Since the Internet’s mainstream inception in the mid-1990s, the global telecommunications network has transformed from one that offered egalitarian promise to a network that often compromises democratic norms. And, as its conceptual linchpin, Internet “openness” provided the potential for technological innovation that could revolutionize both communication and commerce. The regulatory schemes introduced in the early Internet era thus sought to advance openness and innovation in the fledging online world. But, while the times and technologies have since changed, the regulatory frameworks have largely remained the same. Accordingly, this review essay examines the Internet’s regulatory and cultural history to explore how the open values of the information age gave way to our current era of online disinformation. To do so, I reflect upon two early studies of the digital realm that have advanced discourse and scholarship on Internet openness: Lawrence Lessig’s Code: and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version 2.0, and Christopher Kelty’s Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software. Informed by these works, along with related digital scholarship, this essay argues that remembering the history of Internet openness reveals how the free access ideals of the Internet’s foundational age have been transformed by the renewed proprietary conventions of our current disinformation era.

Legal institutions rely on monitoring and prediction technologies to enforce the law. Drawing on three recent books—Predict and Surveil by Sarah Brayne (2021), Data Driven by Karen Levy (2023), and Policing Patients by Elizabeth Chiarello (2024)—this review essay examines how the incorporation of these technologies brings about three shifts in the work of frontline enforcement. First, it broadens the categories of actors with the capacity to facilitate the formal enforcement of law. Second, it reorients enforcement to increasingly center on generating information for future use by institutional actors beyond the original information gatherer. Third, it increases the variety and frequency of agents’ decisions about how much to engage with new tools. These shifts are likely to exacerbate a persistent challenge faced by frontline agents: navigating conflicting goals and flawed laws with inadequate resources and guidance.