If there is any issue that this generation should be entirely aware of, it is undoubtedly Internet politics.  

As I mentioned in a former post, I recently submitted an essay on ethics for a contest.  I wrote about the ethics of online freedom. I think that the most difficult part of writing an essay of this topic is that the field is constantly changing. There are new technological developments, political initiatives, and activist movements on the Internet nearly every day. But this is also what made writing about Internet freedom an exciting, and delightfully challenging, feat.

Before I go into the minutia policies of the Internet, there are a few things you need to understand:

First of all, the “Internet” is technically neither private nor is it completely public. You may have been aware of this already, but it is nonetheless a crucial piece of the puzzle that is comprised of the endlessly intertwining networks of the Web. Therein lies the complicated nature of any policy that makes an effort to either reign in the Internet, or break it free from the grasp of the public sector: neither private companies nor public government has full control of the Internet. They each just have a small piece.

Secondly, there are far more than two sides of the battle. It isn’t just “big, oppressive” government vs. the “humanitarian” Internet companies (like Google, Wikipedia, Reddit, etc.) It’s those two entities plus activists from all angles, a vast variety of ISPs (or Internet Service Providers), security tunnel routers, independent hackers and cyber geeks, and response teams…plus plenty more.

And finally, not everyone is in it for “the good of the public.” In fact, a sizeable portion of the contenders are in it for themselves. And by “in”, I simply mean that whatever groups/individuals are involved have some sort of political or financial gains on the line, and by “it” I mean authority over the Internet.

Without further ado, below is an excerpt of my essay titled “The ethics of online freedom in America: should the Internet be left to its own devices?” Enjoy!

THE BIG PLAYERS

The two largest combatants—both in size and in prosperity—in the battle for Internet freedom are the government and the private sector. Included within the private sector are the major software development corporations and search-engine giants, pitted against the self-proclaimed social concerns of government.  The moral validity of an open Internet finds its epicenter among the former, the autonomous Silicon Valley types.  Whereas the entire Legislative branch would convince its constituents, the American public, that the Internet’s explicit freedom necessitates a social contract with censorship.  Then there are the supplementary ventures of social activism.  Activists hope to hold government accountable for their practices, leaving the private sector virtually unopposed. This contrasting discourse begs the question of whether the Internet truly needs to be patrolled.

In the past year or so, Congress has aimed to find a solution to this proposition.  Both of Congress’s departments have been pushing several bills that would allow for a federal presence online.  In October of 2011, the House of Representatives staked their claim with the infamous Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA).  The bill was introduced by the House Judiciary Committee’s chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith (Republican-TX), and was considered by the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet.  The measure was proposed to bolster consumer protection and was backed by “the entertainment industry and other businesses that lose billions of dollars annually to intellectual property theft and online sales of counterfeit products.”  With this measure coming very close to be considered on the House floor, strong opposition formed against SOPA.  The bill was pulled by Rep. Smith shortly after committee considerations, because Smith consented to the idea that a “wider agreement” was necessary before coming to a solution for SOPA or other online security legislation.[1]

The Senate, as some may remember, had proposed a similar measure earlier in 2011.  Senator Patrick Leahy (Democrat-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and 2nd ranking Senator in seniority, introduced the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (commonly known as PIPA or the PROTECT IP Act).  Sen. Leahy recognized that the stipulations regarding domain names would not be supported, so he excluded those provisions almost immediately.  Leahy had been willing to compromise with industry demands, but his colleagues were simply not willing to debate the matter.  As a result, on January 23, 2012 the PIPA bill was pulled from Senate by a unanimous vote.  As Leahy observed, and the public noted, that senators had forced this motion as a “knee-jerk reaction to a monumental problem.”[2]

            Although, Congress might have been justified in reeling from any quick resolutions.  Congress’ cause for doubt stems from the large-scale Internet blackout on January 18th 2012 organized by the operators of Reddit, Wikipedia, and Google, alongside several activist campaigns.  The Internet blackout, lasting 24 hours for Wikipedia’s English content, was the culmination of the fortified opposition against both of the Congress-proposed measures.  Google’s assertion was especially well-heard by the congressmen and senators who, even while supporting their own initiatives to prevent online theft, were loath to conclude on any legislation with resistance from such vital groups—the fact was that Google and its Internet colleagues had the upper hand and continues to maintain the influential capacity to sway public perspective.[3]

With the Internet movers and shakers on the frontlines, the likes of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, FreePress, and other freedom-savvy organizations began collaboration on what would be a comprehensive campaign to free the Internet.  The Declaration of Internet Freedom it was called, and was inadvertently propped up by the United Nations Human Rights Council’s less prominent, but equally grounded resolution.  There was also the recent establishment of the Internet Defense League—comprised of Mozilla, WordPress, Reddit, the EFF, et. al.—which is a superhero-themed organization of “stalwart souls who are fighting to keep the Internet free from tyranny,” according to an article on PCWorld.com.[4]

In addition, there were the not-to-be-forgotten efforts of notorious Julian Assange.  Founder of the international public document leaking service known as “WikiLeaks”, Assange asserted his belief in an open Internet and a boundless flow of information for public consumption.  This service, constructed unofficially circa 2007, would become the largest source of publicly leaked documents since the Pentagon Papers.  Assange’s mission, however, was one of longevity.  He believed that WikiLeaks was capable of putting corrupt political leaders and private corporations to rest for good, whereas the abovementioned legislation aims to reduce external influences such as WikiLeaks. In spite of a well-founded effort, Assange and his team quickly realized that leaking massive amounts of raw data simply “failed to change the world.”[5]

WikiLeaks instead best functioned as a sort of niche “last resort” for mainstream media to retrieve illegal documents that would denounce tax-evading corporations or corrupt politicians.[6]  Although, it is important to note that WikiLeaks proved itself as an impenetrable database of incriminating information.  Assange and his team of cyber experts had claimed ownership of boundless quantities of “injunction-proof” data—they could, in essence, “laugh at lawyers.”[7]

Regardless of the source, it is obvious that the public now had a number of initiatives to stand behind.  Furthermore, under the supervision of such vital entities, it would appear that the American activist and general populations are unparalleled, invincible.

Even so, two more pieces of House legislation were proposed in the wake of the Internet blackout: CISPA and the OPEN Act.  The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act and the Online Protection Enforcement of Digital Trade Act were introduced by Republicans Mike Rogers and Darrell Issa, respectively.  OPEN appeared to build on the momentum from SOPA and PIPA, but CISPA turned out to be a false alarm for compromise. CISPA, according to an article on InfoWorld, would allow the government to completely lay waste to privacy stipulations in investigating a case of cyber security: “Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all.”[8] 

On the other hand, the EFF and Google-adjacent agencies were reportedly in support of the OPEN Act: “Our initial take is that while the bill is far from perfect, some crucial steps have been taken.”[9]  In fact, this bipartisan effort for a one-time resolution has taken flight to the Internet: the bill was put online at keepthewebopen.com and representatives have welcomed the opportunity for the Internet community to give their input.  The EFF is cautious, but open to consider the measure and leaders have reported an increased confidence in potential legislation: “We’re glad to see that all of those who will feel the effects of the legislation – the tech community, individuals who depend on the Internet every day, content creators, and, yes, even Hollywood – can have their voices heard.”[10]

Yet, lodged among the aforementioned entities is a fundamental group to be considered: the consumer, the Web-surfer, the everyday Internet-junkie.  In support of an obligation to protect these people and their Constitutional 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech is the activist sector.  Internet liberators are seemingly in support of the public, and historically against any government regulation.  Without further investigation, it is easy to concede to activist statements that federal involvement would encroach upon this freedom of speech online.  Nonetheless, without federally supported enforcement, this would indeed be a precarious nation.  Therein lies the ethical conundrum: to regulate or not to regulate, to protect the people or not.

[1] SOPA is dead, Smith pulls bill (2012, January). In CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57362990-501465/sopa-is-dead-smith-pulls-bill/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

[2] SOPA is dead, Smith pulls bill (2012, January). In CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-57362990-501465/sopa-is-dead-smith-pulls-bill/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

[3] Tsukayama, H. (2012, January 17). Google to state anti-SOPA stance on home page. In The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-to-state-anti-sopa-stance-on-home-page/2012/01/17/gIQANeD05P_story.html

[4] Cringely, R. X. (2012, July 20). It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane…It’s the Internet Defense League. In PCWorld. Retrieved from http://www.pcworld.com/article/259610/its_a_bird_its_a_planeits_the_internet_defense_league.html

[5] Leigh, D., & Harding, L. (2011). WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy (p. 61). New York: PublicAffairs.

[6] Leigh, D., & Harding, L. (2011). WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy (p. 61). New York: PublicAffairs.

[7] Ibid. 62.

[8] Cringely, R. X. (2012, April 27). CISPA: Big Brother’s best friend forever. In InfoWorld. Retrieved from http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/cispa-big-brothers-best-friend-forever-191952

[9] Samuels, J. (2011, December 8). An Alternative to SOPA: An Open Process Befitting an Open Internet. In Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/alternative-sopa-open-process-befitting-open-internet

[10] Ibid.