US Government vs. the Darknet
Although the Tor network was originally created by the US government, it’s becoming increasingly clear that activity on the darknet and the interests of federal authorities are moving in opposite directions. The Trump administration ramped up efforts, and government attacks on the dark web have become more frequent.
A Classic Conflict of Interests
As expected, the darknet has grown into a massive, independent ecosystem that authorities ignored for a long time. The original idea (from the US government’s perspective) was somewhat amusing—to provide secure communication and privacy for anyone who needed it. Of course, criminals were among the first to take advantage of this.
Today, one in five people knows that the darknet hosts hundreds of marketplaces selling drugs, weapons, documents, various contraband, and more. There are also services for hacking or cyberattacks, making it possible for anyone to buy services like hacking a girlfriend’s social media or accessing a boss’s email—things that never cease to amaze. In general, the stereotypes about the dark web are fairly well known.
However, that’s not the whole story, as there are many positive aspects to using Tor. But if you see the darknet as something terrible and associate it only with crime, it’s easy to understand why the US federal government is attacking the dark web. Still, like most things in life, it’s much more complicated.
When you think about it, the functions and responsibilities of the government are so diverse that it might seem like they have no core mission. In reality, their main goal is to protect citizens and their rights—or at least, that’s how it should be.
From this perspective, the darknet could be seen as something that violates the right to freedom of speech or expression, which every US citizen is entitled to. Not bad, right?
The current US administration has also started targeting many industries that the “dark web” depends on, such as drug production and distribution and the creation of counterfeit cash.
The Cabinet’s Motivation
One of the Trump Cabinet members responsible for most of these attacks is Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions. He’s a conservative from Alabama, and his views reflect that. Sessions is fiercely opposed to drug use, especially marijuana. He’s also been accused of racism, with some linking his stance on marijuana to the fact that most MJ users in the states are Black.
It’s a double-edged sword: when the rights of Black people are violated, it can lead to accusations of racism. They’re considered a racial “minority.” At the same time, Tor users are also a kind of minority. If the stereotype is that all Tor users are criminals, what are they supposed to do?
Net Neutrality
We all know about the repeal of net neutrality. I might be a bit biased, but this was probably one of the loudest legal battles between the public and the federal government, at least regarding internet freedom.
In short, net neutrality means all data is treated equally. It prevents ISPs from charging more for different services. This is great for customers, as they don’t have to think twice about accessing certain websites or apps.
However, for darknet users, the repeal of net neutrality could bring devastating changes. ISPs could charge extra for using onion sites or simply block them altogether. They could also secretly slow down onion sites to frustrate users and discourage Tor usage.
Damn Jefferson Beauregard and J-CODE
Sessions has already made several proposals against the dark web. Directly or indirectly, most of his measures negatively impact the darknet in the US. Most notably, Sessions’ war on drugs has reached a fever pitch—people are getting long sentences for minor offenses, like possessing small amounts of controlled substances for personal use.
A good example is Ross Ulbricht, founder of Silk Road, who received a life sentence.
Operation J-CODE is a direct attack on darknet markets, focusing on opioid dealers. Across the states, waves of arrests of buyers and dealers are happening, and marketplaces are being shut down one after another. Sessions is the initiator of this operation.
What is the CLOUD Act?
The Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act) was first proposed on February 6, 2018. The bill amends the Stored Communications Act (SCA) of 1986, which regulates US government access to data held by internet providers. The CLOUD Act was included in a 2,232-page budget document, so there were no separate debates or hearings in Congress about its content.
The act has two key points that make it easier for US law enforcement to access personal data:
- Requesting User Data from IT Companies
Law enforcement agencies (from police to federal immigration agents) can now request data from IT companies regardless of where the data is stored. In other words, US police can require Google or Facebook to provide user data even if it’s stored in Europe. Since many global IT companies are under US jurisdiction, authorities gain access to messages, metadata, and user accounts worldwide. Companies can no longer refuse to provide data, even if it’s prohibited by another country’s laws (as in the “Microsoft Ireland” case). - Sharing Information with Other Countries
The second part of the act allows the US President and Attorney General to enter into special data-sharing agreements with other countries. Under these agreements, countries can request user data from American IT companies, provided the users are not US citizens or residents. There are no restrictions on which countries the US can make these agreements with, and the act allows such deals to be initiated without Congressional approval.
Support for the Act
IT giants Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple, and Oath (formerly Yahoo) wrote a letter supporting the bill, calling it “a significant step forward in consumer rights protection.” They also said the CLOUD Act would “better protect users through international agreements.”
When the act was approved, Microsoft’s Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith tweeted that “this is an important day for international relations and the protection of personal data worldwide.” He also noted that the act would increase trust in the technologies we use every day. However, the tweet was met with clear criticism from internet users.
Conclusion
No matter what the US government does, taming a beast like Tor is no easy task. Still, these efforts are serious and could have significant consequences.
Fortunately, there’s not as much hype about the darknet in Russia yet, so greetings to all users on the other side of the digital moon.
Sources: