Internet sites, are they a threat to national security?

Internet censorship by governments nowadays is a pervasive practice under various reasons and motives. Internet censorships may involve a total block of sites as in the example of Wikileaks, face book and twitter in certain countries. Among the various reasons given for internet censorship, the favourite one is, "threat to national security."

What is national security?

Originally a post-world war II American initiative, national security is now a byword among governments of the world. National security was meant to be the protection of a nation-state from any threat, either internal or external. In short, the core concept was to protect the citizens of a country from any form of threat. If the core concept is upheld, national security is indeed a patriotic objective by any standard of national governance. If a government uses national security as a reason for the censorship of an Internet site, it should be able to provide transparent evidences to the public that a particular site is of a threat to the survival of the citizens of the respective country.

Internet sites, are they a threat to national security?

A random goggle search reveals the following:

1. The site (http://kkk.bz) in its own words: "In America and even throughout the world, the ideals of the ku klux klan are slandered because we represent white Christians… We love our white brothers and sisters world wide and we recognize the contributions they have made to civilization. We also realize that our nation's future and in fact all white Christian civilization is in jeopardy."

Ku Klux Klan promotes American White Christian civilization in a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious nation of America. Can they be considered as a hate group that is of a national security threat to the survival of the American people (including all non-whites)? If yes, why is their site not blocked in the name of national security? If no, there is no issue of national security on sites like (http://kkk.bz/) which certain white and non-white Americans consider as a form of freedom of expression.

1. 2. American Journalism Review talks about the book review by Carl Sessions Stepp, on the subject of "The American Media's Sex Addiction (http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=3917)." Even a random survey of the internet reveals the promotion of thousands of sex and porn sites that markets every form sex imaginable or unimaginable. And it is not only in America but throughout the world. Yet, why are these sites that promote men, women and children's sexual degradation, national social decadence, and an encouragement to human trafficking are not blocked under national security? The above are just two examples of what is and is not considered as national security. But at the same time, the instrument of national security is heavily used against another category of internet sites.

Democratic Dissident Sites targeted

It is an open secret that nations around the world especially the ones that are ruled by authoritarian oligarchies (military and non-military) target democratic dissident internet sites. Take the classic example of China. China considers all democratic dissidents as criminals. A recent high profile example is, Liu Xiaobo, who was recently given the Noble Peace Prize. He is considered a criminal in China. China targets democratic dissident internet sites that are considered as unlawful. The online site: the New York Times reports that, "Internet censorship in China is among the most stringent in the world. The government blocks Web sites that discuss the Dalai Lama, the 1989 crackdown on Tiananmen Square protesters, Falun Gong, the banned spiritual movement and other Internet sites (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/international/countriesandterritories/china/

internet_censorship/index.html)." What do the above examples show?

An authoritarian oligarchy therefore decides arbitrarily, the lawfulness or unlawfulness of internet sites. National security becomes a subjective instrument in the hands of a ruling power that does not need to explain, give logical or objective reasons for its use or abuse. So, the definition, scope and implementation of national security on internet sites are whatever a ruling group decides.  Another use for the instrument of national security is for cover-ups.

National Security for Cover-ups

There is a lawful place and role for genuine national security that really protects a nation-state and its citizens. For an example, no sane citizen of a nation-state is going to expose details of its national defence systems on the internet. That is a genuine national security threat. It would be like giving the gun and ammunitions to one's enemy. It would be a prelude to national suicide. But what happens when national security is used for cover-ups. Cover-ups are acts or attempts to hide wrong doings, scandals and incompetence which are more reprehensible than the original acts. It involves two parties, the original perpetrator(s) and the accomplice(s) who shields the perpetrator(s). The accomplice(s) are more dangerous than the perpetrator(s) because the accomplice(s) acts wilfully, deliberately and consciously after knowing the relevant facts and results of the original misdeeds. And in certain cases the accomplice(s) will end-up becoming more evil than the original perpetrator.  If an instrument of national security becomes an instrument for cover-ups that is being threatened with exposure on an internet site, the national security instrument is being misused.

In any democratic environments, the public have the right to the facts of issues relating to their well-being. Any use of a national security instrument for the cover-ups of facts that is detrimental to the citizen's well being is totally unlawful. It is like using the law that is suppose to protect the people to hide potential dangers to the people from the people. National security instruments that are used for cover-ups lose their credibility and become instruments for suppression and tyranny.

Take the example of Wikileaks. Wikileaks and its owners should be allowed to defend themselves in an open court. If the exposure of facts by Wikileaks on the internet is untrue and against national security, Wikileaks should be held accountable and be penalized. However, if the exposure of facts by Wikileaks is found to be true and the facts which the public should have known in the first place for an informed decision making was arbitrarily and unlawfully hidden, then, the ones responsible for any cover-ups should be made accountable to the nation. This is what democracy is all about.

Using national security instrument for cover-ups has no place in a democratic environment. Democracies that allow the practice of cover-ups to protect wrongful actions cease to be democratic. When the process of democracy fails in a democratic nation-state, it opens that nation to an authoritarian oligarchy rule. The people of that nation will then have to suffer for the benefit of a few.

Thus, the question of whether Internet sites are a threat to national security is totally subjective and open for debate. The uses of instruments like national security acts are open for misuse and abuse. A more logical, research-based and multi-disciplinary approach is needed to tackle this question.