In Defense of the Net

Why U.S. Defense and Intelligence Agencies Have a Vested Interest in Preserving Net Neutrality and How They Can Help Protect It

by davemitchell

This article relies on the assumption that a vanishing of net neutrality (a process which appears to be speeding up in accordance with the current political climate) will notably slow the creation of content on the Internet.

A basic premise of a non-neutral net is the separation of traffic into lanes based on whoever is willing to pay the most.  An open and free net encourages individuals to produce videos, blog posts, and other multimedia content in order to spread a message they believe in.

According to Nielsen Holdings, a global measurement and data analytics company, there are over 181 million blogs in the world, 168.3 million of which self-host their blogs, meaning they are not posting on a popular blogging platform or social media site.  These sites, such as Blogger, Tumblr, and Facebook, are profitable enough to pay for "fast lane" access to Internet consumers, but a majority of bloggers do not use them, instead opting to build and host their own blogs on their own sites.

A segregated net would very likely discourage these individuals to continue making this content if they are unable to pay for it to reach their readers in a reasonably timely manner.  Why make something to show the world when it's very likely nobody will bother to wait around to see it?

So why should the U.S. defense apparatus care?  Their livelihoods don't depend on reaching customers or producing content online.  They don't rely on an open, equal network to post their ideas and opinions - they use traditional media.  They don't need the Internet to communicate their data - they have their own high-speed networks for that.

Put simply, the freer the Internet is, the greater the number of citizens who have a presence online, the greater the amount of data they produce, and the greater the ability of the intelligence apparatus to construct social networks and profiles on targets.

Some may argue that when the ability of dissidents to publish their thoughts is diminished, it becomes much more difficult for them to spread their ideology and opinions, therefore reducing the level of overall discordant activity.

While this may be true, it will also become much more difficult for intelligence agencies and their analysts to pin-point potential trouble populations when their present massive well of information dries up.

Currently, the National Security Agency taps up to 80 percent of all global communications via the interception of data traveling through underseas cables, according to The Guardian.  The ethics of this wiretapping is beyond the scope of this article and is worthy of volumes on its own, but the fact is that the U.S. has constructed massively expansive surveillance systems, many parts of which depend on the collection and analysis of tremendous magnitudes of data.  Current intelligence programs make heavy use of this enormous amount of data in order to work effectively, and the loss of it could prove to be a tremendous detriment to American intelligence and defense operations.

Any hacker who has dabbled in the fields of machine learning and artificial intelligence will tell you that systems with more input data are exponentially more powerful in predicting accurate outcomes than systems with lesser amounts.

It is in the interests of the U.S. security apparatus to keep citizens online, communicating and discussing ideas in a free and open format in which all people can host an easily-accessible, self-published collection of opinions, regardless of their ability to pay for access to readers.

Identification of dissidents using current systems, while ethically questionable, is exponentially easier the more opportunities they have to speak their views.  Security agencies, therefore, should be at the forefront of the fight to protect neutrality on the Internet.  It is in their direct interests to ensure the equality of all traffic and it is definitely within their sphere of influence to swing other government bodies in the same pro-net neutrality direction.

I realize that this viewpoint presents ever further questions and problems, as any discussion on net neutrality and privacy rights ought to.

Yet, if we are to fight for a free and open Internet, it is essential to get as many powerful individuals and organizations on-board as possible, including those with whom the hacker community has historically been at odds with.  These agencies wield extraordinary power within Washington and the country as a whole and, by convincing them that net neutrality is indeed in line with their direct interests, it would be possible to at least continue the conversation about a neutral net long enough for the current divisions rampant throughout the U.S. political system to settle down and reach a point where bipartisan compromises between the people, the government, and industry are possible and probable.