Cyber-rhetoric

On July 4th this year (American Independance Day), a cyber-attack was launched against a bunch of US websites including the Secret Service, Department of Defense, New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq. A lot of these websites went down for a couple of days, and by Tuesday 7th July, most of them were up and running. However the attack had shifted to a few South Korean websites including the Ministry for Defense and the presidential Blue House. Given the targets, both the South Korean and US authorities implicated North Korea as the big Bad behind the attacks.

A US politician Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Michigan)

"the lead Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said the U.S. should conduct a “show of force or strength” against North Korea for a supposed role in a round of attacks that hit numerous government and commercial websites this week."

At first glance, I thought the honorable Representative was, to put it mildly, speaking out of his a***, giving in to the well established political instinct to be seen to be reacting to things and speaking authoritatively on matters that they know nothing about. The actual attack came from 'infected' computers in over 74 countries (with Australia coming in as number 6 in the total numbers of infected "zombies"), and the relevant authorities have yet to conclusively prove where the attacks originated. Since on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog the attack could just as easily have been initiated by an elite team of super hackers in some super secret bunker working for an 'evil' regime, or some fat kid somewhere, working from his bedroom at his parents house with too much time on his hands and a beef against the US government; not necessarily a small demographic by any stretch.

A North Korean super-hacker?

The ethics of initiating a cyber-attack, or in this case a cyber-counterattack, are still a bit hazy. Whilst the injuries and casualties may be less obvious than a convential armed attack, the effects of a cyber-attack could theoretically be just as damaging. One could be excused thinking that that the inability to view the latest episode of Sea Patrol on ninemsn.com.au could lead to death or injury, but what if the website being attacked was CFA bushfire information line or the Department of Health in the middle of a pandemic?

Most large governments are developing offensive cyber-capacities and for an elected politician to suggest a cyber-attack as "pay back" is perhaps reaching for the gun a bit to early. And given the internet penetration of domestic households in North Korea, one could argue, totally ineffective. However if we look at Rep. Peter Hoekstra's comment in the context of recent geopolitical events, I suspect that the comments are not aimed at the North Koreans but perhaps made to embarass Obama-wan-kenobi into action. On July 4th this year, the North Koreans decided to test fire 7 missiles. This followed a test launch of their long-range ICBM on April 5th this year. Given the collective world-wide yawn on that particular test, Kim Jong "Insane" Il clearly decided he could test a few more.

North Korea fires 7 missiles off coast

Obama's reaction to the April launch:

"We will immediately consult with our allies in the region, including Japan and the Republic of Korea, and members of the U.N. Security Council to bring this matter before the Council."

-- (ooooh scary scary. That'll put fear into the heart of a dude that runs a country with concentration camps)

Biden (US Vice President) reaction to the July 4th launch:

"Look, this has almost become predictable behavior. Some of it seems like almost attention-seeking behavior,"

So the Obama administration has a recent history of belittling the angry squeaks of the NORKS, which in all fairness is not too surprising given the Nork regime's inability to provide electricity to their whole country, or indeed feed all their people, however there is a clear trend of escalation. And for a country that allegedly has nukes and is only separated by 5km of bushland from their 'sworn enemy', it would behove the US to support their ally South Korea with perhaps a bit more teeth in their rhetoric and actions.

Instead, we get this:

"This administration -- and our military -- is fully prepared for any contingencies," Obama told CBS when asked about the possibility that North Korea could fire a missile toward Hawaii on or about July 4, the US Independence Day.

Asked if that meant Washington was "warning of a military response," Obama answered: "No. It's just we are prepared for any contingencies."

No no military response, just 'contigencies'. I predict that the emptiness of Obi's rhetoric will rebound on him, sometime in the next four years, and the world will be a poorer place for it.

Links:

"U.S., South Korea Targeted in Swarm Of Internet Attacks" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/08/AR2009070800066.html

Good technical breakdown and analysis of the cyber-attack - http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/mydoom/

Cybermob Justice

(picture source)

Fascinating article about "human flesh search engine". No this is not about porn (sorry Gramps) but about "digital lynch mobs". The major story in the article was about the "Kitten Killer of Hangzhou", where a chinese woman videos herself torturing and killing a kitten in the most stomach churning way, and then posts the video to a chinese version of YouTube. The torch and pitchfork carrying villagers (in this case played by the cyber-citizens of China) are so revolted by the act that they:

"were able to discover her location by analyzing the background of the video. Then they matched the shoes worn in the video to an online purchase. With this information they uncovered her identity and address. These details were posted online and she was attacked with thousands of phone calls and threats. She was mercilessly shamed, lost her job, and was forced to post a video apology online where she acknowledged her actions and asked for forgiveness."

Justice is served? Well that's an interesting concept. The comments on the blog where I came upon this story were varyingly retributively approving:

"The internet-justice connection is also about making information easily accessible to the public. And sometimes the public know what the police don't.
... "

or fearfully insightful:

"I also have a very bad feeling about this. If it is ok for kitten killers then it will be ok for whatever topic X society doesn't like as long as there is enough of society to make an impact in their personal lives."

I suspect that whilst the idea of collective 'justice' is not just a Chinese phenomenon, and this particular narrative has equivalents in every country that has the internet, lynchmobs are probably not the best way forward. However it does raise the question of exactly what can individuals or groups do when the justice system breaks down?

The mob quest for justice can have unintended consequences: In the US in 2008, Lori Drew was convicted of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act because she had intentionally created a fake MySpace profile with which to taunt her neighbours daughter which resulted in her suicide. The case got a huge amount of publicity, and in a statement that the father of the victim read to the court:

"“I am no longer married to Megan’s mom,” he said, halting to catch his emotions. “We are both financially ruined, and I have gone through a living hell.
...
Ron Meier disclosed that after news about Drew’s role in the cyberbullying went public and the Drews received death threats, he had been advised by authorities to maintain a daily log of his activities and make sure that he was never alone, because if something happened to Lori Drew or her family, he was told, he would be the first suspect."

So whilst the actions of Lori were ethically and morally reprehensible
a: the laws of the land had not caught up the crime (which is why she was convicted of Computer Fraud, being the only law available to prosecutors due to the uniqueness of crime) and
b: cybermob-justice had unintentionally made life more difficult for the victim's father.

An "eye for an eye" speaks to a deep seated human desire to see evil punished. Society in liberal democracies has a range of checks and balances that supposedly weighs the rights of the individual relative to the State. The legal system prevents lynchmobs taking the law into their own hands and providing their own brand of justice. The internet promises unrestricted (and anonymous) freedom of speech which includes the ability of anyone to post personal details of alleged perpetrators without any oversight. Should there be?

Newspapers and the broadcast media have laws governing what they can and can't write about and broadcast. The internet provides a media and publishing outlet to individuals, which the vast majority include personal rantings and ravings (including this particular blog). Should it be regulated? Is it possible?

Feeed Me!

Apparently when Kevin-07 was elected, one of his election promises was to propose a mandatory ISP level filtering (read: censorship) scheme, which was completely ignored by the media and the electorate at the time. Ever since, the Rudd government has been pushing for this scheme without actually demonstrating any need for it.

I have long believed that successive Australian governments have consistently messed up digital and technical legislation, because at heart, they do not understand technology (Don't get me started on the the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act 1999). There are probably many reasons for this, but I think I can safely generalize by saying that the entire 'class of 2008' Government did not go to school with computers. Whilst they have young advisers who are for the most part computer literate (lot of Gen-Y's working as junior staffers), I doubt very much that in their current positions they are able to drive legislation.

So why would a government from one of the most open Western liberal democracies want to implement a system that mirrors China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea??

I think the answer is twofold:
1. As discussed above, I believe that those that hold the "reigns of power" do not understand the technology and are therefore confused and perhaps scared of the ramifications. The rapid advance of technology is putting massive computational power in the hands of individuals for the first time in human civilisation, and all governments across the world are struggling to understand how those forces are transforming societies.

2. The totalitarian impulse. It is the 'inevitable' process that power begets power, and those that have it, only want more. You see this in every aspect of human society. Religion and cults generally want more and more followers and want to be the last word on all their behaviour, public and private. Government institutions who start off with a narrow mandate, gradually increase the scope of their activities to include things the founders never imagined. Companies need to grow, and turn into multi-nationals, and as their size increases play more of an active role in what it's employees can and can't do. Individuals who want to make it illegal for everyone to smoke in their cars, watch certain films, play certain video games, etc etc.

The totalitarian impulse is not new and this impulse was recognised very early on in human civilization. As I discussed in a previous post, the whole idea behind the Magna Carta (the document that one could argue launched this whole liberal democracy thing) was to restrict the power of the sovereign (king), and to enshrine the rights of the citizen with respect to the governing power.

I'm not suggesting that Rudd and his government intend to make Oz a Great Southern Dictatorship, and nor would I argue that the totalitarian impulse is confined to the left. However, this unasked for legislation will impact on all Australians on the incorrect premise that will "protect the children, and what's worse (or typical if you're a cynic like me), is the Minister's clumsy use of rhetoric to brand any opposition to this filtering scheme as a vote of support for child pornography (via Libertus)

"If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree."
Source: Senator Conroy, ABC News, 31 Dec 2007

1. Conflating all pornography with child pornography is an intellectually disingenious position, and I would argue that the Minister himself does not believe that viewing adults engaged in consensual sexual activites (which, for the record, is currently legal in Australia), is anywhere near the same thing when it involves minors.

2. The internet filtering scheme as proposed by the Government will only attempt to filter websites. Ie. web pages with questionable (or "illegal") material. Web pages are only one part of the internet, and users can swap files using Peer-to-peer networks (P2P... think Kazaa or Napster) or Usenet (newsgroups) or a veritable smorgasbord of other methods. Only a very stupid or a very soon to be caught and incarcerated pedophile would use web pages. In other words, the "clean-feed" censorship scheme is a solution that does not solve the "problem" that created it.

There are many other cogent arguments against the clean feed scheme, however I want to focus on the issue that the average Aussie is slowly waking up to: in liberal democracies, laws are proscriptive (ie. they tell you what is NOT allowed, or in other words, everything is allowed unless "it's on the books"). In dictatorial systems, the state has prescriptive laws (ie. they tell you everything that IS allowed, and if it is not on the books, then it is not allowed).

The "clean feed" system, which is essentially a blacklist of websites that the Government will decide are inappropriate for Australian citizens, has no transparency or oversight, no set of clear rules that defines an "illegal" website, and is now exempt from FOI submissions.

The scheme will not be effective, is not asked for, and will only erode the democratic rights of the average Aussie for no clear benefit.

Censoring the Internet

The Australian Federal Government is attempting to mandate internet filtering at the ISP level. Ie. they want to force ISPs to implementing filtering technologies to restrict access to certain websites based what the government decides Australian citizens shouldn't see.

This is being advanced primarily on the platform of "saving the children", specifically from child pornorgraphy. However the legislation as it's worded does not explain exactly how the Government will decide certain web sites are unacceptable for ALL Australian citizens (not just those involving child pornography). Of course, Australians won't be able to know which sites are blocked, because as in all censorship schemes, this kind of transparency is unlikely for obvious reasons. If the government succeeds, Australia will be joining such esteemed champions of free speech such as China, Saudia Arabia and Iran.

There are simultaneous protests being held around the country on Saturday 13th December. Details available from http://www.nocleanfeedforum.com/. The Melbourne protest details are available from here and here. Facebook event here.

Big Brother is watching everyone

This is a reason why every one should educate themselves on the use of encryption and to be aware of their digital privacy.

Following this story, the implications, nay the actual reality is scary enough.

From the article:

"a UK citizen had been talking in an internet chatroom about self-harming, when local police tracked down his address via his IP number and ISP and intervened to save him."

Whilst I'm happy for the UK citizen not to have "been saved", I'm not sure allowing the Government full and restricted access to all electronic data on all private citizens was worth the price.

Imagine a day, not too far in the future, where the cops knock on your door because they felt that email you sent to your mum wasn't thankful enough for the chicken roast she made last night, or you get a visit from the Victorian Human Rights Commission because your anonymous comment on the Herald Sun blog was anti public breastfeeding, and we all know that's an incorrect opinion to hold.

The sheer volume of electronic footprints we generate every day is not such a concern, however the ability for the State to aggregate it and cross-reference it harkens a very dark and long night for individual rights.

Free speech vs Anonymous

There's an interesting article on Wired here about how two female law students at Yale sued the owner of a website to reveal the identities of anonymous posters that had threatened to assault and rape them.

It has raised an interesting debate as to whether anonymity on the internet is a "right" as much as free speech is a "right" (at least in the US). For example, I would very much like to allow anonymous comments on this blog, but I have not been able to see how to do it, and I don't know if it's possible. However if someone did post something offensive or threatening, is there a legal recourse for someone to resolve this? I myself am anonymous. Who would they sue? The owners of blogspot (ie Google)?

Looking at the website in question, toting itself as "The Most Prestigious College Admissions Discussion Board in the World", the design is amateurish, plain, and amongst the postings titled "What are my chances at the Ivy leagues or Stanford" or "Most Conservative College/University", there are multiple postings with no content with just a derogatory words repeated "GOOK GOOK GOOK", "N...ER N...ER N...ER" and so on.

The owner of this website used the arguments of "free speech" to resist handing over information that might identify the posters that threatened the women. I think the argument of free speech ends when feasible threats of personal injury and assault start (in all cases). Given the nature of the website (or the 'style' if you will), I think the administrator is a lazy bastard who can't be bothered moderating the comments, and then gets his back up when compelled to do something that "may" sully his reputation, however I use the scare quote around "may" because if you check out the website, it would be hard going to find anything that could be construed as contributing anything good to his reputation.

The pace of technological advances have far outstripped the capacity for laws, politics and cultural norms to keep up. And the resolution of this case may have far reaching consequences.