Cyberwar Or Moral Panic? Beware Of Ex-Politicians Screaming About Cyberthreats
from the let-it-go dept
For years and years we've been hearing about the supposed threats of "cyberwar" and "cyberterrosism." For nearly a decade we've questioned whether this was all hype, and the story hasn't changed. Sure, there are hackers and those who look to break into systems, but the real risks and overall threats still seem fairly minimal. But that's not enough for some people. Wired's Ryan Singel has a long, but excellent look at how former director of national intelligence (now consultant) Michael McConnell appears to be trying to build up a giant moral panic about this ill-defined threat, with the goal of basically ripping out the guts of today's internet to recreate it with almost no privacy at all. He recently claimed:We need to re-engineer the Internet to make attribution, geo-location, intelligence analysis and impact assessment -- who did it, from where, why and what was the result -- more manageableIn other words, we need to be able to spy on everyone. To build up this moral panic, McConnell isn't even just getting the press to write articles for him -- he's doing it himself. The Washington Post recently gave him op-ed space to ridiculously claim that the recent hack on Google showed we're "losing the cyberwar." Yet, as Singel points out, that was entirely different. It wasn't warfare, it was espionage. McConnell also played up some bogus threats, such as some old viruses and botnets that are hardly part of some dangerous "cyberwar."
Singel then goes on to connect McConnell's efforts with various other political proposals lately -- suggesting that the government is moving towards more control of the internet and more monitoring. At times, unfortunately, the piece feels like it slips a bit into conspiracy theory territory -- but McConnell's efforts certainly appear questionable. He's pushing a bogus "threat" and he works for a company that could profit tremendously from any "response" to such a threat. That seems like a massive conflict of interest that a lot of people are ignoring.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cyberterrorism, cyberwar, michael mcconnell, moral panic, politicians
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Media companies
There's no cyberwar there's just the RIAA and the MPAA trying to prop back up their old business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it's for your safety...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This kind of immature statement is indicative of someone who doesn't have any clue in the cyber defense arena. The advanced persistent threat is stealing intellectual and monetary capital which is the lifeblood of our nation. This is happening at corporations, banking institutions, R&D facilities, Government organizations, universities, etc. It is indeed a grave threat to our national security. Anyone that says it isn't has way to many false conspiracy theories in their head. Either pick up a nodal defense connection and help or get out of the way, because the cyber war is here and you're obviously not relevant in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: chicken little
If the asset value is so high, why is it connected to the internet? The rational provided in your post is laughable at best and points out that it is you who are immature and ill informed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good thing we aren't talking about the auto industry or the next time a car got stolen you would propose that we destroy all existing cars and replace them with cars that record and monitor information (and probably only accessiable to the government meaning that local PD would not be able to use the info to stop crooks, thus negating the plan's original purpose).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*snigger*
... now there's an oxymoron! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i do ask you to consider your usage of the term "conspiracy theory" and what it really means. for instance, a guy in a cave plotting with a dozen other cave dwellers to attack the USA is a conspiracy, and when it is lacked by any supporting facts, it is a theory -- hence a conspiracy theory. please note that conspiracies do in fact happen and things like gravity are also regarded as theories.
keep up the great work, techdirt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, no. If there is a lack of supporting facts, it's a "conspiracy hypothesis." A "theory" is well-supported by facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: "we need to be able to spy on everyone"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what
Ever heard of Dick Cheney?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a good thing we have unbiased and professional news sources such as the Washington Post to help consultants scam the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually I dont see this going to far ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't trust you. I don't trust anyone who wished to restrict my freedoms in order to protect my security.
We were all had more freedom before 2001 when you and your ilk took down the WTC complex. I'll take the risks. You may go now.
American Citizen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think Mr. Fish has a point.
One would hope a "real journalism source" would understand the difference between news and marketing, and stop providing editiorial space for marketeers. What is next a nationwide op-ed piece on the dangers of 'Iron poor blood'?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's easy to dismiss as a marketting attempt. It's harder to think that a man with alot of first hand experience at the highest level in the field might have a clue what he's talking about. It's not like he's seen first hand many classified incidents, or knows more about cyberdefense and national security than the people on this blog.
While I fully agree that monitoring everything and "reinventing the internet" ("spying" as you want to call it) is both unnecessary and impossible, do not be so quick to dismiss the idea of cyber war just because you're afraid someone will see which porn sites you visit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because the evidence suggests this is true.
"It's harder to think that a man with alot of first hand experience at the highest level in the field might have a clue what he's talking about."
It's harder to believe that someone who has a conflict of interest in the matter like this has an unbiased opinion, especially given the fact that what he says makes no sense and that the mainstream media either ignores the issue or only presents one side of the issue (ie: The Washington Post). It's also harder to believe that he's the only one who has had experience in the field and only his alleged experienced voice matters, no contradicting experienced voices matter as well, like The Washington Post would like you to believe. In such context, it is difficult to believe that this isn't a scam to trick the public into believing a lie and in fact believing otherwise is unreasonable. Yes, it's hard to believe things that aren't reasonable, I agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: man as a high level source
Joe McCarthy had a list of 50 no 75 card carrying communists in the state department, he used to wave it around on a sheet of paper.
There was nothing on the sheet of paper. It was empty. A bluff. It was BS. It was fear. It was his political career move.
So where is the proof we can see. Until then its unsubstantianted claims made to back a huge power grab by the federal government we are not certain has the people's best intrest in mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once a Nazi, always a Nazi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The corporatocracy controls the mainstream media and they collude with the government for contracts. The Internet is something they wish to kill... freedom of the press!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
as president of the uha
if any hacker attacks you on those grounds you should begin to wonder seriously why you were targeted.
.Are you supporting the mpaa and riaa and bsa?
.Do you support ACTA without seeing it?
.Do support censorship and loss of privacy rights?
Answer yes to any and your the cause. WHEN you star giving people freedom and choices....
AND i'll say this if the riaa and mpaa wasted less time on kids and more on tiawan cdr stompers they see better results
I'll add suing someone who would ever buy anyhting off you only loses you sales and his friends sales and his kids and grandkids sales.
You go ahead and berlin wall the interent and see what kinda fighting you start.
Another thing....all your doing is driving more kids and even adults to think my visions are correct. I have even been entreated to start into politics. Imagine me running a 1st world country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cyberwar and the Internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A cyberwar isn't anything like a real war. An internet attack isn't like a real attack. The cyberworld isn't anything like the real world.
Stop treating it like they are the same thing. They are not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words, you want taxpayers to waste a lot of money on a system that will do nothing to stop terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uss76bDKimw&sns=fb
How does destroying perfectly good food, for no good reason, and taking it away from harmless citizens stop terrorism? Please explain, will any of this even stop a single terrorist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now get the other 141,647,768 voters out there to turn off the television and get informed!
You do vote, don't you? Throw them ALL out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In response to the "anonymous coward" who wrote "the advanced persistent threat is stealing intellectual and monetary capital which is the lifeblood of our nation":
1. There is no such thing as "stealing intellectual capital".
2. Cyber-theft of monetary capital is a threat that evaporates as soon as we replace our current, antiquated payment-processing systems (which tend to depend on shared secrets like CC#s) with one based on PKI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Panic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]