As phishers fish, Ukrainian syndicates shop your Amex on carder forums, and deposed Nigerian princes offer ever greater deals on Percocets, the relative safety and security of Gibson’s ether (or, more prosaically, the Internet) dwindles at a speed far greater than that of Moore’s Law.

Cyber crime is at an all time high. Despite the Gausebeck-Levchin test’s continued bot busting success, schemes such as bluesnarfing, identity thefting, Flashback (look into it, Mac users), and many many more indicate a necessity for advanced online legal protections. Over the last few years the American Senate and House of Representatives have, duly, introduced a variety of legislation aimed at curbing some of the more prevalent digital offences.

And yet, ironically, when American bodies of law poked their head out of Punxsutawney Phil’s hole in a state of soft money induced torpor, it wasn’t widows being bilked out of their pensions that were deemed most in need of assistance, but rather the copyright’s of content producers.

Much was made of SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act), and it’s Senatorial equivalent, PIPA (Protect IP, or Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property). If you somehow missed the debate check out Clay Shirky’s brilliant TED talk-cum-manifesto, ‘Why SOPA is a bad idea.’

While few people (or avatars, as it were) object to the theoretical intention of toning down content theft (at least, until the next episode of Mad Men is released), it was the enormous back door powers written into the fold that drew ire from Internet users at large. Essentially, SOPA and PIPA would have made it individual company’s responsibility to police illegal content posted on their site (as opposed to the current system, whereby copyright holders send a takedown notice, a sort of digital cease and desist, after which sites must remove objectionable content). The problem there is that it could mean prohibitively high costs for new content hosting sites to police their own back yards that it would be economically unfeasible for them to continue operations. Imagine how difficult it would be for YouTube to keep an eye on every video, particularly as they could be sued for any video they missed.

SOPA and PIPA were, in the end, defeated, in no small part due to a massive online protest blackout, where sites including Wikipedia, Wired, BoingBoing, and many more, blocked out their content for 24 hours. But from their ashes have risen a new iteration, CISPA.

CISPA (the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) does not allow, as SOPA and PIPA intended to, for copyright disrespecting sites (demonoid, thepiratebay, and their brethren) to simply be removed from the Domain Name System (essentially deleted from the internet, unless you know their IP address).

In essence, the purpose of CISPA is to combat online terrorism, by allowing the federal government and the private sector to more easily share Internet traffic information amongst themselves. It’s stated aim, according to Wikipedia, is to help the U.S Government investigate cyber threats and ensure the security of networks against cyber attack.

This engendered support from many major technological corporations, including AT&T, Verizon, IBM, Intel, Oracle, and (supposedly) Microsoft (though they seem to have backed off, citing privacy concerns). 

Detractors, including the Center for Democracy and Technology, the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Mozilla, and Reporters Without Borders, are concerned about the possibility of CISPA devolving into a digital equivalent of the Patriot Act, allowing all manners of spying to be undertaken under that hoary old chestnut that covers all manners of sins, National Defence.

CISPA wouldn’t formally grant the NSA or Department of Homeland Security additional surveillance authority, but the sheer lack of oversight and privacy safeguards mean that could easily be a moot point.

One of the most determined opponents of CISPA, Colorado Democratic Congressman Rep. Jared Polis, has said that CISPA would “waive ever single privacy law ever enacted in the name of cybersecurity,” going on to say that “Allowing the military and NSA to spy on Americans on American soil goes against every principle this country was founded on.”

CISPA has passed a vote in the House of Representatives (248 to 168), despite the threat of a veto from President Obama’s White House, and will shortly be voted on in the Senate.

While much is being made of the overstepping of privacy rights and civil liberties, another argument, equally compelling, also exists. As Professor Lawrence Lessig has argued “The laws protecting software code are stifling creativity, destroying knowledge, and betraying the public trust.”

_____ 

Byron Hawes is a Toronto-based writer. Follow him on Twitter @quentincrispy.

For more, follow us on Twitter at @torontostandard, and subscribe to our newsletter.