In response to the youth rebellion in London’s poorest communities, Prime Minister David Cameron advanced a bold plan: restrict the use of Twitter, Facebook and Blackberry Messenger. Without clarifying how this would work, Cameron has said he is already discussing with British intelligence how to “stop people communicating via these websites and services,” which “can also be used for evil.”
Not to be outdone, thousands of miles away the Bay Area Rapid Transit system cut off cellphone service on Aug. 11 to thwart a planned protest against police brutality. BART Police killed a homeless man in July, just 18 months after having murdered Oscar Grant in cold blood. Because the protest was thought to be of a “flash mob” variety, requiring strict coordination via mobile devices, it appears that the government’s brazen act of censorship succeeded in this instance. There’s no doubt that local authorities will try the same thing in the future.
The hypocrisy of the U.S. and British governments will only be lost on those with the shortest of memories. Wasn’t it only six months ago that these governments were formally condemning Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak—their long-time ally and puppet—for having restricted the use of the Internet? (It should be remembered that neither government ever cut aid to the Egyptian dictatorship, even at the height of the revolution.)
Wasn’t it only two years ago that the House of Representatives passed a resolution condemning the government of Iran for “suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cell phones?” Indeed, the U.S. State Department went so far as to urge Twitter to postpone a scheduled network upgrade that would have briefly put the service offline in Iran. The imperialists believed—rightly or wrongly–that Twitter was an essential tool in the hands of the “Green movement,” which they hoped would overthrow the Iranian government that has long been a thorn in their side. Twitter complied (unofficially).
The imperialist governments’ conception of “universal rights” is in fact highly conditional. If you are part of a rebellion that aligns with their strategic interests, the suspension of the free-flow of information is an abominable outrage, worthy of sanction and condemnation. If you are rebelling against brutality or injustice within Britain or the United States, you are simply, in the words of David Cameron, “plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”
The U.S. government is a fan of Facebook and Twitter but only for its own purposes—not because it allows rapid communication among the population. CIA investment arm In-Q-Tel invested in Visible Technologies, which monitors millions of posts on social-networking Web sites. The largest military-industrial firms, from Boeing to Lockheed Martin, have diversified from weapons of war into the data-crunching business, helping the government sift through millions of pieces of data.
Department of Justice documents acquired last year via a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that federal agents are going undercover on social networking sites, using false identities to befriend suspects, “gain access to nonpublic info” and map their “social relationships/networks.” No longer embarrassed about such flagrant violations of privacy, the New York Police Department announced this month the creation of a special social-networking “unit” that will operate under the Community Affairs Bureau.
The courts are no barrier to this non-stop assault on our privacy. Posts on social networking sites—from photos to one’s interests—are routinely permitted as evidence introduced by law enforcement and prosecutors. As a sign of the times, the California Supreme Court decision ruled in January that the police can search the contents of your cell phone, without a warrant, if the phone is in your possession during a search. (You are not, however, required to give them your passcode if the phone is locked.) Considering how all these devices are linked to one’s most personal documents, emails, and contact lists, law enforcement has essentially been given the green light to invade any last vestiges of privacy.
The capitalist class has no interest in stopping this trend. They profit from it. Far from friendly corporations, Facebook and Twitter of course comply with law enforcement. They have repeatedly re-written their privacy regulations to the point that you practically have none left; whatever you post belongs to them, and can be subpoenaed by the state without your knowledge. One can only imagine what sort of deals have been worked out behind closed doors with Facebook’s face-recognition features, which identify you in a photo even if you have not been tagged.
There are people fighting back. The governments’ attempts to restrict certain services in fact demonstrate how they can be used as effective organizing tools. There are legal organizations like the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund challenging the non-stop assault on civil liberties. There is the “hacktivist” group Anonymous, which has retaliated directly against those institutions that restrict the free flow of information, from BART to police agencies to the credit card companies that refused to allow donations to Wikileaks.
The constant invasions of privacy, and the restrictions on free speech, are not simply bad policy choices. They are an outgrowth of a social system where a tiny few rules and the vast majority have no power. In this context, those in power feel compelled to turn every advance in information technology into a means to further control and monitor the vast majority. This gives them an air of invincibility, but in reality it is a confirmation of their fear.
To liberate these technologies from such uses, therefore, we must fight to end the dictatorship of the small minority that controls our society. Like electricity and water, Internet access and social networking—as vital means of communication—are now public utilities that should be controlled by the people. That will require not just defensive battles to defend our privacy and free speech, but a movement with a forward-looking vision for a new type of society.
