In Defense Of Digital Freedom: It's Time To Get Beyond 'Cyber' Hyperbole
from the speak-up dept
Marietje Schaake, a member of the European Parliament often credited as one of the most tech savvy (and, yes, a regular Techdirt reader) has penned an excellent article, In defense of digital freedom. It's well worth a read, even if it covers many things that regular readers of the site will be familiar with. The key point it makes, however, is that we shouldn't be frightened by all the "cyberwar" FUD out there, which is designed to get us to give up our ideals on internet freedom. It discusses how much hype there is around "cyber" everything, nearly all of it trying to scare people. She admits that there are real threats, but those driving the discussion seem to have little interest in parsing them out from the hype and bluster. She notes that, in this rush for new laws, we seem to ignore that existing infrastructure can actually handle most of the actual problems.The good news is that we don’t need ‘cyber democracy’ to guarantee ‘cyber security’. In most cases the foundations for resilience are already in our existing laws and regulations. Technologies are an essential part of our daily lives, businesses, education, cultural experiences and political engagement. As a result, resilience and defense need to be integrated and mainstreamed to strengthen both freedom and security.She also notes that much of the hype may be driven by companies and politicians who benefit from such hype, driving new business to companies and passing new laws that give politicians more power. But, she notes, if we make policy based on those two drivers, internet freedom will certainly be put at risk. The unintended consequences are pretty clear:
[....] To prevent fear, hype and incident-driven policies and practices, knowledge, transparency and accountability are needed. Let us not make ‘cyber’ into something completely different, alien or spacy. But rather, let us focus on integrating technological developments in a way that allows us to preserve core (constitutional) principles, democratic oversight, and digital freedoms as essentials in our open societies.
US government has stated that American made, lawful intercept technologies, have come back as a boomerang when they were used against US interests by actors in third countries.One key point she makes is that we need to have a fact-based, careful look at the issues, in which we avoid conflating very, very different things (i.e., random hacking with "war").
Other companies, such as Area Spa from Italy designed a monitoring centre, and had people on the ground in Syria helping the Assad government succeed in anti-democratic or even criminal behaviour by helping the crackdown against peaceful dissidents and demonstrators.
To avoid a slippery slope, clear distinctions between various crimes and threats are needed. Economic damage as a result of criminal activity should render a different response than a state-led attack posing national security threats. Yet, at the moment, at least in the public debate, the distinction between various cyber threats is very unclear. Uncertainly can make people feel vulnerable, while it is internet users and citizens that need to be informed and empowered. We need to build resilient and educated societies instead of installing fear.There's a lot more in the piece as well, and I think many of our readers will find it quite interesting. It's always nice to know that there are some elected officials in the world are trying to base key policy decisions, including those around internet freedom, on reality rather than fear and hype.
States also need to prioritise in their partnerships, and look for consistency of actions by different government departments. Recently, the United States chose to sign a bilateral agreement with Russia on combatting Intellectual Property Rights infringements. The agreed cooperation seems in direct contradiction with objectives of the State Department in the field of internet freedom. In Russia, a newly adopted law gives the state the authority to use Deep Packet Inspections in internet traffic.
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: cybersecurity, eu parliament, free speech, fud, hacking, internet freedom, marietje schaake
Reader Comments
The First Word
“My Contribution
Okay, if it hasn't already been coined, I suggest:"Cyberbole"
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As has been said so many times if you want to secure your network, take it off the internet. Mission critical infrastructure things don't need a web interface.
But it helps the narrative that we need more laws and rules, that can and will be used to spy in citizens, to remain safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Someone ought to call in and ask them that and bring these issues up and record the conversation in case they fail to air it we can put it on youtube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Connecting things to the net is seen as trendy and cool... because they are never forced to bear the weight of their own bad decisions. We want to do this cause it sounds cool and we'll fire anyone who offers any resistance because its a horrible idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is a reason that the US Gov. is shoving cyber security down the electric companies throats (see: NERC CIP). Critical Infrastructure does have a cyber threat, perhaps the FUD is out of control, but it is there. And the electrical sector is arguably the most critical piece of our infrastructure.
Additionally, the security problem for the industrial sector is more complex than companies failing to implement sound security practices. Device/system lifespans, insecure by design control system components (from huge control system vendors who are slow to change), and other factors all play a part in the current vulnerability of many control systems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All that
Glad idiots like you don't have guns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All that
Glad we could confirm it by your own words, thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All that
I have access to all sorts of weapons and can weaponize all sorts of common household items.
What exactly does my access to weapons have to do with the topic at hand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All that
What involvement with Wikileaks and Julian Assange? As far as I know there is none.
I'm guessing that you're confusing her with Birgitta Jonsdottir, a very different politician.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All that
*giggle*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All that
Sorry!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All that
Sorry, but that's simply incorrect. You still seem to be confusing her with Birgitta. She has nothing to do with Wikileaks.
Sorry!
You should be. Because you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: All that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All that
So, what, Mike is supposed to not correct you when you act like an idiot and say something incorrect and, upon being corrected, you double down on your stupidity and finally give your twisted version of an apology after being corrected a second time? Does this really reflect well on your position?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All that
In the real world, when someone says "I'm sorry" you generally accept it and move on. You don't look at them and say "you should be!" and generally be a prick about it. In the real world, that would get you a swift kick somewhere for being impolite. Mike's attitude here isn't one that is going to get him a lot of support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All that
Um, you said sorry, but still insisted you were right. I was pointing out that you were still wrong.
If you'd actually apologized for being mistaken then that would be one thing. But you didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All that
I'm sorry that you are wrong. I am sorry that you are too much of a prick to take an apology like a man. I am sorry for those who have to work with you on a daily basis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All that
If you were actually sorry you got it wrong (as you did) you wouldn't have insisted that her involvement with wikileaks is pretty deep.
Not sure what game you're playing here, but you could just admit you were wrong and actually apologize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All that
Not so true. She has come out on the side of Wikileaks often enough, it's all over online.
I am sorry I confused her with one of the founders of Wikileaks.
Now, can you stop being a prick for a second and accept an apology like man, or are you going to keep going on like like a superior being and piss down on me?
Oh, and I will gladly accept your apology for being a prick about things, if you are man enough to offer it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All that
Not to mention that "her involvement with wikileaks is pretty deep" is not the same as "has come out on the side of Wikileaks often enough".
But hey, keep pretending that you have apologized for being wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All that
I suggest you re-read his comments, and understand who the troll is. It's not me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Contribution
"Cyberbole"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can see how you found this with your 10 minutely "Intellectual Property" Google search.
But anyway, she appears to be just as confused as you Mr Masnick in not understanding the difference between "Intellectual property" and "Internet Freedom", doing deep packet searches is not the same as taking away your internet freedom, it is no fire wall, but to investigate IP right theft it is just another tool.
In other words Internet freedom is not an automatic right to breach IP laws, I know you really, really want it to be that way. But it's not.
Just because YOU CAN copy or steal something off the internet, does not make it legal for you to do that.
Internet freedom is not the freedom to steal whatever you like because "it's the internet".
In relation to your calling all this "Cybersecurity" "Hype" and FUD. Clearly it does occur and on large scale both commercial, protect, and state advancement. It does happen, and this lady simply states you need knowledge and openness in that regard.
Masnick you are not knowledgeable or open about cyber threats, you dismiss them as FUD and HYPE.
Clear the is FUD, fear, uncertainty and doubt, but that is because these attacks are real, they DO occur often and they are routinely report in the news.
It's not the politicians coming out independently and making these statements but making them in response to actual real like occurrence's and their frequency. (often).
All she is saying, is get the facts, be level headed and aware, be informed, prepared, alert but not alarmed.
All you appear to be saying is "it's all just FUD and Hype".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cyber Sales
what bozos, the US government already compromises the equipment US companies SELL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Internet freedom is about defending the right to free speech on the internet. So long as certain types of speech (copyrights) are treated like property, our freedom of speech is being infringed upon. It goes against very core concept of freedom of speech to say that there are certain speech I can't use because someone "owns" it. If speech is the natural right of every human being, then applying property concepts to certain speech is a clear violation of that right. But people like you will put property rights above all others.
No, these attacks aren't frequent, only their news coverage is frequent. There has been a rise in news coverage of school shootings, but guess what! School shootings are on the decline. In fact, many crimes that are such fodder for news outlets are actually declining as they crank up their coverage. There's a saying in the news biz, "if it bleeds, it leads". It's all FUD and none of it is as real as the news portrays it.
"Just because YOU CAN copy or steal something off the internet, does not make it legal for you to do that."
It may be illegal, but it sure as hell isn't wrong. It's not anybody's property, it's everyone's right to say anything and everything on the internet. That includes creative works, because they are a form of speech and nobody has the right to violate my natural right to speech just because they have the foolish notion that they can "own" that speech. To all who think they can own the content they create, you disgust me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
wrong or right, it's illegal, that's all that matters.
No one cares if you agree with laws or not, lots of criminals clearly do not agree with laws, but that does not mean they are not bound by those laws.
Also because you have some stupid definition of Intellectual Property does not mean it is any less real or valid to the person who owns it.
The general population and the law recognises IP, and recognises it's validity and reality.
"you disgust me"..
you amuse me !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No one cares if you agree with laws or not, lots of criminals clearly do not agree with laws, but that does not mean they are not bound by those laws."
Laws are not supreme nor should they be blindly obeyed. If a law is wrong, then it is the duty of the citizens to disobey that law and this law is wrong. It doesn't make me a bad person or a criminal simply because I oppose a bad law. It was once illegal to help runaway slaves to escape, should people that violated that law be branded criminals and subjected to the full punitive action assigned to that law? "The law is the law" is just an excuse for people to commit atrocities with impunity.
"Also because you have some stupid definition of Intellectual Property does not mean it is any less real or valid to the person who owns it."
I'm not the one making up stupid definitions of what is property. Those would be groups that promote IP concepts. "Intellectual property" is a made-up term meant to serve in a semantic battle that sways minds to support the copyright side by appealing to people's attachment to the basic concepts of property.
"The general population and the law recognises IP, and recognises it's validity and reality."
That's completely, categorically false. There is no law that defines a concept of "intellectual property". I know, I've studied the copyright act and read it's definitions. IP isn't one of them. Even in chapters 9 and 13 of the copyright act, the property rights assigned pertain to the specific design that the owner possesses, not the expressions inherent in the design. Copyright only assigns rights to distribution of a work; it does not assign ownership of the work itself.
As far as the general population goes, that's just your baseless assumption. There's more to the network of sharing media than just the torrents and file lockers. There has always been the networks of friends and family privately sharing amongst themselves completely invisible to the public internet at large. People share media through IM, private SFTP, email, and other private non-peering networks.
What amuses me is that I can back up my assertions with verifiable facts and data, but you make your claims based purely on conjecture and assumption. My conclusions fit the observable data, while you try to twist the data to fit your conclusions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Throughout history there has been no other law more damaging to the spread/growth of cultural knowledge/awareness than eternal copyright. If the term limits of copyright were sensible in the way that anyone might share their learned revelations to others before they die/expire then there would be little or no problem.
Everyone wants to be a storyteller of great import and wisdom. Often we need to spew out all the collected bits of understanding, of some topic/concept, to friends, and or groups using the various media available, just to get feedback and opinion thus revising/growing/shrinking our greater knowledge as a whole. Eternal copyright makes even this most-common form of association and expression illegal. (the cultural insanity is mindboggling)
In the way that ideas and freedom of expression are involved in no way is the badly phrased term Intellectual Property (IP) recognized except in disgust and revulsion. (At least anyone who is aware of what is being sacrificed/lost/stolen.)
The recent criminalization of eternal copyright law has put a burden on US/EU/world society that is only exceeded by the extremely bad mistake of Drug law. The cost of copyright prosecution alone, now the responsibility of US DoJ, might all by itself bankrupt an already strained government/economy in the same way that drug law drains from society at large.
The additional unspoken/uncalculated cost of a lost culture of freedom should make any patriot/citizen cry.
Freedom of speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association are but a few of the now almost lost Constitutional values that make up a core of American cultural values. Ever wonder what and how to define culture? They are the shared values that we express when we associate with each other and speak out about current issues/concepts/topics/whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intellectual Slavery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If that is not FUD, then I don't know what is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Developments in technology that simply would not have been done, if those development were not protected by IP laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bilateral agreement with Russia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a hard one to counter because everyone needs to work together
Be an outsider : LOOK at the arguments from an outsiders perspective.
You can not compete with the emotional message of , we are under threat of war if it is spammed out there as propaganda to scare the masses. The actual facts and intellectual arguments are irrelevant. Ask a single viral marketeer who spams a thousand press releases on a Monday morning if he can mislead and create a narrative that the masses eat up. (it happens nearly weekly)
All rational argument will not succeed. Like it hasn't before.
One of many examples.
There is only one way to counter this type of mass brainwashing propaganda. It evolves using the tactic too. Anti-intellectual, I know. How else can you compete ?
You repeat the same phrase over and over again until everyone knows it. Preferably mocking the word "cyberwar" or at least "cyber". The important thing is that we ALL use the same word/phrase. ALWAYS return to the propaganda phrase...ALWAYS
TL;DR
■ Rational arguments are useless against this type of relentless "narrative spam".
■ When your stupid assed neighbor who doesn't even know how to switch on a computer starts talking about "cyberwar".... it's over. They win the public will to own all the internets.
■ We have to counter using their tactic of repetitive propaganda.
If you honestly think that intellectually rational arguments can win, you must not be an intellectual who is thinking rationally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a hard one to counter because everyone needs to work together
"Saddam had no WMD" "Saddam had no WMD" "Saddam had no WMD" "Saddam had no WMD" "Most of the rational people making the case for taking out Saddam knew there was no WMD at the time, but that was not the end of the story. He was a genocidal, totalitarian, Big Brother - the sanctions were killing hundreds of thousands and we couldn't lift the sanctions/no-fly-zones in case he tried to kill the Kurds again or try to get Iran/Kuwait again. There was very little alternative from historical experience. If he didn't implode the country, Uday and Qusay certainly would have. If it were anyone else - the killers of Rwanda, Darfur, Milosevic in Bosnia and Kosovo, the Burmese generals, Assad in Syria, the military of North Korea or fucking Joseph Kony - our need to take them out would be indisputable." "Saddam had no WMD" "Saddam had no WMD" "Saddam had no WMD" "Saddam had no WMD" "Saddam had no WMD" "Saddam had no WMD"
Rationality means neither having blind faith in leaders NOR doing the exact opposite of what your leaders say. It means looking at evidence, argument, being dialectical, avoiding cliche, not being a megaphone for anybody, coming up with your own unique rhetoric, being willing to stand in front of millions of people and tell them they've all bought into an ad populum fallacy without blinking, and this is most important of all: being willing to self-scrutinise and not being afraid to change your mind about something even after being incredibly committed to the other side. All of this. The only way one can claim to be rational with any credibility at all is if one accepts how fallible and prone to bias one is.
I think there are genuine threats that can be born out of the internet. I'm queasy about the 2nd amendment but I cannot help paraphrase the NRA's mantra and substitute one key word to demonstrate what I mean: "the internet doesn't free people, people free people."
It disturbs me when the Chinese government, for example, sets up fake opposition blog websites in order to lure dissenters and snares them unexpectedly when the time is right. It disturbs me when Islamic fascists will crowdsource protest videos in order to identify the protesters and murder them the next time they step outside their houses. It disturbs me when everything you potentially send on the internet cannot be undone since it is a huge recording machine, and future employers can find it easier than ever to hold one embarrassing moment against you at every turn. It disturbs me how, as someone who believes in separation of powers, power has accumulated very centrally in terms of cloud computing (personal data being stolen in one swoop in the Megaupload raid - because apparently the actions of a few people were excuse enough to shut down a whole company), Google being effectively the centre of the internet, and ISPs having too many bottle necks of the economy due to globalisation effects. It disturbs me how witch-hunt and mob mentalities can spring up easier than before, whether it is using Blackberries to start riots in England, falsely naming names in sex-predator hysteria, or Reddit turning vigilante over an innocent person. It disturbs me how conservative many media organisations are being about the utopian fantasy that is copyright law, and how they keep pushing forward anti-piracy laws with all kinds of slippery slopes while hiding behind copyright as a veto, against seemingly no real opposition in Parliaments.
When it comes to that last point, I hope the irony isn't lost on everyone. As long as you are willing to stand up for intellectual honesty when it comes to, say, copyright being extended infinitely and on no basis, you end up realising that the "cyber" war was declared on YOU, and not the other way around.
However - the arguments about liberty, privacy, and freedom remain the same. The internet has done little to change them. Some change, yes, but not much. The metaphor I use to describe the internet's role in politics and a lot of other things is that it is a "catalyst" - it doesn't change the chemical reaction, but it speeds it up and gives it more life. This is true for the good and the bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That power of not relying on the media or the government for information is truly liberating. Just thinking about it for 5min makes you realize it's power.
So I believe, because of my beliefs, you underestimate the greatness of the connections we now have. You see it, but I don't think you realize the power in it.
You highlight the same problem (in more detail) with the intellectual argument compared to the blatant dumbed down propaganda.
The intellectual argument acknowledges all the details and complexities to its detriment.
War was seen by millions of people to be a really retarded thing to do. Want Sadam gone.... Assassinate the cunt, what the fuck are you going to war for.
■ At that time Sadam was NO threat to his neighbors or the outside world.
■ Sadam was less of a threat than war was to his people.
But the intellectual argument defeated itself and it's intended goals.
Of course the* other shit* you clearly showed was relevant but those nuances in complexity water down the message. It was however part of the intellectual argument. Not all of it. Only the part that supported the spammed narrative. And so that part was used to say..."see, even the Anti-War hippies agree".
Like against someone who ONLY says YES.
The intellectual argument is NO but...bla bla, little bit yes but NO because bla bla maybe yes but OVERALL NO.
AIM = No War
TACTIC = Agree with some Pro-War but say "Overall No"
While Pro-War don't acknowledge any argument from the Anti-War side.
Didn't see pro-War people saying the weapon inspectors didn't find WMD's or that War would kill more people than no war. Not a mention of alternative ways to take out Sadam.
Their message was clear and didn't allow nuance even when facts disproved it.
That Iraq "WMD" example is annoying.... to many nuances and details.
Could be here all year dissecting the use of propaganda for that war.
Back to "Cyber War" lol
Nuanced intellectual arguments only appeal to, and are listened to by intellectual people who have the time to contemplate.
( not the masses who are too busy in life and some that are too stupid )
The phrase "Cyber War" does not acknowledge complexity. "cyber war" = BAD
The intellectual argument is blaa blaa Cyber War is a threat but it's over exaggerated and bla bla cyber threats can be dealt with in other ways.
Self defeating.
The masses hear both sides say Cyber War is real.
End of, they are not listening anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, that's not gonna happen. 90% of Congress is just barely smart enough to remember to breathe. Reason and logic aren't going to work, otherwise they never would've bought all those stupid arguments in the first place.
What we need is a strategy that works on dumb people. Really, really dumb people. People dumb enough to think "cyberhackers" is a term someone familiar with computers would actually use unironically. That mind-bogglingly dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh so true. the problem is, however, that the voices of the ones that would benefit by hyping up the 'cyber' threats are always the loudest, even though they most probably are not the most sensible.
the other scary thing is that when 'cyber surveillance' bills that are introduced and fail, there seems to be an uncanny closeness to horrific acts, as happened in Boston, taking place. i noticed a similar thing in reports from the UK where the 'snoopers charter' as it was/is called was thrown out and a person was then killed under horrendous circumstances. not wishing to be or intending to be disrespectful to the families of those left behind after these events, would the ability to read a text message, an email or listen to a conversation really have stopped what happened? i very much doubt it but those that want to remove as much freedom and privacy from ordinary people and give corporations and governments more control of our lives use the incidents to validate the need. once these bills become law, rest assured, to get rid of them will be a nightmare, probably never happening. you can also be pretty certain that those that want them introduced will be ex-surveillance themselves. if people want to be monitored 24/7, let the bills become law. if having the right to freedom, privacy and other things is what you think should be in place, these bills need to be fought against, just like the fight against ACTA etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“