Cybersecurity and Piracy on the High Seas

Schneier points out an interesting article comparing modern cybersecurity to piracy on the high seas in the early 1800s. The article extends the comparison into projected action based on historical context. "Similarly, in many ways, current U.S. policy on the security of electronic commerce is similar to Adams' appeasement approach to the Barbary pirates. The U.S. government's inability to dictate a consistent cyber commerce protection policy is creating a financial burden on the U.S. private sector to maintain a status quo, when those resources could be used to mount a more-effective Internet-focused defense. In the case of financial fraud on the Internet, the costs associated with fraudulent transactions are currently borne by private companies, which then have to pass those costs on to their customers. This basically creates a system in which the financial institutions are paying a type of 'tribute' to the cyber criminals, just as Adams did to the Barbary pirates."

Comments

Oddly enough...

[Moryath]

the "Barbary Pirates" were actually privateers and muslim terrorists.

The response the US got back from the Barbary ambassador was that their taking captive sailors and forcing them to either convert or be killed was "founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise." (quote the direct words of Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja , the Dey of Algiers to Britain).

Muslim terrorism isn't a new thing, it's been going on since Mohammed killed Safiya Bint Huyyay's entire tribe, cut her father's head off in front of her, raped her, then declared it a "marriage" the next day when his troops started grumbling that he always got the hottest chicks for his personal slaves.

Re:Oddly enough...

[CRCulver]

While the religious basis of the Barbary pirates' acts is contentious (as is Washington's supposed insistence that the U.S. is a specifically Christian nation), I'd highly recommend reading up about the Barbary Wars in London's Victory in Tripoli . Most Americans don't learn much about these skirmishes in school, since the usual course is just to skip from the American Revolution straight to the War of 1812 when covering wars. That's a pity, because the fight against the Barbary pirates was a big part of shaping the U.S. military into what it is today. It's not for nothing that the Marine's song references the shores of Tripoli (the Halls of Montezuma line is also a sadly forgotten episode).

Re:Pah

[TripMaster Monkey]

***WARNING***

Link in parent is malicious. Do not click.

(Honestly, dude...it's getting old...)

As History Shows

[Stormcrow309]

Hell, lets resolve this like they did back then. Give me an unit of marines, a naval squadron, and three times as many mercenaries. I will just shoot the hackers. Sing the song be damed, we'll just shoot them in the head.

Re:What do you know?

[morgan_greywolf]

No, the U.S. government gave a line of credit to J.P. Morgan Chase and essentially ordered them to bail them out -- IOW, paying off Bear Stearns' creditors.

Re:Muslim != terrorist

[kurisuto]

However you define the word "terrorism", I think you should be consistent in applying it to anyone guilty of whatever act you're referring to, and not just to Muslims who are guilty of that act.

If by "terrorist" you mean someone who forces you to convert to his religion under threat of death or enslavement, then there are plenty of historical examples of "Christian terrorists" as in history well. Forcible conversion is hardly a uniquely Muslim phenomenon.

Re:Dude, WTF are YOU talking about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the DEA itself has supplied statistics that confirm this. Here is one recent citation News article.

Purity is really the wrong term. What has gone up is strength, because a stronger product packs more value into a smuggled pound. I don't know what happened to prices during prohibition, but Prohibition definitively changed the nature from a land of beer drinkers into a cocktail party nation.

Re:What do you know?

[DarkOx]

Yeah. Look at what a great job private companies (Bear Stearns, Countrywide, Citigroup) did making loans. They were so effective at making loans, the government had to bail them out. That is the real tragedy of it all the government did not have to bail them out. They chose to at the expense of everyone as well as the future to help at a few people who should have know better. Bear Stearns should have been allowed to fail. The investors should have lost it all. That the game called investing. You can win and sometimes you can lose. Bear Stearns was posting huge profits by investing in risky loans themsevels. This was foolish, lost of people knew it. Lots of people did not get suckered in to loads with crazy and unknown payment scheduals, lots of people chose not to invest in Bear Stearns, no matter how good it looked.

In the end if the Governement had not chosen to ROB ( yes rob take MY money with the THREAT of FORCE ) me by using my tax dollars in a giveaway to bail out some bankers they would be gone. Ultimately Bear Sterns practices proved to be unvaible and inefficent the market had it been leaft alone would have eliminated that inefficency, leaving only more effient ( in this case more conservative ) banks behind and the same for hedge fund mangers and the idiot investors.

What the government did is break the free market! As the FED buying up these risky ( already expected to fail as far as the markets concerned ) securities from other banks and lendors like Countrywide well that is a travasty too. That does not benifet anyone living on main street its only good for big investment bankers. Conuntrywide had a liquidy problem and they could have solved it without a bailout.

Don't you think they can produce a list of customers who always pay on time and in greater amount then the schedule demands. Those are probably the same people who have other assets. If they needed capital so bad they might have approached those people who are using debt responsibly and made an offer. They could have said hey give use 20 or 30K tomorow and we will write down 60K off your loan. They get the cash they need today you get the time value of your money back. Maybe those responsible individuals would have even been rewarded with basicaly wipeing out all the intrest costs on their loans. That would have been great for middle class Americans.

It would have transfered wealth from the wealthy to the middle without any government force. It would have been the market at work. So if you are thinking gee maybe the goverment should help me out prices are going up and I am getting squeezed left an right, consider maybe what you should ask for is the goverment to just stop ripping you off, to pad the wallets of the already wealthy.

I am a middle class American. I work hard and I am responsible with money I carry only secure debt( debt owed on assests salable for that amount or more) my house. This credit crisis should have been a boon for me; but Uncle Sam stole from the poor and gave to the rich. That is what always happens when the government regulates. Even if your are big liberal you know Hillary and Obama are members of the top 1% or so and they are never going to do something thats good for you or the poorer classes. They are as selfish as everyone else, maybe more so and I have little help McCain will be any better. Congress is the real problem anyway. The president only matters in that a good one might stop some of Congresses downright criminal behaviors.