board. A description of the effects of the actions, as the CMA does, is a good idea place to start. This is how many criminal laws have worked for over a hundred years (Offences Against the Person Act 1861) and how computer laws should work. The CMA describes slowing down computer, which works. It would be wrong to talk about a botnet. Drafting legislation to know about computers and be technologically-aware is important, but at the same time it must not try and use static definitions likely to change. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Pre Internet Rules Or New Rules" essay for you Create order