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.

Academics Pen An Open Letter to President Obama

Prominent academics from the fields of politics, history, and US foreign policy have come together to write the following open letter to President Barack Obama in support of the protests in Egypt and calling for a revision of U.S. foreign policy more in line with its democratic ideals and values:

http://www.accuracy.org/an-open-letter-to-president-barack-obama/ 

Please repost or 'retweet' this letter! Make some noise.

The Lessons of the Arab Revolutions (or Why Corrupt Dictators Can't Win in the Long Run)

I've always been a believer in karma, the concept that every action has a consequence even if it's not seen immediately, that what goes around comes around. The more I delve into history and observe current events the more I am becoming convinced there's also such thing as political karma and political leaders always reap the consequences of their actions, whether they serve their people well or whether they are self-serving.

The recent revolution in Tunisia which ousted Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and the massive uprising in Egypt against Hosni Mubarak, as well as the protests warming up in Yemen, Jordan, and potentially Syria were all inspired by the sacrifice of a man in despair. Tunisian Mohamed Bouazizi lit himself on fire which became an act of political revolt at the state of his country wracked by rising food prices, unemployment, censorship and political repression. His sacrifice has inspired millions to have the courage to stand up against oppression and corruption resulting in a revolution in Tunisia. Against all odds collective action for social justice was incited by the sacrifice of this man who is an allegory for the despair of all those living under corrupt dictatorships. Bouazizi became a martyr for a greater political cause in the Arab world, one that is far too familiar for those living under regimes similar to Ben Ali's. 

The prerequisites to be a dictator is delusion, a certain dose of megalomania and control issues. These regimes masqueraded as democracies with their de facto dictators censoring, detaining, torturing, or outright murdering their political opposition. Social media, whether newspapers, books, or the Internet remained under varying levels of control from mere restrictions such as censorship to total blackouts. Opposition leaders who escaped with their lives have spent or are currently spending years in exile from their homelands. It is no secret that these strongmen ruled by force and repression. Moreover, through corrupt practices these dictators have stolen millions of state dollars into their own bank accounts, into the coffers of their closest henchmen, and even bought certain loyalties through sheer bribery. 

Unfortunately for the United States, these authoritarian regimes now facing potential ousters have been long-standing strategic allies in the region. While some American politicians and conservative media enjoy pointing a finger at China for supporting corrupt dictators for economic advantage in Africa, perhaps the United States should look to cleaning up their own backyard in regards to the foreign policy status quo in the Middle East. While U.S. policy makers and their PR staff paint our country as the 'beacon of democracy' for the world, American foreign policy-making has been a mixed bag of stumbles, stupidities, and outright hypocrisy since the end of World War II. This is in part a consequence of historical changes at the turn of the century: Wilsonian idealism versus balance of power politics, the ideal of collective security versus national sovereignty and self-determination, and finally, among the academic schools of thought and divisive American party lines, liberalism pitted against realism.   

A student of politics would regard the status quo as the norm. After all, Machiavelli wrote that it's better to be feared than loved and realists would argue that political realities call for political expediency. 'Of course, everyone is essentially greedy and self-serving so it's inevitable all countries will work solely for its own interests and dictators will be self-serving,' quips the cynical realist. No one learns from history, after all, regardless that we are told to. The greatest empires have been destroyed due to their greed, taking for granted their military and economic power and over-stretching it, a belief in invincibility, and willful blindness toward the greater human realities of the people beneath their reigns. The harshest dictators have fallen either by threatening too many outside their borders with aggression or by revolutionary reaction from within against their stifling oppression. Political karma in action.

It's time that the world transcends the divisive camps of liberalism and realism with a more holistic approach to politics and governing: moral realism. Political power should not be construed as a zero-sum game but as a responsibility with certain obligations in wielding it. Political leaders, whether in democracies or not, should cease viewing their role as an elitist right for ego validation but as a position where they must serve and protect the people residing within their borders in the best way possible and foster peace and prosperity for those outside their borders as well if they want national prosperity. 

The best metaphorical analogy for moral realism can be rooted in the ancient Chinese concept of the mandate of heaven, a philosophical concept concerning the legitimacy of rulers: "The Mandate of Heaven postulates that heaven would bless the authority of a just ruler, but would be displeased with a despotic ruler and would withdraw its mandate, leading to the overthrow of that ruler. The Mandate of Heaven would then transfer to those who would rule best." While in today's world we no longer believe in divine right, ideally a political leader's legitimacy should be based on his conduct toward his people, his ability and willingness to serve them and his disposition at being just and wise and balanced in his or her actions.

Whether this concept is applied or not, political karma exists and those who do follow a path of moral realism are far better off than those who truly believe it's better to be feared. In the long-run, corrupt and self-serving dictators can't win. Eventually, they'll reap their political karma. Similarly, nations that support dictators need to reconsider and weigh the consequences of that support because it's a short-term plan for the long-term problem of protecting their own interests. The day politicians realize that the interests, prosperity, and peace of others are in their own interests will be the day the world becomes a better place to live.

In the meantime, the mandate to rule has been withdrawn from the likes of Ben Ali, Mubarak, and all those who believe repression and torture are the order of the day and who, in sheer self-deception and perhaps denial sincerely believe they are supported and loved by millions. In Cairo, one National Democratic Party (NDP) spokesman told an Al Jazeera correspondent amid anti-Mubarak protests:

NDP Spokesman: "Millions of Egyptians want the president to stay." 

Al Jaazeera Correspondent: "Where are they?"

As one friend put succintly, concerning these dictators and their cronies: 'Muppets taking the piss.'