Fearmongering Around 'Cyber' Threats Puts Internet Openness At Risk
from the it's-a-problem dept
Susan Crawford has an intriguing column over at Bloomberg where she notes that the ongoing effort by politicians to fearmonger around the idea of "cybersecurity" and "cyberwar," is a lot more problematic than just a sneaky way to do away with basic privacy protections. Instead, she argues, it's going to create massive damage to one of the key features of the internet that has made it so successful and so useful: its openness:Plenty of people have argued that SOPA was quite different from CISPA, because SOPA did attack fundamental principles of the internet, while CISPA was just an attack on privacy. So it's interesting to see Crawford's opinion suggesting that CISPA, and other bills like it, also put some aspects of the traditional internet at risk, though in a more indirect manner.The dangers of this digital special-ops saber-rattling are breathtaking. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been valiantly advocating for Internet freedom, strategic multilateralism, engagement and “smart power” around the world. The White House has said its objective is to work with other nations to “encourage responsible behavior and oppose those who would seek to disrupt networks and systems.”
Purveyors of cyberfear are going in the opposite direction. They are not interested in engaging with other countries to come up with codes of online conduct or to translate the Geneva Conventions for cyberspace -- so as to avoid collateral damage and protect hospitals, electrical grids, and so on. They want to be able to change ones to zeros on servers around the globe, whatever that means for speech and commerce at home and worldwide.
Given the undeniable benefits that the open global Internet has brought to the U.S., building moats around our networks and subjecting them to constant, unaccountable audits and other restraints -- all in the service of an immense online warfighting machine staffed by military contractors -- would be burning the village in order to save it
At this point, it's impossible to deny that the people behind both bills have written them with little understanding of the internet, or how it reacts to attempts to take away openness or lock things up. Such moves will have significant unintended consequences. I wouldn't go so far as to say that CISPA itself is an attack on the internet, but it does seem reasonable to say that the theories behind it are a significant departure from the openness that the internet has thrived on in the past.
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: cispa, cybersecurity, cyberwar, open internet, sopa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Play for Power
The only thing the Politicians want is to be able to shut up any type of Resistance because they now know the Internet is the perfect tool to share your views instantly and World-Wide.And it is the perfect tool to Disseminate information instantly like Pictures of Cops beating people, resistance, Non-Censorship News, Blogs that spread the truth instead of what the Big Media tells you, ETC.
Their power play is so obvious to all of us with a brain.MPAA & MAFIAA was the beginning but now the danger is even worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I always laugh when Americans say they have "freedom". They have "freedom" in the same way that a tamed well-fed lion in a zoo has "freedom". And America's small power-elite aims to keep it that way. Becuase it's good for the ruling Oligarchy's business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cybermen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cybermen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cybermen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have a feeling that the way I think it should work is vastly different then the way it actually works. I guess this is why I am not a politician. I could not see myself signing my name on something and presenting it without fully understanding what it is. I admit that I don't always read all the legal paperwork on loans and such, but I still make sure I check the main points like interest, loan period, payment dates, etc. to make sure that I am fully aware of my obligations. I also get a second opinion from another person. I don't just blindly sign my name on a piece of paper that a banker put in front of me and say "Don't worry, it's all good"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gadzooks!
Imaginary Batman will save our imaginary world!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
walled gardens
We'll have America Online. China Online. Poland Online. Iran Online. etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fearmongering Around 'Cyber' Threats Puts Internet Openness At Risk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fearmongering Around 'Cyber' Threats Puts Internet Openness At Risk
(see: martial-force/assault, extortion/taxes, invasion-of-privacy/surveillance, counterfeiting/"minting" money, etc ad nauseaum).
Here's one to think about: If the rights of the group supersede the rights of the individual, then the individuals have no rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a)from the USA
b)introducing more laws that will do the opposite to above
c)condemn those that are trying to keep 'internet openness'
d)do their damnedest to force others to do as the USA is
hypocrisy at it's best!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mass Delusion
And they'll blame the country's eventual demise (read: suicide) on others, as usual.
And the terrorists will have won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mass Delusion
The overwhelming majority of people I know, regardless of political inclination (I know and have such discussions with people across the whole spectrum), agree that the US political system is hopelessly corrupt and broken.
Where they differ is when it comes to what should be done about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whoa there...
We need better government that is not captured. The other option is to watch the government become more fascist as time moves on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So be very wary of news articles about "cyber-threats".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As an engineer, I've never used the prefix "cyber" in a serious conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Very good point.
I am a design Engineer (computer software for the last 15 years and computer hardware for many years before that) and I also have never used the prefix "cyber" in any serious conversation.
I think it's a term reserved for fantasists (like science-fiction writers), marketers and other rather dull-witted people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Define Open:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Define Open:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Define Open:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Define Open:
Get out of my back yard!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Define Open:
(Why? Because cloud computing providers are target #1 for the kind of massively intrusive data harvesting that CISPA enables. Amazon's cloud, for example, is responsible for about 1% of all Internet traffic -- which is an amazingly high number -- and therefore it's got to be at or near the top of the wishlist.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Define Open:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Define Open:
Another factor will be the propensity of the US government to farm out data analysis to the pigs at the trough: defense contractors. And as we've seen (e.g., StratFor) some of these have no idea how to securely manage data entrusted to their care. So not only do we have to worry about what the US government and/or its employees will do with data, we have to worry about what corporations and their employees will do.
This will provide yet another opportunity for the two favorite phrases in the lexicon of people who were repeatedly warned of dire consequences but forged ahead anyway: "nobody could have foreseen" and "we take this matter seriously".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Define Open:
An "open internet" can mean a few different things depending on context. In some contexts, it means free of patent encumbrance. In some, it means free communications.
"Cloud computing" is, at its root, a fancy version of the old days of computing where the data storage and computation was done by a large central server. The difference is that in "cloud computing", the server is not a single monolithic machine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They could ask the French. They had a solution hundreds of years ago AND the balls to implement it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets Pretend
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fearmongering indeed. Can you stop now Mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Even if that's true, so what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Take those things away, and laws like this will end up being adopted, and in the long run, over a few different laws, the same result as SOPA will exist.
... and the people will never get upset.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And Mike is correct. Whether or not this translates into a large reaction in the general public doesn't have anything to do with that.
This is true, and was pointed out repeatedly in the SOPA coverage here (and elsewhere). Even Mike said so.
I still don't get what your point is. You say these things like you're making some kind of criticism of TD's stance, but that can't be as you're simply restating stuff that has been said here all along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's sort of the mentality of someone muttering to themselves, unable to accept something. He seems unwilling to accept that the world works differently from his world view, I guess.
Mike still isn't getting that widespread, wide open piracy just isn't acceptable in the long run. No government will logically stand by and watch as people degrade a business from dollars to pennies. It hurts the economy, and especially these days, it's something that really can't be tolerated by any smart politician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, and it's about something that is currently happening. In this regard TD is no different than just about every other blogger, regular commentators, and news sources in general -- not to mention your own comments. I find it weird that you find it so weird.
That doesn't follow at all. If anything, your fixation on this makes this comment sound a bit like projection.
For someone who pays so much attention to TD, I would think you'd know better than that. But I will reiterate: TD is not pro-piracy. However, TD sees that the current methods that the issue is being addressed not only are ineffective, but cause more damage than the piracy itself.
Alternative methods of dealing with piracy are routinely discussed that would not only be more effective, but (more importantly) would not cause nearly as much harm.
The following is speaking for me, not anyone else, but I suspect that Mike would not disagree too much with it:
Whether or not politicians will stop enabling the major content companies to hurt each and every one of us to protect their profit margins is a different question. Even if it's hopeless, though, this is a fight for fundamental freedom and liberty against a small group of very powerful corporations who want to strip us of our freedoms in exchange for a guaranteed income. And no, I'm not talking about "freedom to pirate".
At its heart, for me, this is not a fight about piracy. This is about protecting innocent people from egregious corporate behavior.
Is piracy a problem? Maybe yes, maybe no, and copyright holders have, of course, every right to take steps to address threats as they see them. However, those rights end, as the saying goes, where my nose begins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cyber bills
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cyber--what???
Or any "signals" establishment (read code breaking) can be classed as "cyber" criminals or "cyber" terrorists because they break code their "enemies" using, gosh!, computers to do it.
And with this bill American law enforcement will now be doing "legally" what they've been doing for years which is "cyber" intercepting messages and stuff on the Internet and drowning in all the data. Privacy? What's that got to do with anything when there are "cyber" terrorists to catch?! And how all this "cyber" piracy stuff is working cause we're sure China is behind it all somehow!
Who cares about the openness of the Internet and Web and the economic impact of both for the better when there are "cyber" threats to be countered?
Excuse us while we watch some reruns of Dr Who so we can be taught about all things "cyber" and get envious of 20ft long scarves!
Fearmongering is always a good excuse not to do anything while passing legislation that appears to do something while not really doing much of anything at all. Other than, as Mike correctly says, endanger some of what makes the Internet and Web so valuable in so many ways.
Please excuse me now while I get a mug of "cyber" coffee and bemoan the day the expression "cyber" became so meaningless and such a joke.
Just as soon as I press the "Submit" button and "cyber" post this "cyber" comment.
Sheesh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]