On Thursday, January 8th, 2015, the infamous NSA whistleblower, Edward Snowden, was quoted as saying the following in an interview with PBS NOVA. "When it comes to cyber warfare, we have more to lose than any other nation on earth. The technical sector is the backbone of the American economy, and if we start engaging in these kind of behaviors, in these kind of attacks, we're setting a standard, we're creating a new international norm of behavior that says this is what nations do. This is what developed nations do."
Conventional warfare is no more. After World War 2, most of the world's nations signed peace accords, human rights declarations, and the people of the world dedicated themselves to peace. Edward Snowden hit the nail on the head with his analysis of the role that cyberwarfare plays in the modern world. Though we may never again see gruesome international conflicts that spill oceans of blood, we will see warfare that can bring about more death and destruction than the world has ever known.
One might think that the most dangerous form of cyber warfare would be attacks on nuclear plants or power grids, but that is only a small fraction of the potential danger. To quote JFK, "... and there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment." Censorship is the agent that could bring levels of death and destruction never before seen. How is that possible? Let's answer the question with another question. What is it to live? Is it just to breathe; to survive; to keep moving? No. Life must have meaning. To us, it is not just the biological process. We are conscious and we make decisions. Decisions made without information, or without reliable information are not only threats to our conciousness, but to our health and safety. So when people with power impose censorship upon those without, it is quite literally one of the greatest threats to humanity - physically, spiritually, and intellectually.
In the last post, I mentioned how the Supreme Court decision in New York Times Co. v United States has been completely forgotten or overlooked. The government cannot touch the mainstream media companies, but they can keep them away and they can do whatever they want to alternative media. Each presidential administration has chosen which media outlets have access to press briefings and which do not. The president could invite people only sympathetic to the opinions of the administration. Additionally, there have been hundreds of cases of government shutdowns of so-called "alternative media".
The first example I'd like to draw attention to was the shutdown of Megaupload in 2012. Megaupload was a cloud service with at least 50 million registered users and at least 100 million daily visitors. The U.S. Department of Justice shut it down because some of its users broke laws. The majority of those infractions were related to copyright. In response, the internet exploded in retaliation. Anonymous shut down the websites for the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Copyright Office, Universal Music Group, and the Motion Picture Association of America. Thus, the introduction of the aforementioned warfare.
With the shutdown of Megaupload, the government proved that it did not need more copyright laws like SOPA or PIPA to become a global censorship force. The Department of Justice could shutdown any website, any online media group, for any reason. If the Department of Justice could do it, then what about Homeland Security or the FBI? What about international government? What about other nations? Unfortunately, our country established a dangerous precedent, and it has been followed time and time again.
According to legal-project.org, several countries already have laws regulating hate speech, and many more are drafting similar legislation. As governments and corporations crack down on the essence of conciousness, communication, and freedom itself, the people of the world have risen against tyranny once again. The resistance takes many different forms - sometimes legal, sometimes illegal. Some argue that the ends do not justify the means and fight back with marches and petitions. Here is just one example of this tactic. Others argue that rule of law has become opressive and will break the law to fight the system.
Regardless of how people choose to fight this war, the war is being fought. The third world war is happening right now, right in front of our eyes. The game has changed. It used to be about controlling and policing the land - an empire with clear borders that can be drawn on the map. Now, it is about controlling the hearts and minds of people. Now, we are in the midst of the third world war.
History doesn't always repeat itself, because history has never seen this. The internet isn't a tool. The internet isn't a place. The internet isn't an idea. The internet is humanity. If we lose the war for the internet, then we lose everything. You now have a choice. Fight so that you might yet live, or do nothing and it will be as if you are already dead. Hope lies in each and every one of us, and hope lies in all of us together, united in the spirit of humanity. And so we must not only declare it, but we must act on these words, "Live free or die."
No comments:
Post a Comment