libcom.org | newswire

libcom.org | newswire

The race is on for the control of cyberspace.
By Julian Gibson

The internet has revolutionised life for many people, particularly political radicals. The mass anti-capitalist movements and demonstrations of Seattle, Quebec and Genoa that so shook the world’s elites prior to 9/11 would not have been possible were it not for global online networking. The internet has provided an invaluable tool of communication and information for political dissidents through online communities like Indymedia and libcom.org, free spaces for radicals who are otherwise denied a place in the mainstream media. All the research for this article was done online- hell, I’d never even heard about anarchism till I looked it up on the internet! But the freedom of the web we currently enjoy must not be taken for granted.
Cyberspace is not some separate domain; it is now an essential component of our legal, political, economic and social lives. ‘The internet’ is not a single entity, it is a giant collection of computer networks held together by cable, telephone and other connections. Born in a research project by the US Department of Defence, it was designed by the Rand Corporation to be a decentralized communications system that could withstand nuclear attack.

The decentralised nature of the internet has led to more horizontal and essentially anarchistic communication, but it is not necessarily the great liberator and source of freedom as previously presumed.

The nature of censorship on the Internet has taken some surprising turns over the years. No communications and information medium in history has endured such a varied and continued assault on its functioning and infrastructure, particularly since 11th September 2001. A study by Freedom House: “Freedom of the press 2005” revealed the overall level of press freedom worldwide is worsening, notable setbacks took place in Pakistan, Kenya, Mexico, Venezuela, and in the worlds most powerful ‘Democracy’, the United States.

The US National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, an excruciatingly boring read, contains ominously vague plans for controlling the internet as a part of their National Strategy for Homeland Security, as “the healthy functioning of cyberspace is essential to the US economy and national security…We are facing increasing threats from hostile adversaries in the realm of cyberspace.” It claims organised cyber attack may endanger the Nations security, possibly even causing loss of life, though they neglect to explain exactly how.

It is arguable that at the beginning of the 21st century corporations will rival (and possibly collude with) governments in threatening internet freedoms. Some US cable companies- AOL for instance- seek to control the internet in the same way as TV and radio, and are putting in place the necessary technological changes to do this.

Censorship of the internet is commonplace in most regions. In countries such as Burma and China, the level of control is such that the internet has little value as a medium of free speech. In fact, such use often results in personal dangers to activists. Burma has come closest to trying to block the entire internet- out of the entire web it ‘whitelists’ about 900 sites in all. China- with the second largest population of internet users behind the United States, uses the vague term of ‘subversive’ speech as the object of censorship, limiting discussion about Falun Gong, the Dalai Lama and Tiananmen Square. Incidentally, China’s ‘Golden Shield’ blocking device is sustained by Western developed software. In Tunisia plainclothes ‘cyber-police’ monitor cybercafes for subversive activity, regularly collecting details of internet activity, blocking “subversive” websites and arresting “over-active” internet users- cyber-dissidents. Morocco bans criticism of Islam, or the monarch, or ‘offensive reporting’ by journalists. Cuba has made internet usage illegal without a permit. Iranian authorities have arrested 20 online journalists during a recent crackdown, Arash Sigarchi- an Iranian weblogger was jailed for 14 years on charges of spying and aiding counter-revolutionaries.

Though in the UK we enjoy greater freedom, it would be foolish to think the internet here is free. In October last year, two servers hosting the Indymedia’s websites were turned over to the FBI by Rackspace hosting, without notifying Indymedia- affecting over 20 Indymedia sites worldwide. In a statement regarding the incident, Rackspace claimed to be “acting in compliance with a court order pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which establishes procedures for countries to assist each other in investigations such as international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering…Rackspace is acting as a good corporate citizen and is cooperating with international law enforcement authorities, the court prohibits Rackspace from commenting further on this issue.”

The UK has proposed data retention rules under its Anti-Terrorism, crime and Security Act 2001, where this will lead remains to be seen.

British Telecom are working with the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) to prevent users from accessing child porn sites, the technology, called BT Cleanfeed, blocks access to ‘blacklisted sites’. But BT admits that the Cleanfeed system will not be effective against the determined paedophile, and will only stop surfers stumbling accidentally on such material. With Cleanfeed, BT has become the first Internet Service Provider in the Western world to voluntarily censor its customer’s access in this way, and now offers the most censored web access in the West.

The IWF was created in 1996 to provide a hotline for the public to report any material that is ‘potentially illegal’. It caused some concern in 2002 by proposing to create a list of banned newsgroups that should not be carried at all by British ISPs. For the last eight years the ISP industry has been removing material at the request of the IWF without any hesitation or warning. The list of banned sites is secret and left to the judgement of a private organisation based in Cambridgshire and run by an ex-police officer. This all makes the IWF the most powerful and effective censor in British media history. It is completely unelected and unaccountable to the general public, so there are worries concerning the power the IWF yields. Removing child porn may be a legitimate aim, but will it end there?

In the West, technologies have so far sustained the ability of dissident groups to speak freely and access content privately. So far software writers can work much faster than politicians, but the battle is on. Governments have already criminalised the meaning of the word ‘hacker’ into something akin to terrorism. The regulation of Investigatory Powers says that police can request data about what sites a web user visits- and ISPs must collect this information- this is only the beginning.

In cyberspace, code is law, and we must understand how code regulates, if we are to maintain the libertarian ideals of the net. If the code of cyberspace is owned, it can be controlled. The lack of ownership, the presence of a commons, is key to limiting, or checking government or corporate control. Technological expertise and participation are essential to ensure that systems of freedom and minimal regimes of invasion are maintained.

Only 17% of the world’s population live in countries that enjoy a relatively free press, of which we are one. It is critically important that these countries remain vigilant in upholding this freedom at home and actively encouraging it abroad.

Staving off the internet power shift will be a difficult task, made even harder by the apathy on the part of a public who won’t know what they’ve got until it’s gone. Cyberspace, left to itself, will not fulfil the promise of freedom. Without our participation, it could become the perfect tool of control.