Hacking Politics: How Geeks, Progressives, the Tea Party, Gamers, Anarchists, and Suits Teamed Up to Defeat SOPA and Save the Internet (49 page)

A couple hundred thousand Facebook users shared the photo. Days later Facebook to issue a response, written in corporatese and promising that oh, goodness no, they’d never ever use the legislation to abuse their users’ privacy. How ever did you come up with an idea like that?

“The concern is that companies will share sensitive personal information with the government in the name of protecting cyber security. Facebook has no intention of doing this …”

Demand Progress and our members—who’ve bombarded Congress with nearly half a million emails in opposition to these bills—are standing watch, alongside many of the other groups which have contributed essays to
Hacking Politics
.

It wasn’t obvious beforehand, but the defeat of SOPA/PIPA amounted to a clear signal that the Internet had truly arrived as an issue in American politics—one that some people would even base their votes on, and certainly one that would be the basis for where campaign contributions were steered.

Though backers of the ill-fated legislation were loathe to call their loss a victory for Internet freedom, many operatives and politicians sensed the growing benefits that would accrue to political actors who established their bona fides on Net issues. And for those of us involved in opposing SOPA/PIPA, the aftermath of the legislative battle posed an opportunity to prove that our victory wouldn’t be fleeting, but represented a true watershed: we could look for ways to help the issue vest as being of ongoing political relevance (and not just something that is good for the world). So as our flagship campaign wound down, many of us began thinking through concrete steps by which to keep building the political space for Internet freedom issues. Several organizations were trying to establish broad, high-value principles, so a number of us signed onto an effort to create a Declaration of Internet Freedom, as outlined herein by Free Press.

We contrived to try to explicitly play the major political parties off of one another in a scramble to adopt the best positions on Internet issues: There are very few remaining “swing” political constituencies—groupings that split or oscillate back and forth between the major political parties. The prize of becoming the Party of The Internet (or, more cynically, the Party of Silicon Valley and the attendant campaign cash) is worth fighting for. The SOPA battle had already made cameos in the presidential race, and we decided to keep pushing along that axis: as the parties moved towards their quadrennial conventions, the moment was ripe try to get them to adopt robust, formal Internet freedom platform planks for the first time. (Each platform had contained but an oblique reference or two to the web in prior years—by no means seeing it exclusively in a positive light.)

Rep. Darrell Issa was leading the Republicans’ charge towards Silicon Valley and had become one of the most outspoken SOPA/PIPA opponents—and his and other Republicans’ efforts were beginning to pay off: their pitch was resonating with adherents to the anarcho-capitalist, network utopian, “California” ideology that represents a substantial strain of belief in tech-centric communities. Political donations from tech interests were going to Republicans at a higher rate than in the past. Who could possibly blame them, given the ease with which traditional Democratic paymasters like Hollywood had that party doing their bidding during the SOPA/PIPA fight?

Issa’s office began pitching specific language to the Republican platform drafting committee. Behind the scenes, we were also told that the GOP platform committee was full of libertarian-minded supporters of Ron Paul, and that they would be pushing for Internet Freedom language. It should be noted that in 2008, when the parties last revised their platforms, Republicans included practically no positive language about the Internet. In fact, most of the Internet references in the 2008 Republican Platform treated the online world as a terrifying space, rife with criminals, pornographers, and gamblers who needed to be restrained. The remaining Internet clauses in 2008 sought to use the web as a publishing tool for GOP policies related to taxes and immigration.

A core group of Republicans, including our co-editor Patrick Ruffini, were clearly pushing their party leaders to adopt popular stances on Internet issues,
and gain the dollars and constituencies that would come with them. We were fully supportive of this effort, but once we knew that some of our Republican allies from the SOPA/PIPA fight were already working on pushing their party to embrace Internet freedom, we had to do the same on our side of the political spectrum. In spite of the SOPA/PIPA misstep, Democrats must surely understand that they ought not cede Internet freedom as an issue to the Republicans. Their 2008 platform already included the following language: “We will protect the Internet’s traditional openness and ensure that it remains a dynamic platform for free speech, innovation, and creativity.”

So in July and August, we started scrambling to find contacts on the Democratic Platform committee so we could have conversations in parallel with the Republicans. As luck would have it, we knew a couple of members of the committee and connected with them via email. We asked one, who was on not just the Platform Committee, but also the drafting subcommittee thereof, to consider a stronger Internet freedom plank, he replied, “You’ll be happy to know I brought up this topic at last weekend’s meeting in Minneapolis.” We’d lucked out. Our platform committee contact asked for our input on very short language for the Democratic platform. We quickly tossed him a suggestion that was intended to cover the major concerns from recent legislative fights: “The Democratic Party stands for a free, equal and open Internet, unfettered by censorship or undue violations of privacy.” In the meantime, we rounded up endorsements for the effort from numerous organizations—including many of those involved in stopping SOPA/PIPA. We buttressed the work of sympathetic party insiders and convention delegates by creating a website that would serve as the hub of the effort, and shortly thereafter several tens of thousands of people joined in the clamoring by signing petitions and sending emails asking the parties to adopt strong Internet freedom planks. Perhaps a dozen reporters took to hounding platform committee members—on both sides of the aisle—about what they were going to do to prove that they cared about online freedoms.

The Republican Party would end up adopting a robust 2012 platform plank titled “Protecting Internet Freedom” and outlined very specific goals for resisting regulation of the Net and respecting online privacy. According to today’s Republican Party, the Internet’s “independence is its power.” A lawmaker who was abiding by it would have voted against SOPA/PIPA and against the cyber-security bills we’d be fighting. (Though they’d also abide by the party line that government-enforced Net Neutrality regulations were an undue regulatory intervention into the online space.) The platform as a whole is a bit schizophrenic, still containing language about the need for more stringent anti-obscenity law enforcement, but at least they’re with us on the days when they get up on the right side of the bed.

On the Democrat side we were thrilled to see that the final product was more thorough and robust than before and reflected our suggestions, inclusive of privacy-protecting language which seemed critical in the wake of the cyber security fight: “President Obama is strongly committed to protecting an open Internet that fosters investment, innovation, creativity, consumer choice, and
free speech, unfettered by censorship or undue violations of privacy.” For the first time, it included a broader, formal, Internet freedom-section, wedding Obama and the Party to support for online rights, and mirroring much of the sentiment expressed in the White House’s anti-SOPA statement and another which it had put out in support of privacy principles during the cyber security debate:

Internet Freedom. The Obama administration has led the world to recognize and defend Internet freedom—the freedom of expression, assembly, and association online for people everywhere—through coalitions of countries and by empowering individuals with innovative technologies. The administration has built partnerships to support an Internet that is secure and reliable and that is respectful of U.S. intellectual property, free flow of information, and privacy. To preserve the Internet as a platform for commerce, debate, learning, and innovation in the 21st century, we successfully negotiated international Internet policymaking principles, support the current multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance, and oppose the extension of intergovernmental controls over the Internet.

When we’d joined the effort to agitate in earnest for platform language, we were worried that we were a bit late to the game and prepared to be ignored, but we thought the process of educating party leaders would itself be a useful exercise. It’s hard to discern what the incremental effect was, but the success activists had in compelling the adoption and expansion of these planks was but further evidence that the Internet was now a first-tier, mainstream political issue, and that means that the growing numbers of us who prioritize Internet freedom should become more bold and confident in our policy goals. After all, getting the parties to say they’ll commit to Internet freedom is one thing, but getting lawmakers to actually behave like they believe in the cause when the rubber hits the road is another matter entirely, and will require monitoring and agitating by millions of ordinary Internet users. We think we’ll be ready, and it will help to have platform planks to point to, and to which to hold party officials to account.

Derek Khanna (@derekkhanna) was a professional staff member for the House Republican Study Committee (RSC), a caucus of over 165 conservative Members of Congress, until January 3, 2013. He was the author of the RSC’s report advocating copyright reform—a memo which was widely endorsed by conservative organizations and technology blogs but which was removed from the RSC’s website within 24 hours. Previously, Derek worked for Senator Scott Brown and was involved in Governor Romney’s 2008 and 2012 campaign. Additionally, he has served as a consultant for the DoD’s Defense Science Board on Cloud Security
.

Working on Capitol Hill during SOPA was humbling. For weeks, many of the more technology-savvy staffers had seen the storm clouds of opposition to SOPA building, but we had no idea how massive or sudden the surge would be. As the opposition organized, eventually going viral, voters crashed Congressional circuit boards and websites, tweeting and Facebooking at representatives and senators in record numbers. For many this was an abrupt reminder of what democracy really is.

Many of us were strongly against this Internet censorship from the beginning, working behind the scenes to try to get our bosses on what we saw as the right side of the issue. Many were brushed aside. But on January 18th, the effect of the movement was deafening. Most of us had never seen anything like this before—such a significant change in momentum in only 24 hours.

Members’ sudden, vocal opposition of legislation that they were co-sponsoring was nothing short of a watershed moment—but I would argue that it was proof of concept of something even bigger.

SOPA proved that a united movement can stop legislation that is expected to pass despite overwhelming odds, special interests cronies, and the support of powerful politicians.

Before SOPA it seemed like few staffers or Members had much interest in technology-related legislation. After SOPA, staffers and Members have asked me several times in regard to technology legislation: “Is this SOPA?”

Members of Congress are particularly sensitive to interests from their constituents as expressed through letters, emails, and phone calls to their office. This is why a united and coordinated movement can be so successful in stopping legislation. But this activist movement cannot rest after stopping one bad piece of legislation. Instead, we must take the next step—which is actually passing good legislation.

I am confident that we are on the cusp of such online activism. The digital generation is ready to change politics and policies, and we will succeed. We will do this by rallying behind new ideas, coalescing around legislation, and championing a campaign for passage.

As a Professional Staff Member with the House Republican Study Committee, I was told to push the envelope by developing new policy solutions. I have always believed that being a public servant means that I have an obligation to the citizens to be an agent of change within the system by reforming it on a daily basis. Simply being part of a dysfunctional system without advocating for new, innovative, common-sense solutions makes you part of the problem.

On this quest, it had become clear to me that our current copyright regime was written by special interests, to serve and protect their agendas, and does not reflect sensible policy. This perspective is shared by a number of Democrats and Republicans alike.

The current body of copyright law is a regulatory scheme that benefits one industry above the broader economy, particularly over disruptive industries and new market models. In October we reached out, as we did every month, to Members and staff with potential bill ideas. I included copyright reform—lowering the time period for protected works—as a legislative idea looking for a home.