This paper explores the rise in the cases of online piracy and other cyber crimes that have raised concerns about cyber security. It explores how cyber crimes have become a big threat to the stability of countries as terrorists hack into the systems and gain access to private and confidential information held by the intelligence departments. Great focus is given to the fact that in an attempt to restrict Internet usage through censorships; governments across the globe have received opposition with President Obama, for example, shelving the SOPA Bill that was awaiting deliberations by the Congress. The PIPA and SOPA Bills have raised concerns about their scope with fears that the legislations would deprive people of their rights to free speech, access to information and freedom of expression as enshrined in the First Amendment. Having a balanced approach in this discourse considering security concerns and rights and freedoms remains a challenge that can only be resolved by adopting a diplomatic approach to resolving the impasse.
Cyber Security Threats: America’s First Amendment Free Speech vs. the World’s Censorship
Introduction
Cyber crime refers to offenses that are conducted against individuals or companies with the intention of harming the target or causing loss.[footnoteRef:1] Such crimes are often committed indirectly through the use of modern telecommunication networks such as Internet or mobile phones. This includes criminal online piracy and acts involving use of computers and online networks commonly known as hacking. Cyber security, on the other hand, refers to technologies, procedures and practices that have been developed to protect computers, data, programs networks and Internet users from attacks by unauthorized criminals.[footnoteRef:2] The rising levels of organized cybercrimes across the globe have led many states to formulate legislations and policies aimed at censoring the desired universal liberties and freedom of speech and access to information. This paper discusses America’s First Amendment that guaranteed free speech with respect to the rising censorship on this freedom as a strategy to eliminate cybercrime or cyber insecurity. [1: Albanese, J. S., Combating piracy: Intellectual property theft and fraud (New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers, 2007).] [2: Ibid.]
America’s First Amendment for Free Speech and Cyber Security
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provided for the freedom of speech and of the press in the United States. The amendment bars the Congress from making any law that will rob citizens of freedom of speech. This amendment is applicable to all the branches of American federal government. However, according to the Supreme Court, the First Amendment protection can be restricted depending on the content of the speech and messages. The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights further provides that the freedom of speech, freedom of the press and human rights to be assembled peacefully, as well as the petition to consider addressing people’s grievances. Thus, the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the American Constitution clearly promotes and secures the rights of citizens to a free speech, press, and associations.[footnoteRef:3] [3: Ibid.]
The First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression which the Supreme Court has described as the matrix and indispensible rights of individuals. These include the inalienable rights to expression, association, inquiry, expanding people’s rights to privacy and citizens’ increased control over personal information in such a way that does not inhibit but enhance civil liberties.[footnoteRef:4] The provisions of the Bill of Rights in the American Constitution were aimed at promoting civil liberties and personal constitutional entitlements to fundamental freedoms and rights. Although, there are exceptions to these provisions, the First Amendment is considered as a legislation that targeted promotion of the rights of the American citizens. [4: Siegel, L. J., Essentials of criminal justice (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning 2011). ]
Although, the government commits to implementing the constitution to safeguard civil liberties as enshrined in the First Amendment, the part on free speech continues to raise controversies and heated discourses especially with rising perceptions that this issue remains quite murky. There are concerns in a bid to censure the provisions for the free speech, regarding the proposed legislations such as Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), which continues to attract “blackout” protests with popular websites being switched off. The protests are meant to push for the abolition of the proposed legislations aimed at curbing the increasing number of cases of online piracy.[footnoteRef:5] There is contention with regard to how the American government can strike a balance between the provisions in the First Amendment for the freedom of speech in the wake of rising cases and vulnerability to cyber crimes. The rising numbers of groups hacking systems, such as Anonymous, have been accused for cyber attacks against the governments of Egypt, Tunisia and Syria. The attempts to censure free speech has been critiqued and termed as efforts by the governments to threaten and masquerade into people’s freedoms. [5: Zuchora-Walske, C., Internet censorship: Protecting citizens or trampling freedom? (Minneapolis: Twenty-First Century Books, 2010).]
The street protests against the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) were considered by the U.S citizens as repressive.[footnoteRef:6] These proposed legislations are considered to interfere with the provisions of the First Amendment for the freedom of speech. The legislations are perceived to sacrifice the freedom of the Internet so as to enhance copyright protection. The move to censure free speech triggered protests organized through operation “Stop SOPA and the 24-hour blackout” that was stage-managed by various websites, such as Wikipedia, that mobilized Internet users worldwide.[footnoteRef:7] Whether repressive or not, Internet sovereignty has been a concern for national leaders. As enshrined in the American constitution, freedom of speech remains a right of citizens of the United States. As such, under the Constitution, the United States government cannot and should not try to sanction or censure speech because of the content. [6: Levy, G., Freedom of speech, Internet censorship and SOPA (2012), http://theintelhub.com/2012/01/18/freedom of-speech-Internet-censorship-and-sopa/] [7: Downing, J. D. H., Encyclopedia of social movement media (Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 2011). ]
Cyber security remains a real threat to American government. Albanese argues that the consequences of hacked computer systems in terms of security threats, terrorism and huge financial losses are the reasons for the legislations targeting restrictions on the Internet content.[footnoteRef:8] Criminal hackers have been reported to invent flaws that allow them inject hostile code into unprotected systems. Worries over the increasing incidences of cyber attacks, perhaps, inform the push for the legislations targeting freedom of speech and access to information. It is estimated that the U.S Government losses $ 1.8 billion every month due to incidences of cyber attacks on the private and the government sectors. The businesses with an average of 500 people also lose approximately $ 3.8 annually as a result of cyber attacks. [8: Albanese, J. S., Combating piracy: Intellectual property theft and fraud (New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers, 2007).]
The military websites, NASA and other important sites have been victimized by incidences of Internet and computer hackings. According to the reports on the drastic condition of the government official websites which are rendered to have become more vulnerable since currently anyone having $500 is able to buy his or her access into the hacked government sites of their choice. These vulnerabilities and increased cases of cyber attacks on the government sites have informed the decision to legislate the bills aimed at cushioning the government and the private sector against further cyber attacks, a crime that has proven to be disastrous in the United States.[footnoteRef:9] The government’s move to push for the institution of the SOPA and PIPA legislations are, thus, seen as strategies aimed at curbing the rising challenges associated with cyber crimes such as infringement of copyright rules and online piracy.[footnoteRef:10] [9: Zuchora-Walske, C., Internet censorship: Protecting citizens or trampling freedom? (Minneapolis: Twenty-First Century Books, 2010).] [10: Levy, G., Freedom of speech, Internet censorship and SOPA (2012), http://theintelhub.com/2012/01/18/freedom of-speech-Internet-censorship-and-sopa/]
Freedom of Speech and Censorship in the United States and other Countries
The legislations that regulate and restrict the use of online information have been refuted. Defense Department was empowered by the legislations to spy on the information being accessed by Internet users. Every person that uses Yahoo, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and other popular sites has expressed concerns about sharing the private information on the Internet in the wake of censorship which could lead to an intrusion into people’s private information by the military under the disguise of fighting against cyber crime and facilitating cyber security.[footnoteRef:11] [11: Bandler, R., “Column: Google and others cyber-arming protesters,” Uwire the College Network (2011), http://uwire.com/2011/12/13/column-google-and-others-cyber-arming-protesters/.]
The United States is considered to be one of the democratic states that have instituted censorship bills to curb rising incidences of cyber attacks. The concern, however, is that whereas the United States and other countries have put in place measures to enhance cyber security, most countries do not have the censorship rules. This leaves many wondering the special interest that the United States has taken in the war against cyber crimes.
As the United States grapple with a delicate balancing act between freedoms to access of information in the First Amendment, other countries, such as Egypt, are already under the surveillance on the nature of information that is shared across the Internet.[footnoteRef:12] The role of the Internet in the protests and revolutions in the Arab countries cannot be overestimated. However, this led to sanctions and censorships against bloggers and netizens that were considered to be critical to the military rule in Egypt. Such groupings have been on the receiving end with regard to harassments, threats and arrests for promoting protests against the army through the social media. In the post-Mubarak era, bloggers such as Maikel Nabil Sanad got imprisoned for their use of the Internet to express dissatisfaction with military rule. The harassments which were later branded as acts expressing enmity to the Internet have since heightened after the army refused to lift the censorship measures and intimidation of the Internet users.[footnoteRef:13] [12: CPJ, 10 Most Censored Countries. (2012), accessed Februaty 26, 2013, http://cpj.org/reports/2012/05/10-most-censored-countries.php] [13: Battersby, P., Siracusa, J. M., & Ripiloski, S., Crime Wars: The Global Intersection of Crime, Political Violence, and International law, (Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger, 2011). ]
In Egypt, journalists, who were covering the Egyptian revolution through their blogs got arrested.[footnoteRef:14] These arrests confirm that the authorities in Egypt are anxious about the possibility of dissenting voices rising to challenge the government of the day.[footnoteRef:15] The online media technologies are, thus, heavily censored out of fear that the use of Internet could possibly compromise the security of the military tenure in Egypt. CPJ adds that censorship is considered normal in Egypt and journalists and Internet users are vulnerable to arrests over any information that is considered to be a threat to the security of the nation.[footnoteRef:16] Thus, while the United States is struggling with efforts to put in place the legislative frameworks aimed at censoring the use of the Internet to discuss or share any information that would constitute a breach of the Homeland Security, other countries are freely censoring and sanctioning the contents of the Internet.[footnoteRef:17] [14: Goodspeed, P, “The Arab awakening : The ex-Google executive behind Egypt’s online revolution,” National Post. (2011), accessed February 25, 2013, http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/19/61518/] [15: Bandler, R., “Column: Google and others cyber-arming protesters,” Uwire the College Network (2011), accessed February 26, 2013 http://uwire.com/2011/12/13/column-google-and-others-cyber-arming-protesters/.] [16: CPJ, 10 Most Censored Countries. (2012), accessed Februaty 26, 2013, http://cpj.org/reports/2012/05/10-most-censored-countries.php] [17: Reporters Without Borders Internet Enemies Report 2012 (2012), http://en.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport-Internet2012_ang.pdf.]
In Eritrea, there are efforts to promote self-censorship at the expense of formulating laws that would censor the Internet usage. However, it is clear that Eritrea is a freedom-deprived country. The private media sectors have witnessed frequent sanctions including closure. These efforts have deprived the Eritreans’ freedom to express their opinions without being ostracized. For example, the renowned dictator Isaias Afewerki imposed a terror climate that outlaws any Internet connections that are perceived to threaten the government. Frequent surveillances in cybercafés to monitor the activities of Eritreans and strangers on the Internet became a norm. Currently, there are no independent Internet sites operating in Eritrea.[footnoteRef:18] [18: Battersby, P., Siracusa, J. M., & Ripiloski, S., Crime Wars: The Global Intersection of Crime, Political Violence, and International law, (Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger, 2011).]
Even the citizens of Eritrea who live abroad have had their posts on the websites banned. Those, who share information on the Internet across the websites in Eritrea, have to do this anonymously so as to avoid attracting security sanctions from the ruling government. Thus, the freedom of speech that Americans are fighting to continue enjoying under the provisions in the First Amendment is not anything to expect in Eritrea. Bandler noted that security issues in Eritrea have robbed people of their freedom of access to information, expression of opinions and distribution of information through the Internet.[footnoteRef:19] Eritrea Internet environment that has seen several sites closed or denied operation licenses as they are considered avenues that protesters use to mobilize support for the dissenting opinions against restricted and regulated access to information across the Internet. [19: Bandler, R., “Column: Google and others cyber-arming protesters,” Uwire the College Network (2011), accessed February 26, 2013 http://uwire.com/2011/12/13/column-google-and-others-cyber-arming-protesters/.]
The increased support for censorship on the Internet content has been majorly fueled by the events in the Arab uprising. The overthrown governments became victims of sharp attacks through mobilizations done by extremists across the social media on the Internet. Bandler noted that so great has been the impact that the Eritrean regime got wary of the possibility of the radicals using social networks to mobilize the Diaspora of Eritreans against the government of the day.[footnoteRef:20] Hopes of political change through the revolutions in the Arab world are, thus, the main reason for the censorship against the media in these regions. This, perhaps, explains why the United States remains firmly focused on instituting measures aimed at curbing possible use of the Internet to compromise the security and stability of the country, something that could even lead to the fall of the government of the day.[footnoteRef:21] [20: Ibid.] [21: Battersby, P., Siracusa, J. M., & Ripiloski, S., Crime Wars: The Global Intersection of Crime, Political Violence, and International law, (Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger, 2011).]
Extremists and attackers that target the United States are capable of inventing software and Internet technologies to challenge the security structures of the United States and compromise the stability of the entire nation. Whereas the censorships is looked at as a move aimed at preventing online piracy, there are fears that it could be extended to restrict and regulate the contents of information in the Internet that people are able to write and to share through the social media and networks.[footnoteRef:22] This explains why people are very cautious and protest against the proposed legislations. The voice of challenge is strengthened by the persuasion that the First Amendment provides for fundamental rights and freedoms which should not be diluted or eroded through other subsidiary legislations. [22: Ringmar, E., A Blogger’s Manifesto: Free Speech And Censorship In The Age Of The Internet, (London: Anthem Press., 2007). ]
The difference in terms of regulation of the Internet content in the United States and Eritrea is to be found on the narrow focus that the U.S censorships are based on. The regulations in the United States only seek to restrict information that is considered to be a threat to the homeland security and not necessarily critical of the government of the day. In the Arab countries, anything that is perceived to be critical of the government is not only restricted, but also leads to legal penalties and arrests. Journalists must, thus, work within the confines of the provisions that the content of the information they share with the public in the print and the electronic media is authentic and is not critical of the government of the day.[footnoteRef:23] [23: Nunziato, D. C., Virtual Freedom: Net Neutrality And Free Speech In The Internet Age (Stanford, Calif: Stanford Law Books, 2009).]
The difference between the Unites States censorship legislations and those of other countries is more clear in that the United States are basing their online restrictions on information that could compromise homeland security and anything that could lead to hacking and deprivation of other people’s patents and copyrights. However, there have been concerns that legislations such as PIPA and SOPA are only the beginning of the long term strategy to have the fundamental freedoms and rights of the American people as enshrined in the Bill of Rights contained in the First Amendment scrapped off.[footnoteRef:24] [24: Levy, G., Freedom of speech, Internet censorship and SOPA (2012), http://theintelhub.com/2012/01/18/freedom of-speech-Internet-censorship-and-sopa/]
In Tunisia, censorship has taken a different dimension with the freedom of the media and expression greatly reduced. Although, gains have been made towards democracy, this is yet to tickle down to include freedom of expression, information and online communication. Newspaper columnists are arrested; television news reporters are vulnerable to sanctions resulting from sharing of any information that is considered to have been better shelved. Police assaults journalists who are covering demonstrations against the government of the day.[footnoteRef:25] Political censorships are, thus, greatly affecting people’s lifestyle. For example, blogger Riadh Sahli was charged for defamation on the Internet simply because he shared press releases that were distributed in the social media such as Facebook and Medenine.[footnoteRef:26] [25: Goodspeed, P, “The Arab awakening : The ex-Google executive behind Egypt’s online revolution,” National Post. (2011), accessed February 25, 2013, http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/19/61518/] [26: Ibid.]
There are hopes that Decree-Law No 115 on Press Freedom, Printing and Publishing, of November 2011, will be extended to cover some online content. However, whereas the freedom of expression is the foundation of cybercitizen protection legislations in Tunisia, the Web does not entirely fall under the scope of this application. No liability frameworks have been specifically assigned to cover the online media.[footnoteRef:27] This implies that the online media in Tunisia is still under the surveillance and the act of filtering the Internet content is apparently sliding back into reality. Thus, as people fight for freedom in the online media, there are clear indications that more Internet filtering is becoming a normal practice and those legislations that are in place to protect Internet users are being amended to allow for increased censorships and filtering of the Internet content. [27: Ibid.]
Libya, Tunisia and Syria have both laws permitting the state agencies to filter the Internet content so as to spy on Internet users especially restricting and regulating the content of what is shared online. Under the disguise of guarding against the risks of increasing cyber crimes, these legislations have seen the freedom of the media, access to information and expression restrained by the state agencies.[footnoteRef:28] Although, the concerns that a very liberal Internet communication may create space for huge losses through cyber crime and even threaten the security of a country are genuine, the implementation of the legislations allowing for filtering and spying on the Internet systems has denied innocent Internet users their freedom to access information and to express themselves freely through the social media. [28: Nunziato, D. C., Virtual Freedom: Net Neutrality And Free Speech In The Internet Age (Stanford, Calif: Stanford Law Books, 2009).]
Possible Solutions to Internet Censorship
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States limits the ability and jurisdiction of the Congress in making any laws that can abridge the freedom of speech or that of the press. Although, this protection is provided constitutionally, exceptions when it is not applicable still exist. The major exceptions to the First Amendment are provided when the Supreme Court presides over certain cases of claims for protection of the rights to the freedom of speech. For example, the Supreme Court made a ruling that such protection cannot be extended to cover obscenity, child pornography, or any speech that involves the use of force or violation of law through incitements or promotion of any lawless action.[footnoteRef:29] [29: Albanese, J. S., Combating piracy: Intellectual property theft and fraud (New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers, 2007).]
The First Amendment also grants protection to commercial speech, defamation, harmful speech to children, public employee speech, and any other speech. This will, however, be dependent on the time, place and manner of the expression and the content of such speech. Therefore, although the First Amendment provides for individual or group’s rights to free speech, such rights and freedoms may be restricted depending on their content which will be subjected to scrutiny. Striking of this balance between fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed in the United States Constitution along with the real threat to cyber security remains a challenge. As information and communication technologies continue to advance, the democratic institutions are affected and must adjust to cope with the developments. This reasons why the current U.S government is under pressure and on the receiving end for allegedly disregarding the provisions of the First Amendment.
The proposed Stop Online Piracy (SOPA) legislation has, in particular, been perceived as a real strategy aimed at diluting the provisions in the First Amendment on free speech, right to privacy and access to information.[footnoteRef:30] The government is seen as not safeguarding the democratic process and civil liberties that the Americans fought for when they voted for the First Amendment to create a Bill of Rights chapter to grant the United States a real democracy.[footnoteRef:31] The move is interpreted to be invading people’s privacy since it allows the Government to restrict and censure the information that people can access in the Internet, what they can read and see through their technological devices invented in the age of sophisticated technological advancements. [30: Levy, G., Freedom of speech, Internet censorship and SOPA (2012), http://theintelhub.com/2012/01/18/freedom of-speech-Internet-censorship-and-sopa/] [31: Herumin, W., Censorship on the Internet: From filters to freedom of speech. (Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers, 2004).]
The proposed legislations are aimed to regulate and restrict Internet content access. The limits will be used to determine what is censured and what is circulated through the Internet to the available network of people across the globe.[footnoteRef:32] Besides, there are concerns on whether there is any difference between reading something on the Internet and reading something that has been published in a book, magazine, or newspaper. Although cyber crimes are real and threaten to increase with time, the rights of the citizens in the Constitution should not be diluted or compromised in the name of protecting the Government and the private sectors against perceived losses.[footnoteRef:33] [32: Ibid.] [33: Battersby, P., Siracusa, J. M., & Ripiloski, S., Crime wars: The global intersection of crime, political violence, and international law (Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger, 2011).]
The discourse on the proposed legislations targeting cyber crime is more heated that it is on the surface. Although, the Supreme Court has given a ruling that the First Amendment and provisions for free speech are not absolutely applicable, and that they can be subjected to restrictions, voices of dissent continue to be raised.[footnoteRef:34] Regulation of access and use of any information on the Internet has been equated to regulation of one’s choice, thoughts and ideas which the United States needs to progress technologically, and by extension economically. Thus, even in the wake of cyber insecurity, there is a need to evaluate how the enforcement of the provisions to restrict the media would constitute the denial of people’s freedoms and lead to what has been termed as “mind control by the government”. These provisions would attract bold censorship to the jeopardy of people’s privacy and access to important information.[footnoteRef:35] [34: Herumin, W., Censorship on the Internet: From filters to freedom of speech. (Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers, 2004).] [35: Reporters Without Borders Internet Enemies Report 2012 (2012), http://en.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/rapport-Internet2012_ang.pdf. ]
The Government and the private sector have been reportedly losing significant amounts of money through cyber crime syndicates. The syndicates are even able to access private and confidential information including that which is held by the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Homeland Security. These have often led to huge and fatal compromises as this information is auctioned to the highest bidder, including the enemies of American peace and stability. It is apparent, that a balance should be stricken between the need for secure country and the need to enhance and safeguard people’s fundamental rights and freedoms as enshrined in the Constitution.[footnoteRef:36] [36: Herumin, W., Censorship on the Internet: From filters to freedom of speech. (Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers, 2004).]
On the other hand, regulations and restrictions on access to the Internet content and spying on online activities is purely an intrusion into one’s right to privacy. The USA is an independent state with democratic principles which should make the democratic space more accessible by avoiding any acts that deny people’s rights. In order to uphold the principles of free speech envisaged in the First Amendment, people should be allowed to freely say what they want, have a free access to any reading material, and be granted a freedom of thought. Herumin notes the Supreme Court’s argument that as long as the freedom does not cause harm or constitutes cyber security, it should not be restricted.[footnoteRef:37] Thus, Internet censorship, though meant to protect citizens from the risks of exploitation and other cyber-related crimes, has been perceived to restrict people’s fundamental freedoms and rights. [37: Ibid.]
The goal of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) is to monitor and maintain control against cyber crime.[footnoteRef:38] However, the legislations are likely to empower the entertainment industry to censor sites that are perceived to be engaging in and facilitating infringement of copyright rights and rules as well as other cyber related crimes. There are concerns that these legislations are likely to be extended to include restrictions and censoring of common social interaction sites such as Facebook and other information search sites. Thus, the legislations are intended to snuff out online piracy especially on the entertainment industry where people download the entertainment content without paying for the services provided. The methods may be ineffective and only victimize other innocent Internet users. [38: Levy, G., Freedom of speech, Internet censorship and SOPA (2012), http://theintelhub.com/2012/01/18/freedom of-speech-Internet-censorship-and-sopa/; Lifehacker, All about PIPA and SOPA, the bills that want to censor your Internet (2012), http://lifehacker.com/5860205]
Many sites, such as Wikipedia, have already protested the legislations aimed at eliminating online piracy and hacking into the systems of governments and private companies.[footnoteRef:39] The bills are opposed on grounds that they are likely to affect the operations of many companies including businesses that are supported by the modern Internet technology. The social media accounts were filled with messages of protest against the proposed legislations. The provisions for free speech, freedom of the media and access to information are not fully assured, since these provisions are pegged on the contents of the information being accessed online. [39: Herumin, W., Censorship on the Internet: From filters to freedom of speech. (Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers, 2004).]
Censorship and spying on the Internet users have failed to protect countries against cyber attacks. Instead, legislations to restrict and filter cyber content have been met with oppositions and protests as seen in many countries across the globe.[footnoteRef:40] The concern that is expressed by many protestors is that such censorship denies Internet users their freedom and right to access any information, freedom of expression and free speech. This has seen many social media users mobilize themselves and build their capacities to overcome the measures that have been put to censor this communication. Technological inventions have been made that allow people to overcome the checks and balances meant to restrict the Internet use. These moves indicate that Internet censorship cannot solve cyber security issues that governments are struggling to overcome. [40: Ligale, L., “Solutions to stop piracy protect Internet from censorship,” Smart Business Hawaii (2012), accessed February 25, 2013, http://www.hawaiireporter.com/solutions-to-stop-piracy-protect-Internet-from-censorship/123]
The United States need to learn that legal censorships against online radicalization is not attainable and is likely to complicate the problematic issue of cyber insecurity. The Government should refrain from establishing filtering systems all over the country to monitor Internet use. Instead, it should retain its capability for aggressive takedowns especially to foreign websites. Ligale argues that this should be used exclusively and as the last resort when it is essential to protect the country and its citizens against terrorist attacks and not merely to sanction Internet use and social interaction in the media.[footnoteRef:41] It is also imperative for the Government to clarify to the public the circumstances under which certain legal frameworks are applicable in the war against cyber crime. Leaving average citizens to learn from the Supreme Courts’ perspective is equivalent to depriving them of the information they need. This will ensure that the legislations such as PIPA and SOPA are not blindly perceived to be targeting the freedom of speech, information and expression.[footnoteRef:42] Such measures may only make the Government lose the war against the cyber crime, since culprits can break into the systems and execute online piracies that would further complicate the already challenging problem. [41: Ibid.] [42: Levy, G., Freedom of speech, Internet censorship and SOPA (2012), http://theintelhub.com/2012/01/18/freedom of-speech-Internet-censorship-and-sopa/]
The prosecutions against Internet entrepreneurs should depend on evaluation of the probability of attaining success against unintended consequence of making people attracted to their ideas and propaganda in the social media. This might prove to be a huge obstacle for the government especially considering the ability of the extremist to mobilize resources and global support through social media.[footnoteRef:43] It might, thus, be counter-productive especially if the extremists launch a direct target to Government systems. [43: Ligale, L., “Solutions to stop piracy protect Internet from censorship,” Smart Business Hawaii (2012), accessed February 25, 2013, http://www.hawaiireporter.com/solutions-to-stop-piracy-protect-Internet-from-censorship/123]
The Government should speed up the process of establishing informal partnerships with the Internet companies so that they are able to promote the national security as well as be privy to the trends and patterns that extremist might use as propaganda to execute their plans through online technologies and mobilizations. Therefore, blanketed censorship of the media is not the solution to the rising levels of cyber insecurity not only in the United States, but across the globe. President Obama should, thus, consider even reviewing the implications of the SOPA and PIPA legislations so that they do not become counter-productive while struggling against cyber offenses.
Conclusion
Cyber security remains critical to the stability of a country and the world at large given the development of technology-supported attacks by terrorists and cyber crime syndicates. The war against online piracy, extremist movements and other online frauds and abuses can be won not on the basis of legislations but the accuracy of the strategies that a government puts in place to fight against the cyber-enhanced attacks. Failure to strike a balance between the freedom of the people to access information, right to free and un-restricted expression, communication and the security concerns is likely to favor one side than the other. In such circumstances, it might be quite tricky for the government to eliminate the possibility of cyber crimes. Investors in online entrepreneurship and technology should, thus, be considered not as the enemies of cyber security but as the partners in development and friends in the war against cyber crime.