Censorship v. Civil Liberties: Thoughts on Internet Freedom and State Security

News concerning WikiLeaks and Julian Assange has been since drowned out by the events currently unfolding in Egypt. Nonetheless, the two issues are interestingly linked through the actions and views of a group of hackers, or 'hacktivists' if you will, known only as 'Anonymous.'

Internet Freedom Fighters, Anonymous, have recently posted a new video on its website urging global protests according to BBC News. The group of hackers, or 'cyber-warriors' as they would rather be called, gained notoriety by supporting Julian Assange and organizing cyber attacks against companies that caved to US government pressure to deny their services and servers to Wikileaks. The group has become so infamous in its support of Wikileaks that the FBI executed search warrants on 40 Anonymous members and is continuing to the raid the homes of its members based in the United States.

The video on the group's blog declares an admirable mission statement loaded with images of freedom of information protesters wearing V for Vendetta's Guy Fawkes masks. The video states the group's agenda:

"We believe that free speech is non-negotiable, the quality of an idea matters more than its authorship, and the radical notion that information should be free. We are done waiting for someone to save us from tyranny and censorship. The Internet needs champions and we will rise. We didn't start this to destroy a cult, we took on a cult to defend free speech. Tens of thousands strong, we lie in wait as the real battle approaches. We are Anonymous and so are you."

The group has taken on some of the most oppressive governments. During the recent Tunisian uprising, Anonymous spearheaded DDoS (Denial of Service) attacks against Tunisian government websites in reaction to the government's actions to block communication between activists. Tunisian hackers reportedly joined the group to coordinate attacks. The group successfully crippled eight Tunisian government sites. The group's Facebook page calls for action in Egypt in lieu of the communication restrictions against protesters: "My fellow Anonymous, the Egyptian government has taken action against it`s people which negates everything we stand for, there for we have decided to take action in the matter.... Operation Egypt/Operation Sekhmet is at hand... Let us Strike like the wind.... swift, unseen and unstoppable!"

Whether members of Anonymous and WikiLeaks are labeled cyber-warriors or cyber-terrorists depends on which side of the debate you are on. Anonymous, while calling for those who support them to join in the cyber fight, always provides a disclaimer that DDoS attacks are against the law in most countries and one can be held liable for participating in such actions. Having said that, however, Anonymous' fight on behalf of freedom of speech and information in Tunisia and more recently Egypt is praiseworthy. Without doubt, the group is a thorn on the side of any government that wishes to control the flow and framing of information, whether via the Internet or other media such as publications, radio, or TV. In the United States, the issue of WikiLeaks and Anonymous' role in defending the whistle-blowing medium is tacked as a problem of 'national security.'

Civil liberties is a sticky subject when considering the Internet from a democratic government perspective especially in regards the blurry lines between what constitutes a criminal action versus freedom of expression. In dictatorial or oppressive regimes it's much easier to draw the line between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys.' In countries such as the United States, Britain, or any government which espouses and protects the rights of its people, freedom of information debates enter a legal gray zone. If an information medium is being used to encourage violence, hatred, racism, misogyny or teach people how to build dirty bombs that could essentially be a serious problem. One of the stranger cases on the matter has been the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) defense of NAMBLA (The National Man-Boy Love Association) where American conservatives accused the ACLU of encouraging pedophilia. The ACLU has since issued a statement concerning its defense of freedom of expression for unpopular organisations.

The ACLU stated:

"The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today."

Philosophically one could argue that total freedom of information could reasonably be dangerous to society. Are there things people should not know? Is the concept of 'forbidden knowledge' still salient where the Internet proves to be an outlet where one can find literally anything from the high ideals of civil society groups speaking out against dictators and holding forums of political debate to the most degrading items such as criminal child pornography rings or spaces for organized crime to profit through fraud, illegal gambling, or sex trafficking? I certainly don't have the answers to these questions, but there are very good arguments to be made in regards to certain information needing to be regulated or watched by law enforcement if that information results in harming people where the protection of people is a government responsibility.

In the late 18th century, the American Founding Fathers came together and reflected on the moral and ethical questions concerning the foundation of government. They chose to establish a democracy based on values which were formulated during the French Enlightenment with a nod to their own forebears who left 'divine' monarchies for the new world in order to have freedom of religion. They founded a government on the premise that all men, and later women, were equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are what cannot be surrendered by the citizen to the sovereign as defined by Francis Hutcheson in 1725.  The right of private judgment, for example, is inalienable.

Many political philosophers have debated the premises on which American democracy is based. For example, concepts like "freedom" and "rights" and "equality" are entirely taken for granted by the majority of people. Everything human culture and society has come up with historically from the laws and regulations of government to the rituals and practice of religion is the result of collective imagination. This makes any political philosopher at once aware of the fragility of any established order but also of the opportunity to commit great acts of change in societies that people suffered under oppressive circumstances.

American politicians and administration officials eye WikiLeaks and groups such as Anonymous warily. Rep. Ron Paul's defense of WikiLeaks on the House floor this past December calls for common sense. The WikiLeaks controversy may well be less about national security than the fear of certain politicians being made to look bad for talking badly behind each other's backs and for backing failed foreign policies such as supporting certain dictators.

In an eloquent five minute speech before Congress, Rep. Paul provided a heavy dose of common sense in regards to the WikiLeaks controversy and on behalf of freedom of information. He cited significant precedents in U.S. history where those who disseminated leaked information or whistle-blowed against ineffective or amoral foreign policies were hailed as public heroes:

"The New York Times, as a results of a Supreme Court ruling, was not found guilty in 1971 for the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Daniel Ellsberg never served a day in prison for his role in obtaining these secret documents. The Pentagon Papers were also inserted into the Congressional record by Senator Mike Gravel, with no charges of any kind being made of breaking any national security laws. Yet the release of this classified information was considered illegal by many, and those who lied us into the Vietnam war, and argued for its prolongation were outraged. But the truth gained from the Pentagon Papers revealed that lies were told about the Gulf of Tonkin attack. which perpetuated a sad and tragic episode in our history. Just as with the Vietnam War, the Iraq War was based on lies. We were never threatened by weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda in Iraq, though the attack on Iraq was based on this false information. Any information which challenges the official propaganda for the war in the Middle East is unwelcome by the administration and the supporters of these unnecessary wars."

Groups such as WikiLeaks and Anonymous are not out to destroy Western governments or to purposely threaten the security of people but instead desire to provide a space for political transparency and public accountability. Of course, this is not good for some politicians and those who have credibility to lose as a result of bad foreign policies or embassy badmouthing and these are the one's most staunchly against these groups. WikiLeaks members have been careful to redact any information that could potentially threaten the lives of military sources. Journalists working at bureaus around the world have also taken upon themselves similar ethical responsibilities weighing the consequences of any information they would potentially publish.

The label 'terrorist' has been bandied around without much thought. If we're going to label anyone a 'cyber terrorist' then consider those with actual intent to harm people. Although I sympathize with a government's need to regulate information, especially military intelligence, on the basis of national security, I question the WikiLeaks and Anonymous witch hunts.