Political Potholes on the Superhighway

Your fake ID doesn't work at the Grille. The "cops-in-shops" program has deterred you from buying alcohol from Christy's. So what do you do? Turn on your computer.

At least, that's what Illinois lawmakers would have you think.

Recently, a bill was introduced to the Illinois state legislature that would curb services that sell liquor through the Internet. Says Rep. Angelo Saviano: "Many kids as young as 16 have debit cards with their checking accounts...Children are able to order alcohol through the Internet or a catalog and it's delivered right to their doorstep." To prevent this horrible crime, the bill would require consumers to prove they are at least 21 before receiving the alcohol.

It is a noble law with good intentions. But at face-value, it's almost comical.

Does the Illinois legislature actually think that a 16 year-old would go through the trouble of ordering (expensive) alcohol from http://www.BuyBooze.com, and then spend the next week waiting by his mailbox so that his parents won't find it first? No one's that stupid. Most minors would rather take their chances with "cops-in-shops."

Politically, however, the law makes perfect sense. It lets lawmakers take a stance against an issue without the challenge of really accomplishing anything. And whether the issue is underage drinking, education or pornography, the Internet has become the politician's new playground for useless, if not harmful, legislation.

Why is this technology, which is expanding at a rapid pace, such a prime political feeding ground? The main reason is that the Internet is vastly overrated by those who know nothing about it. The Internet seems futuristic--it comes with trendy catch-phrases such as "information superhighway" and "cyberspace." We listen in awe and wonder as CEOs explain to us, in layman's terms, the importance of "networking" and "global resources." With the Internet, they tell us, we can do everything conceivable with the stroke of a few keys. It will make our lives easier. How? Don't know. It just will.

Quickly jumping on the technological bandwagon, politicians call for "universal Internet access." The theory behind this is that those who don't have an e-mail address or web access are "disadvantaged"; they are Neanderthals in a rapidly evolving cyber-culture. And because none of us want our children to be "disadvantaged," the new rallying call becomes: "Quick! Get our children online! We don't want to them grow up without this all-too-important resource!"

Following suit, President Clinton has declared that every classroom should be wired to the Internet by the end of the century. He is met with great applause and cheer, because we know that cutting-edge technology is the key to a good education.

But while classroom Internet access makes for great headlines and campaign speeches, the idea's actual educational value is debatable. Kids certainly won't learn basic math and reading skills by surfing the Web. Conducting research on the Internet is, for the most part, tedious and unreliable. A good library is often a better substitute. Cheaper, too. According to an estimate by McKinsey & Co., total costs of the technology (which includes the costs of staffing, training, upgrading and replacing equipment) could range from $14 billion to $47 billion in initial outlays and another $4 billion to $14 billion in annual operating expenses, depending on how extensive the school computer systems are. That money could be much better spent on teachers, buildings and facilities. Sometimes "cutting-edge" isn't the best way to go.

These details don't seem to discourage politicians. It doesn't matter if the idea is feasible or not--by supporting it, they appear "pro-education" or "pro-technology." Likewise, those who seek to ban or filter pornographic material from the Internet usually have political support. After all, no one wants their children exposed to obscene material. Those who oppose such legislation are derisively labeled as "anti-family values" or "criminal defenders." By billing the Internet as vital to our very existence, law-makers can do what they want with it. And so long as there is no obvious harm done, which usually is the case, no one seems to mind.

But the problem is that harm is being done. What is lost in all the hype is that virtual reality is just that--virtual. Politicians and lawmakers see the Internet as a mainstream medium; an alternative to contemporary notions of commerce and education. But this is not, nor will it ever be, its function.

We need to realize that the Internet, far from a technological salvation, is merely a medium for the free exchange of ideas. Often chaotic, sometimes ugly and usually unreliable, the Internet thrives on being free and unregulated.

And therein lies its beauty. You can learn a lot from using it, but it's not a place made exclusively for learning. You can conduct business on it, but it can't guarantee security. Nebulous and self-sufficient, the Internet exists because people want it to exist--not because it can reform education or make life easier.

By relegating the role of the Internet to the Politician's Next Great Cause, we diminish its value as a free forum and delude ourselves into thinking that the solution to a political or social problem is just that easy. It's not.

Richard S. Lee is a first-year in Straus Hall.