Imagine, if
you will, a world where your personal information is tattooed upon your
forehead; clearly visible to all who see you.
Everything that has ever been recorded about you put on display without
your permission. Such a world would
allow anyone to access your most confidential information and use it as they
please. Now, you may be thinking to
yourself that such an idea is clearly fictional and would never happen in real
life. I long for the days when that
sentiment was true, nothing like this could happen. Times have changed and so has technology; all
of a sudden this fictional world is becoming a reality. No, no one is going to make you tattoo your
social security number to your forehead or write your medical history on your
arm. However, steps are being taken to make such information easily accessible
by any and all corporations. The worst
part is, we are more than happy to let it happen. Why? Because of terrorism,
that’s why.
 |
| Image from: WebProNews |
But I am
getting ahead of myself, making ridiculous claims and attempting to inspire a
sense of urgency when I have not yet explained what there is to be urgent
about. The source of my concern is the
Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, better known as CISPA. CISPA is the government’s latest attempt to
infringe upon our rights and rob us of our privacy. Those of you who keep track of such things
might remember the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which gave the government the
power to block any site that contained material in violation of copyright. Such
an act would allow the government to block almost any site that relied upon
user generated content as well as countless other sites. While SOPA is indeed far different than
CISPA, it serves as the ideal example as to why we should care so much about
the government’s interference online.
Word of SOPA’s implications spread through the Internet like a wildfire. Users everywhere were speaking out against an
act which would surely mark the end of free speech online. Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel Geoff Brigham declared
the following in a post he made regarding his concerns. “SOPA represents the flawed proposition that
censorship is an acceptable tool to protect rights owners' private interests in
particular media. That is, SOPA would block entire foreign websites in the
United States as a response to remove from sight select infringing
material. “
 |
| Wikipedia's Homepage During Operation Blackout Image from: membrane.com |
It
wasn’t long before sites like Wikipedia and Reddit began forming plans for an
online protest in the form of a blackout.
On January 18th, 2012, a multitude of websites blacked out
their homepages, including a few lines of text explaining the dangers of SOPA
and the need to take action. The
blackout was an incredible display of the ability of users to come together and
defend their rights. Unfortunately, not
everyone was pleased with the protests. Free.com
reports Former Sen. Chris Dodd, CEO of the Motion Picture Association of
America, calling the protests "an abuse of power." ” ‘It’s a
dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways
to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to
further their corporate interests,’ his statement said.” Despite the former
senator’s view, the blackout was actually quite successful. It raised awareness of the act by a
significant amount and contributed to several major companies withdrawal of
support for the act.
Since
SOPA’s eventual rejection, the sense of urgency felt by those participating in
the blackout has begun to fade. A
victory was won that day for Internet users worldwide. We had won the battle, but it was naïve to
assume we had won the war. There is no
clearer evidence of this than the presence of CISPA. CISPA looms over the Internet, darkening its
future and the lives of its users. While
such descriptions may seem a bit exaggerated, one need only examine the bill
further to feel the icy realization of CISPA’s implications. The bill itself directly states that
“[private information may be shared] notwithstanding any other provision of
law.” In simpler terms, this means that
CISPA is above any previously passed legislation that serves to protect one’s
online privacy. If that does not send
chills down your spine then I suggest you keep reading. A bill that can go
above all others has serious implications for the public.
 |
| Image from: cyberspying.eff.org |
I recently had the good fortune to come across an infographic which captured CISPA’s idea rather nicely. According to said infographic, CISPA means
that “access to any information regarding a "cyber threat" is granted
to the government, private security agencies, and private companies". To most people, such an explanation would not
seem to be cause for concern. Who could
argue with a government that simply wants to protect us from cyber
threats? As wonderfully comforting as
this sounds, the government has little interest in protecting us with this
bill. CISPA defines a cyber threat as “efforts
to degrade, disrupt, or destroy government or private systems and networks” as
well as “theft or misappropriation of private or government information,
intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.” Once again, such wording is intended to
inspire confidence and reassure users that their best interests are being
looked after. Upon closer inspection
however, the bill’s transparency is all too obvious. One of the definitions for a cyber threat
includes misappropriation of intellectual property. Once again we run into the same issue we had
with SOPA. Intellectual property can
mean anything from the picture I made in Photoshop to the idea for a
website. Such a definition is vague and
can be applied to almost anything.
I find it rather interesting how
the government uses carefully crafted wording to entice us into believing that
they are doing this for our own good. An
article titled “When Network Neutrality Met Privacy” uses a phrase to describe
attitudes towards net neutrality which I find to be appropriate in this instance
as well. The author states, “Sometimes,
they clothe these arguments in the language of “freedom,” but by this they
usually mean a narrow, market-drenched conception of freedom.” The government follows a similar pattern by
presenting potential laws in a so-called language of freedom, when their
version of freedom is far more narrow and politically oriented than we would
imagine.
Once a user has been flagged as a
potential cyber threat, his data may then be shared with the government,
private security agencies, and private companies. Any and all data concerning the user in
question may be freely distributed under CISPA to help protect against a
potential cyber threat. This makes it
possible for Facebook and other sites to suddenly obtain considerable amounts
of personal information about you that they otherwise would not be able to
access. As if this wasn’t bad enough,
under CISPA, if you are seen as a threat neither the government nor any private
companies are obligated to notify you in any way. They are free to pass around the most
sensitive data they have on you without so much as a courtesy email explaining
why you are suddenly considered a threat to the nation. Also, if an error occurs and some of your information
is misinterpreted or you are falsely accused of committing a cyber crime, you
have absolutely no ability to take legal action. As stated before, you may not even know that
you are being monitored for a crime in the first place.
Using the vague definitions
outlined in the CISPA bill, the government and many private companies will be
free to gain access to any and all information about you. If SOPA was the end of free speech on the
Internet, then CISPA is the end of privacy on the Internet. It is at this time that I find the article “Communications
Surveillance: Privacy and Security at Risk” ,by Whitfield Diffie and Susan Landau
especially relevant. The authors
conclude the article by stating, “The surveillance we are attempting to build
may increase security in some ways, but it also creates serious risks in a
network infrastructure that supports all of society.” I do not think that particular thought has
ever been more relevant than it is now.
To borrow a term from George Orwell’s novel, 1984,
it seems as if Big Brother truly is watching us. In 1984, Big Brother kept an eye on
the people by watching them constantly through the telescreens each person was
required to have in every room. These
methods of constant surveillance and an all-knowing authority figure have long
since been discussed in English classes as elements of fictional dystopian literature. It is time to stop viewing such things as
fiction and face the facts. A bill like
CISPA would essentially convert our computers into telescreens, allowing government
officials and corporations to watch our every move. Big Brother is real, the government is
striving every day to extend their power over us.
 |
| Homepage for Fight Back With TMI Image from: congresstmi.org |
Luckily, there is hope for Internet
users yet. Though signs of a second
blackout are nowhere to be seen, plans have been set in motion to protest
CISPA. One such effort is based upon the
idea to “Fight Back With TMI”. “TMI” being defined as “your inappropriate, awkward, often
embarrassing personal details — the kind that the FBI, NSA, CIA, IRS, and local
police will soon have access to if CISPA passes.” The basic premise of this movement is to send
congress a barrage of very personal information that would potentially make
them uncomfortable and embarrassed. The
end goal is, of course, to make congress embarrassed of their support for CISPA
and to hopefully rid the Internet of this distasteful bill.
Such online movements are often dismissed by
users as being unlikely to succeed and therefore not worth their time. This is where they make a huge mistake. Whether a movement will succeed in preventing
a bill from passing or not is irrelevant.
Events like Operation Blackout and Fight Back With TMI serve to raise
awareness of a very real threat to their rights. Part of the reason why it is so easy for the
government to pass bills like this is because people are content to simply sit
back and let it happen. It is far to
difficult for us to go online and read up on a bill when we could be reading
Reddit or playing Call of Duty instead.
So we swallow whatever the government hands us and march in line like
good citizens as our rights crumble around us.
People have no idea of the power they poses and what they could do with
that power. It is truly a sad day when
it takes a group of hackers to show the public that the government just might
not be perfect. To quote the infamous V
from the film, V for Vendetta, “People should not be afraid of their
governments. Governments should be afraid of their people. “ Use the power you have while you still have
it. The government is already after
freedom of speech, use it while it is still legal.
We may have beat SOPA, we may even
beat CISPA, but what will come next? We
cannot simply keep fighting these battles without realizing that they are a part
of a larger war; a war on our rights. It
is a war that knows no boundaries; every country that has access to the
Internet is part of the same endless struggle.
As I mentioned before, there are many times when we are all too happy to
throw our support behind the government.
Ever since the events of 9/11, the United States government has gone
into full attack mode in regards to terrorists.
Every move they make is to prevent terrorist attacks. It seems that the government need only hint
at terrorists and voters are all to willing to vote yes without even reading
the fine text. SOPA used piracy to seem noble and just, and now CISPA is
claiming to prevent acts of cyber terrorism.
Such bills may very well be able to impact terrorism’s presence in the
U.S., but at what cost? What are you
willing to give up in order to sleep better at night?
Works Cited
DIFFIE, WHITFIELD, and SUSAN LANDAU. "Communications
Surveillance: Privacy And Security At Risk." Communications Of The
ACM 52.11 (2009): 42-47. Business Source Complete. Web. 17
May 2012.
Ohm, Paul. "Viewpoint: When Network Neutrality Met
Privacy." Communications Of The ACM 53.4 (2010):
30-32. Business Source Complete. Web. 17 May 2012.
