Slashdot Mirror
Bruce Schneier: A Cyber Cold War Could Destabilize the Internet
moon_unit2 writes "In an op-ed piece over at Technology Review, Bruce Schneier says that the cyber espionage between the U.S., China, and other nations, has been rampant for the past decade. But he also worries that the media frenzy over recent attacks is fostering a new kind of Internet-nationalism and spurring a cyber arms race that has plenty of negative side-effects for the Internet and its users. From the piece: 'We don't know the capabilities of the other side, and we fear that they are more capable than we are. So we spend more, just in case. The other side, of course, does the same. That spending will result in more cyber weapons for attack and more cyber-surveillance for defense. It will result in move government control over the protocols of the Internet, and less free-market innovation over the same. At its worst, we might be about to enter an information-age Cold War: one with more than two "superpowers." Aside from this being a bad future for the Internet, this is inherently destabilizing.'"
"Cyber war," "cyber attack," "cyber weapons," cyber fuck yourself. Cyber seriously.
The stories and info posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only fools would take it as fact.
Hypothetically.
I must respectfully disagree with Schnier on this one.
A cyber Cold War doesn't come about without another Cold War having occurred first.
In this case, Cold War II is playing out between NATO, the Russians the Chinese.
Just like Cold War I, this one is rooted in a practical geopolitical concern: who will be the ruling superpower for the next century?
Expect a Cold War II, if you're lucky. If not, expect WWIII, which will probably be more limited than the last two but still devastating.
Futurist Traditionalism
Is the only true freedom we "had" left.
I could just be ill informed, but why do pundits, media, and government officials keep trying to push the idea that you need giant military organizations to lauch an attack (ala nuclear weapon building).
Is it not completely possible that one intelligent man, $300 laptop, and an internet connection be just as "deadly" as any country's electronic warfare unit?
And why this old relic of an idea of a cold war. I am sure that there are many individual actors that are in active attack mode.
Both the US and Chinese governments would love to have control over the internet. They would both love to know what each and every one of their users is up to. Perhaps they are colluding to make this easier for each nation's citizens to swallow.
Null-route China (and all our other enemies for that matter) at a national level. Pull the plug on them.
We'll see how fucking smart they think they are then.
Too bad I just used up all my mod points. Spot on.
And at the Big Data / Crowd Source era, the history seen at each side could be easily rewritten... aliances could be made/unmade... 1984 could have just been delayed...
So keep the non-public facing government infrastructure off the damn internet and you won't have this problem...
I liked this one ! Innovation on the Internet never really came from "the free market" and stating otherwise is pure ideology. It came from the ARPA, universities, the CERN, RFCs, etc... Profit minded companies mainly used the Internet and would really love to rule it, but did they bring innovation ? Seriously ?
This 'cyber-war' is just an extension of the trade war that is really going on now, which itself is the logical extension of the currency war that has been in process for decades actually.
Unfortunately for all, eventually currency wars and trade wars lead to hot wars, and nobody knows what the trigger may be. It may be some half important dude getting slaughtered in a hotel or it may be another round of 'cyber war' (and it doesn't even have to be a real one, all that matters is that news leak out that some important military installation has suffered in a serious cyber attack that 'stole' some heavy military secrets, wouldn't be the first time).
You can't handle the truth.
I like how Bruce points out that most governments are more interested in espionage than 'cyberwar'. Spying on their own citizens seems to be a popular hobby of governments. Hopefully more people will become familiar with encryption and proxies.
"But remember: none of this is cyberwar. It’s all espionage, something that’s been going on between countries ever since countries were invented. What moves public opinion is less the facts and more the rhetoric, and the rhetoric of war is what we’re hearing.
The result of all this saber-rattling is a severe loss of trust, not just amongst nation-states but between people and nation-states."
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
(You can't stop the signal. Everything goes somewhere, and the Internet goes everywhere. )
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
While the USA sounds so high and mighty in its admonishment of china, it makes it easy to forget the anti-centrifuge software trojans that were deployed by the USA against Iran's nuclear refining capabilities. The US has already deployed "internet" and "computer-based" war tactics against other countries while it goes on to claim others are doing so as if our hands are so clean. That is a sad way to attempt to lead the world.
How is it that we could LART assholes back in the 90s dial-up days; but we can't do that now?
What kind of an idiot is so dependant on somebody who misbehaves on the network, that they must continue to allow such persons access? Are they the same people who don't airgap the SCADA stuff?
It would be a lot worse if there were an American Civil War, or a World War.
As with any war, the bad officers die. In this case, those companies that don't take security serious will die.
Yes, in the short term a cyber cold war would cause damage, but in the long term, we would come away MUCH stronger.
No pain, no gain. A cold cyber war would be painful, but we would come away much better off.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
*... Could Destabilize the Internet*
This starts off on a flawed assumption, that the internet is stable.
REALLY?!?!?! ... REALLY!!!??!?!?!
Que Deus te de em dobro o que me desejas
[May God give you double that which you wish for me]
Capt Obvious points out the obvious.
Seriously, this rates as 'news'?
Governments find a new arena of competition/avenueof conflict.
Governments duking it out in this arena will prove unpleasant for non-governments also in that arena.
This should be brutally obvious to inhabitants of Belgium, if not everyone else with the slightest grasp of history.
-Styopa
Could someone with knowledge and experience in the area of mesh networks tell us how feasible it would be for people to setup their own mesh networks that span cities, states, even whole countries? Obviously performance would be much lower than what we enjoy via the Internet right now, but I'm wondering if the people of the world could, without the assistance of government, setup their own large scale mesh networks. Then it wouldn't matter quite so much when the governments of individual countries do things like block Internet access for defense reasons.
A non-corporate solution would be nice, so that individuals without huge amounts of capital could bootstrap the whole thing in an entirely grassroots manner.
It'd make all the natives of Tibet VERY happy.
They'd be positively glowing.
If it's somehow different from good old-fashioned espionage, what is it?
Because the last thing I would call the Cold War was 'destabilizing'. The Cold War established a fixed series of relationships between countries, blocs, an entire world order that was stable for decades. It provided a context in which to understand all conflict, diplomatic activity, even academic and cultural activities. Its hard to imagine anything more stabilizing.
The difference is, we don't (know that we) have something that looks like mutually assured destruction, in the 'cyber cold war' (yet).
The US is making things up and doing it themselves to scare people into letting them lock down the internet.
YES, EXPECT IT. -The illuminati, royal bloodlines, and corporate mega wealthy types NEED us to be perpetually at war with other so they can CONTROL US
The United States, Russia, and China are all actually REALLY good friends when the COMPLETELY FAKE THEATER ON TV is not being played out.
The original cold war was all a psyop - we were friends with the russians the whole time during the cold war and especially friendly with the nazis - it was hitler who went against the jewish banking cabal. But we sure as fuck loved their scientists and formed NASA with them (yes NASA and their descendants are all NAZIS)
So in short, if the illuminati, royal bloodlines, and corporate mega wealthy types see anything that threatens their reign/kingship (the internet) they will slowly try to kill it (or just kill it outright).
Remember the idea is keeping us under complete control, giving us the illusion we are "free", while begging for our own slavery.
Why are computers that store/control extremely sensitive government information and processes (plans for weapons, locations of operatives, power grid controls, etc.) accessable via the internet? It would seem that the government should have its own pipes that are used for these purposes. They could then turn all of the security they want on those pipes - leaving the broader internet alone. Sure, the pipes could still be infiltrated, but there would have to be some sort of physical breach. In addition, there would be far fewer nodes to monitor.
I understand the need to protect the data of things like systemically important financial institutions, but I think that's an entirely different type of security.
"The fact is that governments and militaries have discovered the Internet; everyone is spying on everyone else"
...
Only if you Microsoft Windows and connect to the Internet
AccountKiller
In the case of cyber "attacks" the intent may be to gather information from information systems, but the effect can be destructive and bring down networks, destabilize IT infrastructure, and cause the loss of data and communications capabilities. That is what makes it more dangerous than plain old fashioned espionage. As we become more and more reliant on integrated IT infrastructure for operations, a state linked or state sponsored cyber attack that causes outages in IT infrastructure, especially in crucial areas, is going to be seen as sabotage not espionage. Especially if the timing is linked either purposefully or coincidentally to other geopolitical events, tensions or military activities. Espionage is usually a longer game that balances out, while sabotage is something you tend to retaliate against within a shorter time frame.
This espionage/sabotage line crossing is what is particularly dangerous. Escalations and retaliations could start with actions which had the intent of espionage, but will then be perceived as sabotage. Retaliations, especially involving attacks on critical communications infrastructure, could then get out of hand and further sour relations and cause real harm.
On the bright side, a cyber war doesn't sound quite as bad as a global thermonuclear holocaust. Treat it like a grand computer game and keep the post office around just in case.
Schneier points out three things that make sense.
He then went on to suggest that medi-hype and jingoistic nationalistic rhetoric breed fear, obfuscate ignorance and fuel arms races.
You should be more concerned about what your are being asked to ignore. The systematic dismantling of progressive politics in this country is diminishing social stability by creating a permanent underclass in a country that claims to be the world's most powerful and encouraging a hubris among those who believe they can have everything they ever wanted by leaving our future to the benign management of a formal corporate cleptocracy.
BTW if you really want to give up a little freedom for enhanced security from government or the benevolence of wealthy people who will run things for you, perhaps you should consider hopping over to the other side of the Pacific Ocean.
We must not allow a mineshaft gap!
- Gen. "Buck" Turgidson
"I'm right, you're wrong". "What's mine is mine, what's yours is mine". These are the most basic tenets of power and control. Anyone who wants to 'have the most toys' will spout these memes in self-justification. The next step is community-based or religion-based justification for the 'war on terror', the 'war on drugs' and 'think of the children'. Remember that 'patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel'. Meaning, because we cannot partition or quantify our loyalty, creating an equivalency to patriotism stifles rational thought and discussion.
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/512386/danger-lurks-in-growing-new-internet-nationalism/?hubRefSrc=permalink#lf_comment=63033832
----
As I suggest in this essay: "Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism"
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
"Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead? ... Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing. ... There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. ... We the people need to redefine security in a sustainable and resilient way. Much current US military doctrine is based around unilateral security ("I'm safe because you are nervous") and extrinsic security ("I'm safe despite long supply lines because I have a bunch of soldiers to defend them"), which both lead to expensive arms races. We need as a society to move to other paradigms like Morton Deutsch's mutual security ("We're all looking out for each other's safety") and Amory Lovin's intrinsic security ("Our redundant decentralized local systems can take a lot of pounding whether from storm, earthquake, or bombs and would still would keep working"). "
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Leading people to begin to consider security seriously? You know, protocols, encryption, up to date software, actually not plugging every last device and every single fact into what amounts to a publicly accessible network? Nahhh, never happen.
"Cyber War? Hell."
-\/\/illi6m T3cums3h S43rm6n
General, United Interwebs Task Force corps. 1337, est. 2014
At any point in time, where there are at least 2 competing powers (different ideologies, competing for economic superiority etc), there will inevitably be tensions, and they will 'fight it out', in a sense. In the past we have had the competition between European countries in the age of colonization, the two world wars, the cold war; and now competing for domination on the internet. Same fight, different medium. It remains to be seen who will gain temporary victory this time round, but the earth will continue spinning.
Conjuring up a threat, a fear of an enemy, is a standard methodology in preparing a public to give up freedoms. ...", "the terrorist threat ...", "the domino theory ...", and so many more. Each one used to justify government mandated restrictions on freedoms eg. personal searches at airports. Point out in each case how 'we have come out stronger'; billions of dollars later the 'threats' remain, as do the the losses of freedoms. Ask yourself, who came out ahead in the end?
"War on drugs
In each case, consider the truth of the purported threat. In this case, 'destabilize the internet'? The internet was designed to resist destabilization, no?
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
There is no news that information is the enemy of any dictator on the earth. Information is the enemy of fear. And fear is power.
Big brother has no other ideology. And violence is the mother of ignorance and fear.
Shall we some day finally learn the lesson for good?
Being well informed, we could let them fight until exhaustion, without narrowing our future.
Should we return to that hell? Should we keep on loosing?
Rwe obliged 2 save our future by choosing:O3 hole-greenhouse effect instead of accepting everydays gossip-nonsense chat?
Sun Microsystems was shipping BIND in their SunOS 3.2, or maybe 3.5, if I recall correctly.
That would have been around 1987, when Vixie was only 24 years old.
Vixie worked at DEC then and he was assigned to work on the existing DNS code - but you should thank DEC, not Vixie.
Vixie's made a name for himself, from promoting DNS ... but I hope you don't believe that Vixie was responsible for the conceptualization of the Domain Name system -or- its implementation. I have ring-bound Berkeley BSD manuals from the mid-1980s that contain a clear description of the Domain Name System, and the author is -not- Paul Vixie.
While we're on the topic ... Vixie did the same thing with the crontab daemon.
There was a BSD version of the crontab, available only for the operating systems administrator ... and there was an AT&T version, that permitted each user to create crontab entries. Paul wrote an open source version that incorporated both philosophies (that had been painfully worked by others, in the past), and, in a shameless act of self-promotion, named it after himself.
I'm still waiting for Vixie to actually invent something without some hand-holding from people older and brighter than he is.