More broadly, modern governments rely on their ability to control information and money to maintain control over their citizens.
But does the Net mean we no longer need government in its present form?
The German law professor Alexander Rossnagel has published an article titled "Globale Datennetze: Ohnmacht des Staates - Selbstschutz der Buerger" (global networks: state's impotence, citizens' self-protection) in Zeitschrift fuer Rechtspolitik 1997, p. 26 ff. He describes that decentral networks are difficult to control, and anonymizers, encryption and steganography can be used to defy surveillance. "[The state] can neither enforce matters of public interest, nor offer protection to its citizens", including protection of privacy and legally protected secrets. The state cannot effectively face law violations: "If it somewhere suppresses information, it will be 'mirrored' by many other servers world-wide. If it blocks communication lines, the message will find a way around. Sattelite transmission also renders the question of location almost irrelevant. Theresa Orlowski was denied a license for her porn channel here. Now she is broadcasting from Britain. In cyberspace, functions of social relevance, such as protection of minors, can no longer be fulfilled by the state. They are transferred to the parents exclusively." "The state can only interevene where the immaterial world of the network touches the physical world: It can arrest criminals, seize devices and data storage, when these physically are in its control. It can enforce adherance to its laws where it physically can exersize its power. But in the incorporeal world of the network, to a large extend it is powerless. All these examples indicate a new fact: The networks constitute a new incorporeal social space. Increasingly more social contacts, economic and legal exchanges are being transferred to it. In it, conditions are different from in the social relationships of the physical world. In this new world, the state has no means of coercion, no monopoly of power, and no sovereignty." "Law to be enforced requires power. The democratic constitutional state depends on sovereignty and obediency to laws. Only with these it can universally enforce democratic decisions and protect the citizens' basic rights from violations by third parties. To guarantee this is the fundamental reason for the modern state to exist. Its protective mission continues to apply. However, it has expanded with the civilisatoric development. With Hobbes, the focus was on the procetion of life and limb, with Locke the protection of freedom and property were added, and in this century, facing new threats, the protection of privacy. [... The states'] sovereignty is based on the authority to exclusively exercise physical power in [their territory]. This sovereignty has limits in the immaterial space of global networks. But when the citizen no longer receives the state's protection in the special sphere of the networks and the state can no more enforce matters of public interest there, then its basic legitimation in so far is in danger. According to Thomas Hobbes, 'the citizen's obligation to the sovereign can ... only last as long as he is capable of protecting the citizens'." But that would also endanger democracy and the constitional state. Stating that the normative strategy at large is obsolete, the author proposes new solotions: "When the democratic constitutional state can no longer reliably protect its citizens in the new social space of the networks, in compensation it must enable them to protect themselves." Information and communications technology offers various means of protection: * encryption and steganography * digital signatures * untraceable pseudonyms * certified electronic mail * ecash * software agents * connectivity management programs [whatever that is...] * cellular phones without location data * PICS * secure portable user-controlled devices that support these measures "Some of these measures - for example the encryption program PGP - can be used without any advance concession. The state only has to abstain from impeding regulations. Others - such as digital signatures - depend on an infrastructure that allows the individual to use these protective measures. The citizen of information society still depends on infrastructural prerequsites. But there is a fundamental difference in whether the individual can decide about using self-controlled protective measures himself, or the state or an other large organization offers protection that he cannot influence." "In order to protect and preserve the /old/ goals of freedom and self-determination in the /new/ social space of the networks, law must permit and support /new/ technologies." The article ends with the author's vision of a 'civil information society' as a free democratic society where basic rights are guaranteed by technology. "In this information society, the state has a limited, but fundamental role. [...] it creates a framework for the citizens to protect themselves. Thus they are enabled to freely inform themselves, solve conflicts in free self-organization, and negotiate and practice mutual security without depending on a big brother."