Slashdot Mirror
America's War on the Web
An anonymous reader writes "The Sunday Herald is reporting that while the US is continuing to pursue traditional means of protecting national security, they are also planning to launch a new wave of 'information warfare' to help combat a perceived growing threat of IT security. From the article: 'The Pentagon has already signed off $383 million to force through the document's recommendations by 2009. Military and intelligence sources in the US talk of "a revolution in the concept of warfare". The report orders three new developments in America's approach to warfare [...] the Pentagon says it will wage war against the internet in order to dominate the realm of communications, prevent digital attacks on the US and its allies, and to have the upper hand when launching cyber-attacks against enemies.'"
I'd think that the simplest solution would be to (ironically) wall of the US internet. Of course this would allow the rest of the internet to publish what they want.
So is the US essentially saying that it wants to control (or influence in nicer terms) the entire internet?
While it hasn't yet been modded up enough for me to see it, I'm sure there's already a bunch of whining about how us eeevul hegemonistic Americans are all set to sally forth trampling across the internet in our zeal to wage war.
Sorry, this is just being smart. Keep in mind how prevalent botnets are, how they basically rule all of Asia, Eastern Europe, most of South America, and even substantial chunks of America and Western Europe. Keep in mind how much spam those networks churn out on a daily basis, how much money they earn the people who own them. Then realize that spam is about the *least* harmful thing they could be used for.
It's a problem of history and symantics. Americans, and probably others, associate the word "war" with a concerted effort to destroy something they don't and shouldn't like (i.e. Nazis). So "war on poverty","war on drugs", etc makes quick sense to people. Unfortunately it's not quite the right word, conveys the wrong connotations, and is cliche. But no one has come up with anything better. Not that there's a shortage of candidates.
But if you think of one, you'll make big bucks as a speech writer.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Not to trivialize anything that the government would say (oh precious politicians, you do entrance me so) but isn't the whole "Cyber Terror" idea a bit absurd. You have websites that issue propaganda, and the like, sure, but it's not as if you're forced to look at them, you can just close the window and/or block the site. The fact that they exist isn't threatening in anyway, as you can simply choose to ignore it.
And really large defacements/ DDoS attacks haven't occured much, if at all in recent history. I understand the fear of DDoS attacks on government electronic infrastructure, but the important stuff shouldn't be accessible from outside sources at any rate.
On top of that, why would one require a whole militarization of what overly zealous and patriotic hackers have been doing for quite some time now? Bankroll their cause if you're so interested in combating an enemy digitally.
I Lost My Virginity While Waiting for BSD to Compile.
War on poverty, war on drugs, war on terror... now war on the Internet...
And here I always thought a "war" was "a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties."
Well, the Internet is sort of like a party, I guess.
I also always thought that it was Congress that had the power to declare war, and that it wasn't war until Congress said it was war.
But, OK, Bush had is way on the war thing, but just let him try issuing a letter of marque and reprisal and a betcha Congress will hit him upside the head with a check and a balance.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
It's pretty ridiculous anyway...Major government websites fail security audits every year, and they don't spend any time working on them, they don't come up with intelligent standards...I've got my quarterly corporate audit sitting on the desk right in front of me.
The right way to do it would be to harden your local security, rather than trying any kind of offense. A good offense is only the best defense if you have a freaking target. If you don't have a target, either you have to invent one *cough*Iraq*cough* or you flail about like an idiot and look foolish.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Decentralize the comm infrastructure. As widely as technically possible. Redesign it to fail gracefully. Deploy mesh networking as backup system. For cellular telephony, form a mesh network of both the base stations and the handsets themselves, so even if all the bases are destroyed the handsets still can maintain the network themselves, at least for text messaging. Same for wifi routers and other kinds of comm nodes. As a non-military benefit, this could serve as a fallback for cases of "normal" infrastructure overload.
Develop and deploy ultrawideband technology for consumer devices, making it difficult to impossible to jam the band using the military EWAR toys. This should also make the communication more robust against non-military noise sources.
Develop and deploy phase-array antennas for consumer devices, to automatically adjust the antenna patterns according to the position of the comm devices, both saving batteries and rejecting jamming signals from unwanted directions.
Design the civilian infrastructure to be hardened against both intentional attacks and natural disasters taking out swaths of infrastructure. Make it a matter of national security.
All the technologies required are already existing. Now they just have to be brought out of the labs and released on the street.
Last but not least, prepare lower-tech fallback to establish networks disseminating the people's version of truth to counter the occupant's version, as you can not rely on the infrastructure providers. Prepare a diverse range of tactics, from people physically meeting together and swapping printouts and tapes to low-power FM and TV stations made of repurposed consumer equipment (eg. an antenna connected to the modulated output of a VCR - covers only a block or so but better than nothing. Covers significantly more with an output amplifier.) So take out your old book about antennas and read it today. You do not know when your expertise will be needed.
Be ready. Be prepared. Be Pentagon-proof.
The article may have briefly talked about terrorism, but I suspect the real danger comes from state-sponsored cyber-attacks, like from China. Terrorism is just a convenient explanation to use to the public. You can't come out and say you're preparing for an attack by China now, can you?
BTW, for those who think that cyber-warfare is a science-fiction concept, I draw your attention to the following analysis of Operation Allied Force. In particular, the section regarding cyber-attacks on surface-to-air (SAM) missile systems to protect our fighters (F-22, F-35):
Information warfare WILL happen, my friends. In fact, it's happening now. No, you won't find that written up in the newspaper. Do a little bit of googling and see what you come up with. :)
GMD
watch this
During the Spanish-American War (1898), the American Navy cut the oceanic telegraph cables that connected Cuba to the rest of the Spanish Empire. See Cable-Cutting At Cienfuegos. During the first and second world wars, underseas cables were high-priority targets and were often cut.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
i'm also sick of war and warfare.
Some of the "facts" remain in contention. Iraq for example was a Soviet ally through the 1980's and its arsenal is largely Soviet weaponry. European countries such as France sold a lot of commercial projects that had technical side-benefits for military development.
Iran and Iraq faced off in a seven or eight-year long war. Iraq used WMD, nerve agents etc against the Iranian forces who had a numerical advantage. Iraq also used WMD against the Kurdish population in the north. The US lost its greatest opportunity to dampen this conflict when it failed to ground the Iraqi air force in time to prevent these weapons from being used. The no-fly zone was a belated attempt to rectify this.
You can call it a sad series of errors and cynical misplays on all sides. Any war examined neutrally will be such a series. But this cannot be laid solely at the feet of the US. Iraq had a Soviet-cultivated despot at its head, who needed no encouragement to perform horrors in his country and among neighbors. Whatever cynical use he was put to by the US (containment of Iran is alleged) he was backed powerfully by France, Germany and other commercial partners who were happy to take the money and look the other way.
At that time I worked in aviation, we had international airlines as customers for our life saving equipment... trade with Iraq in those days was very very difficult... I would venture to say with a good deal of confidence that not much money changed hands in the commercial sector between the US and Iraq, very little compared to the money and technical support flowing in from Europe. The tendency to blame the US is tends also to oversimplify and this does a permanent injustice to whatever the truth might be.
I haven't since 2001, and that is my legal defense.
--
Read "The Peace War" by Vernor Vinge for a future view of nearly-absolute power and how information mis-management can subvert it.