Anonymous was wrong when it called for a boycott of Netflix for supporting the latest cybersecurity legislation in the House, CISPA. Netflix's FLIXPAC was not formed for piracy legislation. Why isn't anyone boycotting Facebook?

A funny thing happened on Twitter yesterday. Someone on the Internet was wrong.

A Twitter account associated with hacktivist collective Anonymous accused Netflix of supporting CISPA, a cyber-security bill recently introduced in the House, and declared "Operation Boycott Netflix." It's not clear why @YourAnonNews thought Netflix's newly established political action committee (PAC) was (Cyber-Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) and (Stop Online Piracy Act).

Perhaps it had something to do with Politico's claim that Netflix would use the PAC to press forward a "pro-intellectual property, anti-video piracy agenda." Netflix filed the paperwork to form FLIXPAC on Apr. 6, according to Politico.

Whatever the reason, @YourAnonNews posted on Twitter on Apr. 9, “Dear freedom lovers, @netflix is forming a PAC to push for a new version of SOPA, cancel your sub and go back to pirating!" For several hours afterwards, outraged users posted on Twitter about cancelling their Netflix subscription.

Netflix: FLIXPAC Not For SOPA, CISPA

The thing is, FLIXPAC has nothing to do with CISPA, according to Netflix's director of corporate communications Joris Evers. "FLIXPAC was NOT set up to support SOPA/PIPA. Instead, we engage on issues like net neutrality, bandwidth caps, UBB and VPPA," Evers posted on Twitter.

VPPA refers to the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1998. and strongly endorsed an amendment to the law, which currently prohibits any video rental company from sharing a customer's rental history. If VPPA is not changed, Netflix's Facebook app, which allows customers to share what they have rented, is not legal in the United States.

During the height of the pro-SOPA debate and protests, Netflix took a neutral stance on the bill. It also is not among the companies that have sent letters to Congress to support CISPA.

Many companies establish PACs to get involved in the political process, Evers pointed out in a statement. A PAC lobbies for candidates and specific pieces of legislation, and allows companies to make contributions up to $5,000 each to individual candidates taking part in this year's presidential and congressional contests.

"Our PAC is a way for our employees to support candidates that understand our business and technology. It was not set up for the purpose of supporting SOPA or PIPA," Evers said.

Where's the Facebook Boycott?

For my part, it seems a little strange to be piling on Netflix for supposedly supporting CISPA and not saying anything about other companies that have publicly stated their support for this bill. A quick glance at the House committee's page for the bill includes companies such as Facebook, AT&T, and Intel. So why is no one calling for a mass exodus from Facebook? Or cancelling iPhone contracts to protest AT&T's support?

In fact, in a Feb. 6 letter to Michael Rogers (R-Mich), chairman of the House Intelligence committee, Joel Kaplan, Facebook's vice-president of public policy, wrote, "Your thoughtful, bipartisan approach will enhance the ability of companies like Facebook to address cyber threats."

As SecurityWatch noted yesterday, CISPA provides a broad framework on how information could be shared between private companies and the government in the name of cyber-defense.

"Your legislation removes burdensome rules that currently can inhibit protection of the cyber ecosystem, and helps provide a more established structure for sharing within the cyber community while still respecting the privacy rights and expectations of our users. Through timely sharing of threat information, both public and private entities will be able to more effectively combat malicious activity in cyberspace and protect consumers," Kaplan wrote.

Critics such as the Center of Democracy and Technology and the Electronic Frontier Foundation believe the bill's broadly written provisions don't define the type of information that could be shared and don't protect customer privacy enough.

Netflix has had in recent months. There's no need to dump on it for supporting a bill the company never said it supported.