Lessig Predicts Cyber 9/11 Event, Restrictive Laws

A number of readers are sending in links to a video from the Fortune Brainstorm Tech conference last month, in which Lawrence Lessig recounts a conversation over dinner with Richard Clarke, the former government counter-terrorism czar. Remembering that the Patriot Act was dropped on Congress just 20 days after 9/11 — the Department of Justice had had it sitting in a drawer for years — Lessig asked Clarke if DoJ had a similar proposed law, an "i-Patriot Act," to drop in the event of a "cyber-9/11." Clarke responded, "Of course they do. And Vint Cerf won't like it." Lessig's anecdote begins at about 4:30 in the video.

Comments

Just wait ...

[morgan_greywolf]

They do that, all bets are off. They'll be encrypted VPNs, private nets and all sorts of things that they'll NEVER be able to control. The tighter your grip becomes, the more Nets will slip through your fingers!

Re:Just wait ...

[mvh]

Which will hopefully, in turn, force us to create a better network. And perhaps we can start again and this time try to avoid Eternal September.

Re:Just wait ...

[Darkness404]

Or perhaps a quote I remembered from somewhere

in a free government, that which is common is legal

On that basis (and many others) the US, UK, Canada and all other "free" nations seem to be heading down the road to tyranny.

Re:Just wait ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind, our Democratic Congress apparently doesn't mind rubber-stamping this shit. Even your precious Barack Obama voted for telecom immunity.

Re:Just wait ...

[Dripdry]

I'm not sure it will happen, but can someone mod parent up at least a half point? I'm not sure Obama is much better than our other choices either, and i donated to his campaign!

Now I understand that "we need to win this one" in a sense. However, I received a call from an Obama fund raiser the other day. I listened calmly to what she had to say and answered her questions (loaded for 'yes' of course). I then proceeded to explain to her that Obama voted for the FISA bill which gives the Telcos retroactive immunity after those companies explicitly broke the law and ignored the 4th Amendment. I told her that Obama has either switched directions on his policies or extended them in a nonsensical way and with what seems like little interest for Americans. I told her that I could not in good conscience vote for Obama, and that I hoped she would research who she supports. She seemed a little crestfallen and stuttered, "Well, oh... I'm really sorry to hear that..." and I said goodbye.

When the ideas Obama starts talking about seem to make very little economic sense (he's against Nuclear power, for instance, or that he wants to release oil from the strategic reserve, or that he wants to have another economic stimulus program) then there's something wrong. It quickly starts to sound like a Democratic Dubya, with a blue hand up his ass instead of a red one. Alarm klaxons scream inside my head and it becomes very tough for me to believe the man.

I just don't know what to do. Who am I supposed to vote for? Voting for an independent does little good. Most of them have even less sense than the current candidates. It may sound ludicrous, but sometimes I get the sinking feeling that the game is already over and it could require a lot of blood and sacrifice to win back the freedoms we've already lost.

Just my two cents, though.

Re:Just wait ...

[Al Dimond]

It isn't just people in their private lives; it's also corporations. You know, the ones that own the government? They like the freedom of the Internet and the ability to communicate securely and freely, because it helps them make money. They've already moved their taxable income to other countries. They can take their servers elsewhere easily if they want. It probably wouldn't take them too long to move the jobs, too, if they had to.

It's not just like they could let big business have exceptions or poke through with VPNs. Countless small businesses fuel the high-tech economy, too, and start up from practically nothing. Think they don't have any clout? What about the investors and banks that profit off of their growth? Some of them are pretty big, and would certainly have mouthpieces in Congress.

Re:Just wait ...

[TheLink]

Why are so many people so keen on a revolution?

In most revolutions the person or group willing and able to exert the most violence will rise to the top. Thus violent revolutions tend to lead to Dictatorships.

Only an extremely few dictators will promptly relinquish their power to the people.

This is why so many communist countries are actually dictatorships - because Marx put violence in the Communism "implementation plan".

While you have some semblance of democracy you should fix things by voting.

Most of the US people still have the vote (diebold notwithstanding, and for some strange reason many convicted felons don't get to vote).

Given Bush was _reelected_ it is clear to me that the voters do not really object to the policies of the ruling government. Do significant numbers actually vote for some 3rd party in desperation? No.
If people are dissatisfied with both parties they should "throw away" their vote on some other party, rather than keep throwing it at Twiddledum and Twiddledumber. If those votes start to add up, T & T may notice, and so those votes aren't really "thrown away".

Anyone trying to spark a revolution in a somewhat democratic country "for a good cause" is doing the wrong thing.

Re:Just wait ...

[Martin Blank]

I can indeed ignore the Bill of Rights and remain a nation of laws, because it's not law. The Bill of Rights is a set of handy suggestions, but as law it fails miserably- and as I've said, every single Supreme Court justice since, well, practically forever, agrees.

The Constitution disagrees with you. From Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

The Bill of Rights are a part of the Constitution, and hence they are law. They are neither statutory nor regulatory law, and hence do not spell out all the details of what is and is not allowed, but they were never intended to perform that function. Their purpose is to provide a framework within which statutory and regulatory law may be constructed.

Re:Just wait ...

[HungryHobo]

Fear. Wait for the government to start locking people up/bringing people in for questioning just based on their Internet browsing habits, then make sure everyone knows about it.

if you get to this point it's too late, they can just send anyone found to be using the new network to the gas chambers.

And that would basically mean the death of I.T.

[unity100]

in u.s.

remember what happened to u.s. tourism after that patriot act shit was dropped in the congress ? u.s. tourism sector NEVER recovered from it.

excuse me but the rest of the world cant take that kind of shit from u.s. again. if that happens, we all will just create another internet, complete with its root dnses (possibly in brussels), and get done with it. and then u.s. broadband, backbone providers can shove the fibers they laid in those senators asses. because they will be good for only doing that afterwards.

Think so?

[Panaqqa]

And what happens if ISPs are ordered to block all encrypted packets for which the DHS doesn't hold the keys in escrow? And phone companies are ordered to block all unauthorized modem carriers? Difficult to get around restrictive "cyber laws" when the government can exercise control over the infrastructure.

Re:Would this be enough to make us move?

[Bieeanda]

Insert that old 'First they came for the...' thing here. People are creatures of habit and comfort. Unless someone comes into their house, brandishing a rifle or a club, most aren't going to react on that kind of a scale. They'll talk about it, but the logistics of moving out of your home country are extremely difficult to work through unless you're already mobile or have been planning such a thing for years.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Fear makes people more likely accept restrictions on their freedoms, news at 11.

I'm a brit, born in the seventies. The IRA was part of my life.

Way, Way, Way back before 911 us brits lived with terrorism on a daily basis. Terrorism that was funded via NORAID.

My grandfather nerely died in the early 60s from an IRA bomb in the centre of London during a national exhibition.

In central London, for as long as I have known we have never had refuse bins on our underground system, the reason being 'because if we did, the IRA would put bombs in them'

wtf is going on here?

I can't believe how low we have fallen. Why is the current threat any different from the old threat from the IRA that we faced. (that our friends in the USA funded)

Fsckwits

Re:Anonymous Coward

[Bob9113]

I can't believe how low we have fallen. Why is the current threat any different from the old threat from the IRA that we faced.

Simple: Marketing. Your fascist pricks in the 70s didn't go to the same cut-throat business schools as our fascist pricks in the 00's. Our modern fascists are vastly more educated in the art of enhancing and capitalizing on irrational fear.

Re:Anonymous Coward

[Kjella]

It's really simple - very few people appriciate something they've always had and never had to fight for. I've never had my civil rights violated, I've never feared the government would come and arrest me if they didn't like me. If someone started to blow up people like me, getting the choice between liberty and security (even if that was an either-or) would be a lousy option. I'd like to turn back time to when I was neither restrained or in danger so I can have my cake and eat it too.

The fall to totalitarianism is a slow one, despite a few things pointed out here and there I don't think we're quite in DDR with STASI and Gestapo just yet. Do you really understand what it means to be without your civil liberties if you haven't experienced it? The founding fathers knew what it meant. Those who fought in the american civil war too, but they are long dead and buried. Yes, I know soldiers went and died in WWII and Korea and Vietnam and Iraq and whereever, but the US people hasn't lived with occupation, war or oppression for close to 150 years now.

I don't claim to be a stellar example, I have some second-hand understanding from talking to people that lived through WWII and the nazi occupation. But I think I at least got a glimpse of what it means not to have the rights I take so for granted. Almost the entire bill of rights is about protecting the people from the government. I really do not think people understand what they do when they insist the government protect them from terrorists, which obviously hide among the people. It seems all good sense of why the government was chained in the first place has been thrown overboard.

Re:Anonymous Coward

[Opportunist]

The terror back then was aimed at you, a person. The terror of today is aimed at high finance and business.

The IRA (together with ETA and Hammas and all the other "old school terrorists") weren't interested in hitting some high profile targets. They just blew up their bombs in trash bins, in (school) busses, in pubs, all places a high profile target (i.e. some rich person) can easily avoid, since the target was the common man. The idea behind terror, you should fear it.

Today's terror has higher aims. There's a reason those planes hit the towers and not some apartment complex. The target was commerce. When a schoolbus explodes, nobody that counts cares. It hits you, your kids, but never him. His kids go to a private school and he has someone drive them there. When his buildings collapse and with them his business, it does hurt him, even if he himself doesn't get hurt, but even that's no longer out of the question since he is the target.

See the difference, and why one is important and the other one isn't?

Re:And that would mean the death of I.T. Outsourci

[idontgno]

There would be more I.T. security (contract) jobs; someone has to implement the new restrictions.

And in fascist police states, selling jackboots to jackboot-less thugs is a growth sector. The jingle in the pocket doesn't make the boot stamping on a face forever any more palatable.

And, oddly enough, we'd probably still outsource bootmaking. Cuz, you know, face-stomping has to be cost-effective to maximize shareholder value.

Lots of docs, lots of speculation

[EmbeddedJanitor]

The "think tanks" generate many documents and plans, many of which never see daylight. This is part of the normal "what if" analysis or things that might happen and how to deal with them. It is no more suprising that they have a plan ready to drop in place after 9/11 than if they had a plan to drop in to place to quell riots or handle a gas shortage or any other scenario. Apart from disaster management, these plans also have political agendas.

One major political function of these plans is to have PR: look like you can command decisively and keep the population confident in your abilities. Another is to be able to turn these disasters into an opportunity to pass legislation/budget that the people would normally choke on. GWB played both these cards really well.

vote for Barack Obama, goddamn it

[falconwolf]

At least then we stand a fighting chance of not losing the rest of what once made this country great.

No, I'm voting for Bob Barr. Between McCain and Obama I'd vote for Obama, add Hillary to the ticket though and I'd vote for McCain if his running mate isn't too bad. If there wasn't another person running, but there is. McCain scares me but not as much as Hillary does.

We've got a lot of knuckleheads who still need it spelled out for them, thanks to our corporate media and Republican party that likes to manipulate the weakest minds with ugly racism and sexism.

On the other hand there's the Democratic Party, and the mass media that supports it, that wants to turn the country into a nanny state.

For those of us that DO live in the US, remember, nothing short of a landslide victory for Obama is going to keep the tin-pot dictators of the GOP out of the White House this time.

Yea, who needs the tin-pot, or socialist dictators, when you can have liberty instead by voting for the Libertarian candidate?

Falcon

Re:vote for Barack Obama, goddamn it

[philspear]

Seems like people on /. always complain about the two real political parties being the exact same, but never care about it enough to make anyone else care about it.

Voting for someone who shares your opinion on an issue not many people have an opinion on is a step in the right direction, but it's a small one. The real way to get it done is to get a canidate who has a fighting chance to endorse that position.

With stuff like this, writing letters to the editor to raise public awareness are more effective than voting for a canidate who may or may not reach the double digits in the election. There are basically three groups who are interested in restricting the internet: idiot moral nannies, people who work in national security and want you to not think outside the box, and telecoms. All of them are doing more than voting to push their political agendas. What are you doing to counter that? If you're doing nothing besides voting and complaining, you're taking the choices someone else gave you, and shouldn't be suprised when

Re:Cyber 9/11?

[CharlieG]

Around here Item #1 requires the guy who is already there 7x24 to double check - yawn
90% of traffic lights are not internet linked - they are dumb mechanical timers - kinda hard to cyber that
P25 - go to talk around mode
Overload the transformers - way easier said than done, but when that usually happens, a breaker pops, you lose a substation - OK, they find the short, away we go

You have selective memory when it comes to a-holes

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember the War on Drugs (marijuana) was kicked into high gear when Clinton got a general to be his drug czar. Arrest the DOUBLED to the 750,000 a year level they are at now.
I remember then a-hole supreme Clinton haveing the gall to tell Rolling Stone when he left that we should legalize marijuana.

I remember the DMCA, COPA and the democrats giving radio to their buddies at Clearchannel.

I remember that teh democrats last time around bombed more countries than the US. The WMD lies were just as big in kosovo if not bigger since the democrats supported and trained the LARGEST and BEST ARMED terror group in the world according to you own CIA, the albanians drug lords who control the majority of the heroin trade in europe.
I remember seeing wanted criminals from INTERPOL sitting have coffee with our secretary of state. Same wanted terrorists ended up going to the democratic convention in 2004 to pay hommage to their benefactors.
I remember that Bin Laden and thousands of his muhajeddins were working on our side in Bosnia (where we vetoed the first four international peace plans that the two other groups had agreed to) and finding it amusing that no one remembered taht a few yaers later.

I remember working in europe about 10 years ago and seeing 450,000 people in the streets of Athens protesting Clintons visit. I remember a protest march in Rome that had 120,000 protesting the illegal war/bombings in the Balkans, with the news showing the same amount all over europe and the world but no reference of these in our free press.

I remember the two Clintonista women going on their tour of Saudi Arabia clutching their korans
while the Saudis were lavishing their Bosnian muslims brothers with millions for their spread of islam in europe and financing the construction of hundreds of mosques.

I remember that following that prelude to the big lie in Iraq, 3 consecutive Al Quaeda leaders in Saudi Arabia were Bosnian Holy War vets. The last one coming with his bosnian muslim wife and passport.
I remember taht the only arrest for the Madrid bombing was a morroccan traveling from Bosnia or the dozens muslims arrested after 9/11.

I remember that Wesley Clark, a career weasel who got his position through massive forced retirements telling the world that bombing a smal country the size of New Hamphsire was to terrorize the civilians population and to make their lives miserable and a living hell. I remember thinking how fitting that this definition of war criminal was a democratic contender.

I also remember British General Michael Rose biography where he claims to have refused a direct order by Clarke to attack russian troops in Kosovo and that NATO supported him by not suporting any calls for punishment.

I remember secretary of Hate Madeleine Allbright and her belief that the death of hundreds of thousands of iraqui children would have been worth it had they had been able to capture Saddam.

You of course, chose to forget all these things because it is more convenient.

Are the republicans a**holes? Yes. But the democrats are no better. They just work the PR machine a lot better. And a black candidate is great PR. Will he be different he's black?
That's as stupid as that retarded thinking from a few decades ago that women in power would somehow be more compassionate.
Uncle Tom knows where the wind blows and who pays the bills.

Re:Given Bush was _reelected

[dangitman]

Take Libertarians, most people thing Libertarians will allow corporations to run a muck and do whatever they want.

That's because that is exactly what would happen. Libertarian philosophy's end result is corporate domination of the individual. They can claim they believe otherwise, but "pure" Libertarian principles applied to today's society means corporate fascism.

BTW, the term is "run amok," not "run a muck."