Add new comment

If there are two groups that definitely don’t get along, it’s the government and hackers.  Hackers are notorious for causing all sorts of problems and, perhaps most importantly, making attacks against those in power who think that they’re far beyond the reach of retribution. 

A proliferation of banks, businesses and media ending up as hacker targets has now prompted the government of the U.S. to reintroduce the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) and President Obama seems poised to issue an executive order to get it done.

The excuses they’re using to put their fingers into Internet security and privacy range from the desire to protect American businesses to saving the country from the imminent threat of a “cyber-9/11.”  By throwing around fear-inducing catchphrases such as this and “cyber-Pearl Harbor,” the government hopes to gain support for the act in an effort to protect us from full-scale attack by armies of hackers working out of rival countries.

The main opponents to CISPA are, naturally, civil rights organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union.  As usual, it’s the people devoted to placing citizens over big business that have to point out the fact that the act is incredibly invasive to privacy.

One possible ramification of CISPA, according to opponents of the act, is a closer relationship between business and government, more so than they enjoy currently, where big businesses have major influence on the formation of policy in the country.  There is also the possibility of companies sending what would normally be considered private and protected information to the government when asked for it. 

And, of course, they would be legally exempt in their breaking of laws as long as it benefited the government.  There’s also the opposite effect, whereby businesses would have access to classified information, including information on private citizens.  Essentially, big business, in the name of protecting themselves against hackers, would become a subsidiary wing of government intelligence.

The debate rages back and forth on this one and I’m inclined to agree with those opposed to a return of CISPA, though my reasoning may not be quite the same as most people.  In my opinion, banks and other giant enterprises have tons of money and thus a wide variety of protections available to them.  It is easy for them to defend themselves when the average citizen tries to call them on their illegal or immoral activity.  Just look at the fact that the English bank HSBC managed to buy themselves out of criminal charges for their part in willingly and knowingly laundering the money of drug cartels in Mexico.  Thousands of people died due to their actions, yet all they did was pay a fine and go back to business as usual.

Hackers present a counterpoint to the power of large businesses.  Groups such as Anonymous are an underground police force of sorts, attacking those who think their position of power makes them invincible.  Just as regular cops keep criminals off the streets, hackers keep white-collar criminals on their toes.

Maybe I’m being short-sighted and will end up suffering the wrath of hackers sometime in my future (they can have that measly $50 in my bank account), but I prefer to have faith.  If you’re opposed to CISPA, here’s a link to an online petition to let the government know that you’re not happy with their proposal. 

Anonymous Logo courtesy of UserDavis via Wikicommons