John Locke and the Privatization of the Internet
 
There is currently an effort by the Executive Branch of the US 
government to privatize the essential, central functions of the 
Internet.(1) John Locke (1632-1704) analyzes the questions of 
property and privatization in Chapter 5, "Of Property" of his The 
Second Treatise of Government (c.1680-1683). I want to 
investigate the Internet and its proposed privatization guided by 
that analysis of Locke.(2)
 
Locke considers the original state of human society before the 
creation of political institutions. He assumes that the earth and 
its resources were available "to mankind in common". He wants to 
show "how men might come to have a property in several parts of 
that which God gave to mankind in common."(sec 25) This raises 
for me the question, what is the original state of the Internet 
and what might privatization mean and do to the Internet.
 
The Internet is less than 30 years old. There are disputes over what
the Internet actually is and over its history and potential impact. It
is considered by some to be wires and routers and perhaps protocols
and the domain name system. For others it is the interconnection of
all computers using a particular set of communication agreements
called the Transmission Control Protocol/ Internet Protocol suite
(TCP/IP).  It is important for my investigation that I state my
understanding of what the Internet is. I will listen to Aristotle who
said that the best view of a thing will be gotten if we view the thing
from its beginning. For the Internet this approach is crucial because
at its beginning the vision guiding its development and its technical
principles are clearest.
 
The Internet from its beginning and still today is an 
interconnection of diverse, independent, packet switching 
networks. This interconnection does not create a network of 
networks. A computer network is an interconnection of computers. 
Instead, the Internet is a meta network, something in addition or 
"above" its component networks. It is significantly different to 
interconnect networks which are under different political and 
economic administrations than to interconnect computers with 
different operating systems or different character sets. The 
networks that interconnect to make up the Internet each have 
their own purposes, system administrations and architectural 
principles. The Internet itself was designed to solve the problem 
of sharing resources and communicating among such diverse 
networks while respecting their differences. The fundamental 
Internet principle is open architecture, the guiding principle 
that requires respect for the autonomy, purpose and local 
sovereignty of the networks that become part of the internet.
 
The technology of the Internet is based on the successful 
development of computer time-sharing and packet switching 
technologies. The impetus behind the development of time-sharing 
and then packet switching was for greater accessibility of 
computing. There was a fear among some scientists and engineers 
that the power of computer-aided decision making would otherwise 
be concentrated in too few hands.(3) The investment that made the 
original networking and internetworking research possible and 
lead to time-sharing, packet switching, protocol development, the 
original hardware and software, leasing of long telephone lines, 
was all from the public purse. It was mostly US but also British 
and France government money, some supplied via military budgets.
 
The original vision guiding these developments was to unite 
communities of human beings via computer communications into an 
Intergalactic Network as JCR Licklider called it, a vast human-
computer symbiosis.(4) The developments that have made the 
Internet possible were achieved by an international collaboration 
among computer scientists fostered by a public administration of 
research projects encouraging openness. Just as Locke sees the 
original state of people as sharing the resources of the earth in 
common, I take this public funding, social purpose, and 
cooperative origins to have created an electronic, public 
commons.(5)
 
For Locke, things in common are only valuable if they can be used 
for "the support and comfort" of people. And all such things 
should be available for the needs of all people. But doesn't the 
use of some of those things to satisfy one individual's needs 
require the making of common things into private things (i.e., 
privatization)? Locke resolves this apparent difficulty by 
arguing that in the original conditions of human society the 
things of the earth were plentiful so that "he that leaves as 
much as another can make use of, does as good as take 
nothing."(Sec 33) Personal use of things in this stage still 
leaves the whole as a commons. "Nobody could think himself 
injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good 
draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to 
quench his thirst."(sec 32) Such use leaves the commons intact.
 
Use of the Internet does not require a taking from it either. 
There is no less of the Internet after I use it than before. And 
the technology of the Internet is such that no simple use of the 
Internet adds any but an insignificant cost to anyone. There are 
enough resources on the Internet and many people who use it, far 
from taking, are actually contributing something by their use like 
posting an opinion or answering a question. For the moment the 
only result of many other people using it at the same time as 
you, is that you may experience a slightly longer delay than if 
the others were not using it. But such delay is a result of the 
early stage of technological development. There is every reason 
to believe that significantly greater capacity and 
interconnection are technically possible. So just use or 
increasing the universality of access to the Internet does not 
diminish its common or public nature or utility to those already 
using it.
 
Also, the Internet has the character of a common good. For Locke, 
in the original state of human society the earth's resources that 
are needed for human food, clothing or shelter are common goods. 
Already to some extent but potentially to a much greater degree, 
each person's well being will also depend upon the quality of his 
or her access to the Internet. What Licklider and Robert Taylor 
wrote in 1968 is closer to reality now:
 
     "... Life will be happier for the on-line individual 
     because the people with whom one interacts most strongly will be 
     selected more by commonality of interests and goals than by 
     accidents of proximity. ...
 
     "For the society, the impact will be good or bad depending 
     mainly on the question: Will `to be on line' be a privilege or a 
     right? If only a favored segment of the population gets a chance to 
     enjoy the advantage of `intelligence amplification,' the network may 
     exaggerate the discontinuity in the spectrum of intellectual 
     opportunity."(6)
 
Licklider and Taylor are arguing that to be online will be 
essential to a full life. If something like the Internet is 
crucial to human "support or comfort" it is a common good and 
than in Locke's view people have a common inclusive right to it.
 
As long as people gather from the commons what they need for 
their own use, Locke says they have a right to what they gather. 
"Whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to 
others."(sec 30) He argues that small populations and gathering 
for use gave rise to "little room for quarrels or contentions 
about property so established."(sec 31) Locke considers property 
not in the modern sense of private property and ownership but in 
the sense of having the right of use. Even improvement of a part 
of the commons through the application of an industrious person's 
labor leaves enough for others. Therefore, as long as his product 
is for his family's use and not allowed to spoil, the industrious 
person has a right to his cultivated area.
 
Likewise, the component networks of the Internet can be developed 
and improved as much as their local owners and administrators 
want based on whatever principles they choose without encroaching 
on the commons of the Internet. That is because what constitutes 
the commons of the Internet does not get used up or diminished by 
such improvement but in most cases gets augmented by it. The 
original goal of packet switching networks was resource sharing. 
The Internet carries resource sharing beyond the individual 
network to the whole community of Internet users. So that the 
increase in resources on any one network is an increase in 
general, of the resources for all users.
 
The Internet has been designed and developed based on the 
principle of open architecture. That means that the Internet 
makes the most minimal requirements possible on the networks that 
it interconnects. What is required, i.e., what is in common, is 
the agreed upon protocols (the TCP/IP protocol suite) that allow 
for the sharing of resources without intruding on the local 
sovereignty of the component networks. The Internet protocol (IP) 
creates a pool of unique numerical addresses, currently 4.3 
billion. Each network administration which adopts the TCP/IP 
protocol suite and arranges for Internet connectivity can receive 
a range of these unique addresses for use by computers within its 
network. The TCP/IP protocol suite and these IP numerical 
addresses are the main technical aspects of the Internet commons. 
But what makes the Internet attractive and crucial in people's 
lives are the other people. In essence the Internet makes more 
people than ever before shared resources for each other. And 
these people make available or point to still other resources 
available via the Internet or off line. This communication and 
the transfer of files and information never leaves anything less 
for other users.
 
The protocols and numbers and what they require are what the 
Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO) of the Advanced 
Research Projects Agency (ARPA) originally fostered and funded. 
These protocols and numbers along with all the people and other 
shared resources are the commons of the Internet. There are also 
parameters known as port numbers that are common to users of the 
Internet. And there is at present a domain name system that is a 
common way to map names to the numerical IP addresses. Up until 
now the US government has overseen the distribution of the pool 
of IP numbers and the protocol development process. These along 
with the oversight of the Domain Name System (DNS) and its 
central root server system are precisely what the Executive 
Branch of the US government is trying to privatize, by creating 
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
 
Locke has taken us as far as to see that, in his analysis, all 
people at the origins of human society had a right not to be 
excluded from the things of life. One's use of the things in 
common did not exclude another's use of as many things as he or 
she needed. The right of use was not a right of abuse or 
alienation. When one's labor improved something, that for Locke 
gave the laborer the right to a property in what was improved, as 
long as there remained in the commons other resources for other 
people's use. That is, the person who added his labor to 
something had a right to exclude others from taking or using it. 
For Locke the question of privatization is the question of the 
right to exclude. 
 
At a first glance it is not clear that the privatization of the 
Internet's essential or common functions is also a question of 
exclusion. But putting these functions in private hands means 
that the oversight and administration of the IP number 
distribution and protocol development process can no longer be at 
public expense. So who will pay for these and the other added 
costs that come with the payment of, e.g., a private board of 
directors? The costs in private situations always get passed onto 
the end users. Thus use of the privatized Internet will 
inevitably have a higher economic barrier to scale than if the 
commons of the Internet remained publically overseen and 
administered. Also, by its very nature, private control of the 
development of the Internet will be focused on different 
objectives than has been the public direction. That can be seen 
already where the private sector sees e-commerce as more 
attractive as a goal than universal access to a global 
communication system. 
 
Locke argues that "there is land enough in the world to suffice 
double the inhabitants, had not the invention of money, and the 
tacit agreement of men to put a value on it, introduced (by 
consent) larger possessions and a right to them."(sec 36)  After 
the introduction of money there was eventually no longer the same 
plenty for all, and then exclusion led to quarrels and 
contentions. The gathering into cities and the introduction of 
money makes efforts to exclude more attractive to some and 
requires a response by society. That response is the introduction 
of political institutions or civil society in replacement of the 
natural state of society. "The several communities settled the 
bounds of their distinct territories, and, by laws, within 
themselves, regulated the properties of the private men of their 
society, and so, by compact and agreement, settled the property 
which labour and industry began."(sec 45)
 
What is the fate of the commons in political society? Locke 
points out that "in England or any other country, where there are 
plenty of people under government who have money and commerce, no 
one can enclose or appropriate any part without the consent of 
all his fellow-commoners; because this is left common by compact- 
i.e., by the law of the land, which is not to be violated." The 
consent of all the commoners is necessary because "after such 
enclosure, [what's left] would not be as good to the rest of the 
commoners as the whole was, when they could all make use of the 
whole."(sec 35) And political society and laws are necessary so 
as to enforce the receipt of that consent before not after the 
proposed enclosure that will deny many some previous benefit.
 
Of course the Internet has developed in an era long after 
political society has taken deep roots but also especially at a 
time when money and commercial considerations play a large role. 
That is why the need for a public role in the Internet is so 
great. As with the English Commons, if the general public 
interest is not protected, the particular private interests will 
significantly diminish what is available to the rest of society. 
The tension between common purpose and private exclusion exists 
and will cause contentions and quarrels which require procedures 
in accordance with law for their resolution.
 
By Locke's reasoning, for the common aspects of the Internet to 
be privatized the consent of all the Internet commoners is 
necessary. But who are the Internet commoners? It would seem that 
the Internet users should be considered the Internet commoners. 
The development and expansion of the Internet to all parts of the 
world, up until now, has been for public use and not for private 
profit. But the Internet is composed of diverse, independent and 
sovereign networks each embedded in a political society 
determined by geographic location. The question of whose consent 
is needed to make decisions like whether or not to privatize the 
essential functions of the Internet needs to be studied, debated 
and acknowledged as important. But at a minimum, the system 
administrators, political representatives and the users 
themselves seem to require central roles in such decisions. And 
the Internet itself seems to be giving rise to a new political 
and social phenomenon, the netizens, those Internet users who 
take a responsibility to spread and safeguard the development of 
the Internet. 
 
Enclosure of the commons begins the process that leads according 
to Locke to the need to establish national borders. In this 
process Locke points to help for me on the Internet privatization 
process. He reminds us that questions that effect people across 
national borders are solved by "leagues that have been made 
between several states and kingdoms, either expressly or tacitly 
disowning all claim and right to the land in the other's 
possession, ... and so have, by positive agreement, settled a 
property amongst themselves, in distinct parts of the world."(sec 
45). The Internet is a commons that today reaches across national 
boundaries. Its spread too was facilitated by agreements but 
these took the form of Acceptable Use Policies (AUP). For 
example, the US National Science Foundation prohibited commercial 
use of the NSFNET and only allowed interconnection with other 
networks that had a similar policy. The NSF also required 
community outreach by those whose connection to the NSFNET it 
helped fund. Similarly, all the early Freenets that connected up 
with each other required acceptance by their users of their 
AUP's. In addition perhaps the continuation of the growth 
(scaling) of the Internet will require agreements or treaties 
among leagues of the nations involved. Such agreements are the 
opposite of privatization. They are in a sense a public 
internationalization in recognition of the global reach and 
importance of the Internet. 
 
When Locke analyses why privatization is a problem for society, 
he envisions an isolated island where there is nothing "fit to 
supply the place of money..." He asks "what reason could anyone 
[there] have to enlarge his possessions beyond the use of his 
family ...?"(sec 48). Unless there were hopes of commerce with 
other parts of the world to draw money to the encloser by the 
sale of products, it would not be worth the enclosing. 
 
The Internet is a wonderful global electronic commons. But for 
its own sake it does not appear that anyone or any organization 
would want it as a private possession. So the questions need to 
be raised: To whom or to what will the benefit of privatizing the 
Internet accrue?  And what role are such forces playing in 
bringing about for example the creation of the Internet 
Corporation for Names and Numbers (ICANN). This private 
corporation, under a board chosen in secret, has been working 
since November, 1998 to take over the functions of the Internet 
still under the oversight and management of the US government or 
its contractors. It is over a year of ICANN activity yet the 
secret of how this board was chosen, by whom and for what purpose 
is still impenetrable. Secrecy is a clue that these are important 
questions. The other clue is that the supporters of privatization 
have never been willing to discuss or debate the question of why 
or how privatization might serve the general welfare.
 
Guided by Locke's theory of property, my conclusion about the 
privatization of the essential functions of the Internet now being 
attempted, is that the commons of the Internet should be protected
not privatized. Locke suggests that this protection is the 
responsibility and obligations of governments in league with each 
other. He writes, "For in government the laws regulate the right 
of property, and the protection of the land is determined by 
positive constitution."(sec 50) The history so far of the 
Internet suggests that acceptable use policies and voluntary 
gatherings of network administrators with online forums might 
also play a crucial role. However at present it is especially the 
US government that has the obligation and responsibility to 
protect the Internet commons since the central functions of the 
Internet are for historical reasons under its supervision.
 
Looking at the US Constitution I find in the Preamble six 
purposes for which the US government is established: 1) to form a 
more perfect union, 2) to establish justice, 3) to insure 
domestic tranquillity, 4) to provide for the common defense, 5) to 
promote the general welfare, and 6) to secure the blessings of 
liberty to our selves and our posterity. The privatization does 
not seem to fit any of these six purposes allowed to the US 
government by its own constitution. The fundamental purpose of 
the US government would appear to be to promote the general 
welfare. Locke agrees that all that governments do must be "only 
for the public good."(sec 3) My analysis indicates that the 
privatization of a commons is in general not for the public good. 
So that the US Executive Branch's efforts to privatize the 
essential functions of the Internet are inappropriate.
 
For Locke, the legislative is the supreme power (sec 132) not the 
executive. In the US there is a law, the Government Corporation 
Control Act of 1945, which prohibits the transfer of government 
functions to corporate entities like ICANN without specific 
authorizing legislation. Presently there is no such legislation 
and there have been questions from the US Congress concerning the 
privatization and the lack of appropriate authorization to do it. 
Locke points out that should ICANN get "into the exercise of any 
part of the power, by other ways, than what the laws of the 
community have prescribed, [it would have] ... no right to be 
obeyed"(sec 198). That is because it would not then be the body 
the laws have appointed, and consequently not the body the people 
have consented to. In such a case, even if some network 
administrations obey ICANN, there will be others for local reasons 
that will not. Then fragmentation of the Internet is a likely 
result.
 
Private property in Locke's analysis is not a natural right but a 
conventional right based on civil law. A commons necessary for 
the well being of a people needs to be protected from becoming 
private property. Locke has an answer if the US Congress and 
Executive branches and the other governments of the world continue  
the privatization of the Internet commons. "Whenever the 
legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of 
the people, ... they put themselves into a state of war with the 
people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience." 
(sec 222) So at least in Locke's analysis, the result of attempting
to privatize the Internet on which people's lives are coming more 
and more to depend will be a greater instability in society. We 
may not have come that far yet but my reading of Locke puts the 
privatization of the Internet commons in line with the other 
violations of the public purpose of government that more and more 
characterize our time today at the beginning of the 21st Century and 
that are being met with a growing resistance.
------------
Notes
 
1. See for example, "Management Of Internet Names and Addresses," 
(63 Fed. Reg 3 1741-42, 1998) the White Paper issued by the US 
Department of Commerce, June 5, 1998.
 
2. My quotes from Locke are from the Everyman edition of Two 
Treatises of Government, edited by Mark Goldie reprinted in 1998. 
I indicate after each quote the section in "The Second Treatise 
of Government: An Essay Concerning the True Origin, Extent, and 
End of Civil Government" from which it is taken. 
 
My analysis has benefited from a reading of A Discourse On 
Property: John Locke and His Adversaries by James Tully, Cambridge 
University Press, Cambridge, 1980. I take from this reading the 
understanding that Locke used the unqualified word 'property' to 
mean the right to use of, not ownership in the modern sense of 
property. Then the things of the commons can be someone's 
property in the sense that he or she has the right to use them to 
the exclusion of other people's use as long as there are still in 
the commons resources to meet the needs of the other people.
 
3. For the documentation of these concerns among the scientific and
engineering community see Computers and the World of the Future,
edited by Martin Greenberger, MIT Press, Cambridge Ma., 1962. This
book of lectures and discussions from MIT's Centennial Celebration in
1961 contains the keynote address by C.P. Snow and contributions from
many of those who went on to play significant roles in the development
of time-sharing, packet switching and networking. 

For an analysis of the impetus for these developments see Chapter 6,
"Cybernetics, Time-sharing, Human-Computer Symbiosis and Online
Communities: Creating a Supercommunity of Online Communities," by
Ronda Hauben in Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the
Internet by Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben, Los Almitos, Ca. IEEE
Computer Society Press, May 1997. Also this theme is explored in "The
Internet: History, Technical, Principles, Social Impact", an Horizons
mini-course offered at Columbia University.
 
4. See, "Man-Computer Symbiosis", in IRE Transactions on Human 
Factors in Electronics HFE-1, March, 1960, pages 4 to 11. Also 
reprinted in In Memoriam: J.C.R. Licklider 1915-1990, Aug. 7, 
1990, p. 40, Digital Research Center. 
 
5. See Michael Hauben, "Preface", in Netizens: On the History and 
Impact of Usenet and the Internet by Michael Hauben and Ronda 
Hauben, Los Almitos, Ca. IEEE Computer Society Press, May 1997 .
 
6. In Memoriam: J.C.R. Licklider 1915-1990, Aug. 7, 1990, p. 40, 
reprinted by Digital Research Center; originally published as 
"The Computer as a Communication Device," in Science and 
Technology, April, 1968.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Hauben                                              1/15/2000