The Non-Existent 'Cyber War' Is Nothing More Than A Push For More Government Control

from the using-your-tax-dollars-against-you dept

Reason's recent post, "Cyber War: Still Not a Thing," addresses the claims of various politicians that America is under constant attack from hackers and other cyber criminals. While various DDoS attacks on prominent government websites would seem to indicate a larger problem, the real issue here is the use of "war" rhetoric to remove all sense of proportion, thus greasing the wheel for overreaching legislation.

Ever since Vietnam, the U.S. government has shown an odd propensity for dragging us into unpopular (and unwinnable) wars. Between the protracted Iraq "War" (nearly a decade at this point), our involvement in Afghanistan and our intervention in Libya , Americans are finding that the old concept of "war" doesn't really fit what's going on here.

Back on the home front, various unwinnable wars continue to suck down tax dollars and erode civil rights. The War on Drugs. The War on Terror. The political system is no longer interested in mere skirmishes or "police actions." Everything is a capital-W "War."

A multitude of problems arise from couching these situations in catastrophic and adversarial terms. Declaring "war" on drugs has brought the battle to the home front and turned our law enforcement into an ad hoc military force. The slightest of violations is met with excessive force. There are dozens of stories of people whose houses have been invaded by SWAT teams armed with automatic weapons. Uninvolved children have been thrust into violent situations by the perceived wrongdoing of their parents. When a person possessing a couple of ounces of marijuana is treated like a Colombian drug lord, the system is being abused.

Using the word "war" automatically defines your opponent as violent, no matter how untrue that designation is. Declaring the nation to be in the midst of a "cyberwar" allows law enforcement and government security agencies to escalate their response to perceived threats. Every reaction becomes an overreaction. No matter what your opinion of Anonymous and like-minded hackers might be, it's pretty safe to say that most of us do not consider them to be a violent threat.

All previous indications point to this being handled just as badly as any previous "war." The point will come when people are overrun in their own homes by armed tactical units in response to actions like DDoS attacks which, as Reason points out, are usually "undirected protests" with "no tactical objective." Truly innocent citizens will be swept up in this as well, considering the number of computers out there that have been "zombified" and pressed into service as part of a botnet. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has already demonstrated that it needs nothing more than an IP address to mobilize.

In times of war, corners are cut and rights are treated as privileges. When the enemy is invisible and the list of possible suspects grows exponentially with each broadening of the definition of "hacking," the "war" becomes a convenient excuse for law enforcement fishing expeditions and violent tactical reactions. California has already decided police can search your phone without a warrant and the list of municipalities willing to expand police power with warrantless searches and abuse of "probable cause" continues to grow.

The ugliest part of this whole "war" concept is that underneath all the tough talk and tougher action is a good old fashioned money grab. Reason cites Sen. Barbara Mikulski's quote, "We are at war, we are being attacked, and we are being hacked," while pointing out that Maryland is home to the U.S. Cyber Command Headquarters. A Baltimore Sun piece digs deeper into this money grab:

Mikulski, the state's senior senator, sits on the intelligence and appropriations committees. She said that she and Rep C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, who sits on the appropriations and intelligence committees in the House, are Maryland's "one-two punch" on Capitol Hill. Mikulski also was named recently to a cyber security task force, which will focus on governance, technology development and work force development nationwide.

O'Malley called for the establishment of a "National Center for Excellence for Cyber Security" in Maryland, more education and work force training, and an economic development strategy for cyber security in the state.

The computer design and services sector, which includes cyber security, employs about 60,000 mostly high-paid workers in Maryland, and grew despite the national recession, at a 7.2 percent annual clip through November 2009, state officials said.

An earlier Reason piece points out even more examples:

Beginning in early 2008, towns across the country sought to lure Cyber Command's permanent headquarters. Authorities in Louisiana estimated that the facility would bring at least 10,000 direct and ancillary jobs, billions of dollars in contracts, and millions in local spending. Politicians naturally saw the command as an opportunity to boost local economies. Governors pitched their respective states to the secretary of the Air Force, a dozen congressional delegations lobbied for the command, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal even lobbied President George W. Bush during a meeting on Hurricane Katrina recovery. Many of the 18 states vying for the command offered gifts of land, infrastructure, and tax breaks.

The city of Bossier, Louisiana, proposed a $100 million "Cyber Innovation Center" office complex next to Barksdale Air Force Base and got things rolling by building an $11 million bomb-resistant "cyber fortress," complete with a moat. Yuba City, California, touted its proximity to Silicon Valley. Colorado Springs pointed to the hardened location of Cheyenne Mountain, headquarters for NORAD. In Nebraska the Omaha Development Foundation purchased 136 acres of land just south of Offutt Air Force Base and offered it as a site.

Proposed cybersecurity legislation presents more opportunities for pork spending. The Cybersecurity Act of 2010, proposed by Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) called for the creation of regional cybersecurity centers across the country, a cyber scholarship-for-service program, and myriad cybersecurity research and development grants.

Underneath any faux "war" is the lure of unregulated tax dollars. Building a force to counteract an undefinable foe is an open-ended "goal". In addition, this sort of thing gives government entities more of what they really want: power, money and control.

A rough Beltway consensus has emerged that the United States is facing a grave and immediate threat that can only be addressed by more public spending and tighter controls on private network security practices.

It's a war alright. A war on civil liberties. It's a million (or more accurately, 7.9 billion) reasons to regulate and track internet usage and criminalize yet another section of the U.S. population. Tactical operations will now be mobilized against people who bring a laptop to a gunfight. And much like any other war, once it's underway, it's nearly impossible to stop.

Filed Under: control, cyberwar, politics

Monster Cable Claims EBay, Craigslist, Costco & Sears Are 'Rogue Sites'

from the total-failure dept

When we talk about how dangerous PROTECT IP is as a censorship bill, we're often told that we shouldn't worry so much, because it's only targeted at "rogue sites" and thus wouldn't impact any legitimate sites. We're told there's nothing about rogue sites that is worth defending. And yet, as we've seen with the list of "pirate" sites that GroupM put together with help from the music and movie industries, their definition of a "pirate" site is expansive in the extreme. It included the Internet Archive, Vimeo, Soundcloud and a ton of blogs and news sites, including the famed Vibe magazine.

And don't think it gets any different when you hop over to the trademark/counterfeit side of the debate. In Tim's post about Monster Cable lobbying in favor of PROTECT IP, as an aside at the end, he notes that on Monster Cable's own list of "rogue sites," eBay and Craigslist top the list. And it doesn't stop there. Retailing giant Costco is on the list. As is Sears. Also some Backpages sites are listed as well (Backpages is a Craigslist-like classifieds system). There's also FatWallet, which is one of the most popular "deal" listings sites out there. There's also PriceGrabber and ComputerShopper -- popular legitimate sites for comparison shopping and computer purchases. These are not "rogue sites." These are legitimate companies that Monster Cable appears to have a vendetta against, because they allow for or promote the resale of perfectly legitimate secondhand goods.

In other words, for all the misleading whining from Monster about how it needs PROTECT IP to stop "rogue sites," you can see from Monster's own definition of what it considers a rogue site, that it would like to use such things to stomp out legitimate secondhand sales. Now, you can argue over whether or not these sites would pass following a judge's scrutiny under PROTECT IP, but we've seen judges rubber stamp similarly questionable claims against blogs in the past as being "rogue sites."

If you look at both the GroupM and the Monster lists, one thing becomes clear: these companies are defining any site they can't control as being a "rogue site." This isn't about stopping "piracy." It's about using the law to stomp out channels that they can't control. This is a key point that becomes obvious if you spend any time looking at the details of this law. It's not about protecting "IP." It's about protecting old business models that were based on absolute control of the channel. The complaints of the Universal Musics and Monster Cables of the world isn't really about counterfeits and piracy, but about the fact that they no longer have absolute control.

And they're just using "piracy" as the wool to pull over Congress' eyes to pass a law that tries to give them back control over the channel... by declaring tons of perfectly legitimate sites "rogue sites."

Filed Under: competition, control, protect ip, rogue sites
Companies: costco, craigslist, ebay, monster cable, sears

Newspapers Finally Realizing They Don't Have To Use Apple's High Priced Payment Offering, Or Locked Down App Store

from the hello,-html-5 dept

For quite some time now, we've been pointing out that for all the folks pissed off about Apple's very closed nature when it comes to the App Store, combined with it's ridiculously high 30% cut demanded on any in-app content purchases, there would be a growing trend to route around Apple as a gatekeeper, using HTML5 web apps. While such apps can't provide all the features of native apps, they can provide an awful lot. And, to be honest, a large percentage of native apps are really HTML5/javascript/CSS web apps wrapped up and compiled. But as Apple puts more and more conditions on things, people are going to route around the gatekeeper, and it's nice to see some big names realizing this. First up is the Financial Times, which has created an HTML5 web app that can be used on the iPhone/iPad without having to go through Apple's purchase process and without having to deal with Apple's restrictive rules.

It may be limited right now, but more and more companies are going to recognize they don't need to go through the gatekeeper here. And as alternative means of distribution and discovery become more popular, the key advantage of the official App Store begin to fade away. I would imagine that over time, Apple may be forced to back down on some of its more ridiculous conditions and pricing, as more players realize that they don't have to go that route.

Filed Under: app store, apps, control, financial times, gatekeeper, html4, locked
Companies: apple, financial times

Why Does The Entertainment Industry Seek To Kill Any Innovation That's Helping It Adapt?

from the it's-all-about-control dept

The LA Times recently had a good article about Hulu's struggles with its corporate parents, the various TV companies. While Hulu itself has been massively successful, the TV companies are suddenly claiming it's a threat (even though they own it) and are seeking to cripple the service in a misguided and shortsighted bid to "protect" their legacy offerings.

Combine that with our recent story about the record labels crippling Spotify and the Hollywood studios seeking to cripple Netflix, and you've got a pattern. Any time a new service comes along that helps drag the content industries into the present, the industry's hit back by trying to kill off or cripple the golden goose.

The simplistic answer is that the entertainment industry is all about control, and they freak out about these success stories (that make them money) because they realize they're losing control. I think it's a little more complex than that, but not too much. The established entertainment business, for many, many years, has operated under the principle of being the gatekeeper to their industry. They've (incorrectly) believed that their value and the key to their business is in being the gatekeeper. But the amazing thing about the internet is that it knocks down fences and walls with ease.

Gatekeepers don't make much sense.

If you view yourself as an enabler, then these new services seem great and wonderful and a huge opportunity. If you see yourself as a gatekeeper, you see these other services as a path to route around your gate. The mistake is in thinking that the answer is to shut down or limit that alternative. That's because, the alternatives (generally) are not really gatekeepers themselves. Of course, to the existing gatekeepers they look like gatekeepers, which leads to this reaction. But the reality is quite different. In a world where there are no real walls or fences, you don't need gates, and thus you don't need gatekeepers.

Instead, you need enablers: the curators, aggregators and filters who help you make sense of the wide open world. That's what Spotify, Hulu and Netflix all do, in a legal fashion. But it's also what various unauthorized sites and services do in an often less than legal fashion. But none of that changes the fact that the gates are no longer needed and the fences are down. Spotify, Hulu and Netflix aren't the new gatekeepers. They're compelling enablers who have built the new hotspot that people want to go to, because of the additional value they provide. Knocking them down doesn't bring back the need for the gates. Those are gone forever. It just takes away one of the more useful services -- which actually does pay the copyright holders -- and drives people to the many other (perhaps unauthorized) sources.

Filed Under: control, entertainment industry, gatekeepers, innovation, movies, music
Companies: hulu, netflix, spotify

ICANN Says US Gov't Should Let It Go Private, While US Wants More Control

from the this-won't-end-well dept

We were just talking about how the US government -- despite existing concerns from pretty much the rest of the world that it already has too much control over ICANN -- wants more control over the organization that manages the basic structure of the internet. It appears that ICANN is looking to go in the other direction. ICANN boss Rod Beckstrom has sent a letter to the US government asking to be set free. In the letter, Beckstrom notes that the original plan had always been to privatize ICANN, and that was supposed to happen 11 years ago. Beckstrom points out that same thing we noted, which is that foreign governments are concerned about US control over the internet, and they're not going to look kindly on closer ties with the government. I have to admit that I'm intrigued what Beckstrom could do with an ICANN not under US government control. After all, he's literally written an entire book on the power of distributed systems over centralized ones. It would be great if he really worked to turn ICANN into a distributed system that couldn't be censored by any particular government agency.

Filed Under: control, government, icann

US Gov't Still Wants More Control Over ICANN

from the not-cool dept

It's really amazing how tone deaf the Obama administration can be on certain issues. For years, foreign countries have accused the US of having too much control over the internet via ICANN. ICANN, of course, was set up to manage a key part of the internet (and to make it a bit more formal than the old process of Jon Postel keeping things going) as a quasi-private operation that just happened to sorta, kinda be connected to the Commerce Dept. This connection to the Commerce Department concerned some, and ICANN has always striven to show itself as independent. And yet, during this time many countries have suggested that ICANN's role be moved to the UN, or some other international body. So it seems bizarre that the Obama administration is now trying to gain more control over ICANN. How can those involved not recognize the inevitable backlash from other countries? Yes, other countries claim they're concerned as well, but any move that gives the US more of a say is going to go over badly.

The real issue here is that governments still seem to think that there's a way to treat the internet as subordinate to various country governments. I'm beginning to think that's not true at all (despite a few attempts to assert such control). For years there have certainly been plenty of jurisdictional questions raised by the internet, but at some point people are going to realize that perhaps the internet doesn't neatly qualify under the rules of a particular country, but is itself a separate space. Resisting that, and having governments trying to gain more control over the internet, is only going to backfire.

Filed Under: control, internet
Companies: icann

Sony's PS3 Lawsuit Is About Control, Not Piracy

from the can't-let-go dept

As GeoHot/George Hotz continues to fight his legal battle against Sony for daring to restore functionality to Sony PS3s that Sony had deleted, he's apparently been able to raise a bunch of money for his legal fund through donations. That's nice to see. He's also put up this amusing (and seriously NSFW) rap about the lawsuit: Seems like he didn't need copyright as an incentive to create that one, huh? Anyway, what struck me as the most prescient statement in the linked article above, however, was this line:

"Sony tried to sue a guy for getting his AIBO to do non-Sony approved tricks, making it apparent that they don’t really care about piracy, they care about control."

We actually wrote about Sony's response to AIBO hacks a decade ago, and it's absolutely true. Copyright is supposed to be about incentives to create. But it's generally been twisted into a tool for control against "stuff we don't like."

Filed Under: control, copyright, geohot, ps3
Companies: sony

Egypt Turns Internet Back On For Same Reason It Was Turned Off: To Try To Quell Protests

from the well,-that-worked dept

As has been widely reported today, Egypt has rejoined the internet, after the government told ISPs that it was okay to reconnect to the world nearly a week after it shut off the internet. What's fascinating to me, however, is the basic thinking on both moves. The idea behind shutting down the internet (and mobile phone service) was to try to cut off the ability of protesters to communicate and organize, hoping that it would stifle the protests themselves. Of course, it seemed to only add to the fire, inciting even more anger towards the government, and contributing to even greater numbers of protests. So, now, the reasoning for removing the blocks... is basically the same thing. The government seems to think that letting people back onto the internet will also quell the protests. Perhaps they just shouldn't have turned the internet off in the first place. Either way, this seems like yet another example of governments realizing that it's a lot more difficult to "control" the public than they thought...

Filed Under: control, egypt, internet, protests

China Raises The Great Firewall Even Higher, Claims It's To Stop Piracy

from the higher-and-higher dept

The NY Times is reporting that the Chinese government appears to be raising the walls on the Great Firewall of China even higher, shutting down a bunch of sites, limiting the ability to let individuals put up their own websites, and completely restricting the ability to offer third party mobile content. Here's where it gets sneaky. The Chinese government claims that it's an effort to stop "piracy." And, indeed, some of the sites that were shut down appear to be sites related to file sharing. But this is great for the Chinese government -- because US lobbyists and diplomats have been complaining about Chinese "piracy" for ages, even as US diplomats have complained about free speech restrictions online in China. So, by hiding a more massive crackdown behind the claim that the government is really "cracking down on piracy," China knows that the US can't complain too much. After all, it's been demanding a crackdown on piracy for so long. So what if that "crackdown" also massively limits the ability of individuals to communicate freely online?

Filed Under: censorship, china, control, great firewall, piracy