[Infowarrior] - Hackers are being radicalised by government policy

[Richard Forno]

Hackers are being radicalised by government policy

LulzSec is not an isolated phenomenon – official efforts to control the internet are increasing online radicalisation

		• Loz Kaye
		• guardian.co.uk,	 Tuesday 28 June 2011 11.00 BST

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/28/radical-hackers-lulzsec-governments

Now that the LulzSec boat has sailed over the horizon, it seems a good moment to take stock of the past weeks' "hacktivism" frenzy. We've been bombarded with images of oddballs lurking in murky chatrooms – geeky teenagers who are simultaneously global cyber-villains. Given the reporting, we'd be forgiven for thinking that it's all about the personal obsessions of a few nerds. This would be to ignore the wider context.

LulzSec wasn't an isolated or unique phenomenon. People with passionate beliefs have been using new technological tools to effect change out of a sense of powerlessness. In the last year, I've watched 38 Degrees using the strength of association online to change government policy, WikiLeaks force transparency on those who'd rather run from it, even the  amorphous mass that is Anonymous taking a stand on whatever issue they feel deserves their attention.

These tools are now themselves under attack. Lord Mandelson's last gift to us, the Digital Economy Act, is just one of a raft of "three strikes laws" worldwide that threaten to cut off households from the web. Buried in the coalition's Prevent strategy is the assertion that "internet filtering across the public estate is essential". Nor is it solely a British issue; Nicolas Sarkozy called for global online governance at the eG8 in his attempt to civilise the "wild west" of the web.

We're starting to see what this civilising process entails. Open Rights Group revealed that Ed Vaizey and lobbyists held a secret meeting discussing the future of web blocking powers. There was no public oversight and no one asked the net natives. Vaizey has relented a little via Twitter, consenting to open up the discussion – the Pirate Party and I welcome that invitation. It will take more, however, than getting a few NGOs around a table to ease the real sense of anger poisoning the online community.

What even the MoD insists on calling "cyberspace" has become contested territory. Many recent events have been fuelled by a fear that the internet is under siege by governments hell-bent on restricting its subversive potential. Nato has added to this perception with violent rhetoric and an expressed desire to penetrate Anonymous. No surprise the response has been "Well, penetrate you, Nato".

We've reached a critical juncture: either we sail headlong into escalating confrontation, or we attempt to change tack and reduce the tension by finding a democratic way forward, one that preserves our right to free association. From anonymous bloggers in Iran, to those using Twitter and Facebook in Tahrir Square and even teenagers in the bedrooms of Essex, there is a common thread. A feeling of persecution and dismay that our freedoms are being suppressed.

These concerns haven't gone unnoticed; a recent report by the UN special rapporteur on free expression, Frank La Rue, explicitly criticised legislation including the Digital Economy Act, considering it to be a violation of freedom of speech. This broadside from La Rue has finally spurred our MPs into action. An early day motion calling for a review of the most invasive provisions of the Digital Economy Act has been sponsored by Julian Huppert. It is supported by only 26 of his colleagues, which seems to show that there are only a few in the Commons prepared to stand up for an online constituency.

In the days ahead it may prove that the real headline last Saturday was not the disbanding of LulzSec, but the fact that ISP Telstra was pulling out of an agreement with the Australian government to implement web filtering due to worries about hacking. This was portrayed as a significant victory. As long as it seems that direct action is more effective than democratic engagement, it's clear that the former will appear a more attractive option to many. The official line that the internet is a dangerous territory to be subdued is responsible for an alarming radicalisation. This is not just an issue for the tabloids' oddballs and nerds, it's an issue for everyone who believes in the fundamental importance of freedom.

It's time for governments to turn their ship around and plot a new course.