Internet Freedom vs. National Security: SOPA, PIPA, and the Four Factions

The Digital Age and the Rise of Cyber Conflict

This paper analyzes the dueling philosophies of the pro-national security versus pro-internet freedom debate, a topic that became especially prominent following the uprisings of the Arab Spring in January 2011. On one side stand the cyber security agencies and major media property organizations representing Hollywood; on the other are piracy advocates worldwide, along with hackers and hacking groups like Anonymous. These two extremes frame the broader debate, and the average politician and citizen must decide where they stand in order to participate in a structured civil discussion.

The latest development in this ongoing debate gave rise to two Congressional bills supporting greater internet censorship — SOPA and PIPA — and the merits of both sides are examined here. Ultimately, Washington in 2012 sided with Silicon Valley and the tech industry, marking a turning point in its long history of backing Hollywood's wishes on copyright protection. The protection of internet freedom appeared secured for at least another year, though supporters of SOPA and PIPA vowed to return with a more precisely targeted bill that would still grant new powers of censorship over foreign websites.

The Wikileaks scandal is another vivid example of what can happen in the digital age with the rapid spread of information. Diplomatic memoranda were distributed across the internet; most were classified as "secret" and many as "noforn," meaning not for foreign eyes. The harsh treatment of those implicated has not gone unnoticed, and the world watches to see how the United States handles what many consider an obvious act of treason. The U.S. government has since taken the Wikileaks episode as a lesson, putting greater security measures in place to protect sensitive data.

The digital age has matured considerably over the past decade from its 1990s Wild West days of Netscape, Hotmail, and Angelfire websites. Crude hacking in those times was countered by equally crude defense systems. Computers and operating systems were vulnerable to Trojan horses, wormholes, and keylogging attacks, and the best recourse authorities had to trace such incidents relied on physically obtaining infected hard drives. Those days are over, however. The hacking, pirating, and torrenting communities have grown more sophisticated in their methods, and counter-cyber crime divisions have likewise become far more capable on the defensive side.

The debate over how to maintain internet security and freedom simultaneously has escalated to a national level, as groups like Anonymous probe U.S. government websites and servers, and members of Congress threaten sweeping bills granting unprecedented power to police the internet — not just within the United States, but globally. Most notably, in late 2011 and early 2012, two companion bills were introduced in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate: the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA). This paper discusses the implications of such acts, as well as the broader debate on national security and internet freedom and how these interests can be balanced to protect the country.

Cyber crime is a real and serious threat to world governments. The leak of U.S. ambassadorial communications in 2010 revealed details about relations between the United States and foreign governments, including sometimes-unflattering information about foreign leaders. President Obama faced backlash from several governments — including those of Russia, France, Italy, and Afghanistan — as details marked "noforn" surfaced for public scrutiny through the Wikileaks documents. Internet security experts, working alongside U.S. military police and Swedish police, were able to identify Julian Assange and then-Private First Class Bradley Manning as the principal actors in this case. Both individuals were awaiting trial to determine the appropriate legal handling of their individual crimes.

SOPA and PIPA: Hollywood's Push for Internet Censorship

The major media organizations of the United States — the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) — were forceful advocates for the broad powers contained in SOPA and PIPA. These organizations estimated losses of $250 million per year due to piracy on private computers protected by their Internet Service Providers. Their new strategy was to target foreign websites such as The Pirate Bay by manipulating the rules of the internet through legislation enacted by the U.S. Congress.

This approach would have created significant uncertainty, as hacking groups would likely have pursued shadow internet channels in order to preserve their anonymity. Fortunately, as of February 2012, the legislation was halted, largely through a coalition of technology companies including Microsoft, Google, and Reddit (Senators Drop Support for SOPA/PIPA, 1). These internet communities value their freedom and possess sufficient resources to counter the Hollywood executives pushing for broader censorship. Nevertheless, the legislation may still be reintroduced in a weakened form that would still expand the censorship and control powers of U.S. cyber security agencies.

Anonymous and Hacker Groups: Tactics and Implications

Freedom of information groups share their own individual priorities but are united in fierce opposition to internet censorship imposed by the U.S. Congress (Information Policy, 1). The most prominent of these groups is Anonymous, comprising an estimated 10,000 hackers ranging from casual participants to hardcore operatives. The group works entirely underground, using pseudonyms and indirect methods of attack.

Anonymous's primary strategy for bringing down websites is the Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack. These attacks overwhelm targeted servers by replicating traffic from multiple internet sources simultaneously, causing tens of thousands of anonymous packet requests to flood servers worldwide. Even the most resilient websites — including those of the U.S. government and authoritarian governments such as Syria's — have been brought down through this method (America's Internet Freedom Agenda, 1).

The DDoS attack offers its users both complete anonymity and near-limitless efficiency due to its simplicity. A secondary strategy employed by groups like Anonymous involves data retrieval, a far more technically demanding practice. Extracting files from hard drives protected by routers and intrusion-prevention software requires a scalpel-like approach rather than a blunt attack. However, the rewards can be substantial: financial data is highly sought after by hedge funds and investment banks that would use unreleased forecasts to inform their investment decisions. Anonymous represents a legitimate justification for increased cyber policing due to its indiscriminate attacks on U.S. government agencies, but its actions do not rise to the level of requiring a fundamental rewriting of the rules of the internet by Congress.

Conclusion: Status Quo as the Pragmatic Balance

The debate over strengthening national security against the liberties of those promoting internet freedom has been ongoing for decades — as long as counterfeit media products have existed in the black market. Media companies have continued to generate remarkable profits even in the face of the supposed existential threat posed by piracy. The system as it currently exists both enriches media corporations and preserves the public's freedom of access to the internet. This is one instance where the status quo appears to be the most practical course of action, as the parties to this debate are fundamentally divided and no degree of concession is likely to fully satisfy either side.