Technology, Society & Other Stuff

Briefly Noted

noreply@blogger.com (Norman Creaney) — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 07:10:36 PDT

Pentagon Weapons Specs. Hacked

"The Pentagon may have to redesign some of its weapons system after a foreign intelligence service hacked into systems at a corporate contractor and obtained 24,000 key files in March." More >>

GCHQ Struggling to Compete with Private Sector Salaries

British spy agency, GCHQ, is struggling to retain cyber-security specialists because it is unable to compete with the salaries offered by Google and Microsoft. More >>

Queen Pays Tribute to Bletchley's Codebreakers

The Queen unveiled a memorial to the men and women codebreakers of Bletchley Park, the site of British secret code-breaking activities during the second world war and the birthplace of the modern computer. More >>

Cyberwar: Threats & Challenges

noreply@blogger.com (Norman Creaney) — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:23:20 PDT

A number of high profile cyber attacks directed towards military targets have been reported recently - e.g. Lockheed Martin, the U.S. biggest military contractor, reported a "significant and tenacious" cyber attack. However, it seems that these may be just the tip of a much bigger iceberg. U.K. Secretary of State for Defence, Liam Fox claims that "Between 2009 and 2010, security incidents more than doubled [...] last year [the Ministry of Defence] blocked and investigated over 1,000 potentially serious attacks".

Judging by recent press coverage, national governments are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with this threat.

On 31 May the Washington Post reported on a Pentagon policy document setting out the U.S. thinking in relation to cyber warfare. The document is said to conclude that "the Laws of Armed Conflict [...] apply in cyberspace as in traditional warfare", and declares the importance of synchronising U.S. cyber-war doctrine with that of its allies.
On 31 May the Guardian quoted the U.K. armed forced minister, Nick Harvey, as saying that "The consequences of a well planned, well executed attack against our digital infrastructure could be catastrophic [...]". Mr. Harvey also said that cyberspace "will form part of the future battlefield" and described cyber weapons as "an integral part of the country's armoury".
On 3 June the Sydney Morning Herald reported on an Australian national cyber strategy to "confront the growing threat posed by electronic espionage, theft and state-sponsored cyber attack". Robert McClelland, the Attorney-General, is reported as saying that cyber space ''underpins our broader national interests and indeed our national security''.

This points to an equivalence being being drawn between cyber attack and conventional military action - an acceptance that the latter may be a justifiable response to the former. In the words of a U.S. military source quoted in the Washington Post - "If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks".

It is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which a cyber attack presents a significant risk to human life - e.g. interference with air traffic control systems - so the need for a deterrent is real. On the other hand, it is clear that identifying the source of a cyber attack is fraught with difficulties - e.g. the geographical location from which an attack is launched need not correspond to the state responsible.

Even if we assume that reliable evidence identifying the source of a cyber attack can be found, issues of democratic accountability arise. Such evidence is likely to be intangible - intelligence reports and computer data rather than satellite images and captured equipment. This kind of material - even if convincing to the military analyst - is not particularly amenable to political scrutiny. Recent history provides a clear warning - in the form of the so-called dodgy dossier case - of how difficult it can be for a political institution (in this case the U.K. Parliament) to evaluate complex intelligence material, and how easily the process can be subverted.

The threat of cyber espionage is real and national defence agencies must respond - but the challenges are political as well technological.

Arab Spring - Reflections on Social Media & Democracy

noreply@blogger.com (Norman Creaney) — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 04:06:46 PDT

Much has been made about the role of social media in recent popular uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East. The events leading to the removal of the incumbent regimes in Tunisia and Egypt have been described as "Twitter Revolutions" and "Revolution 2.0", reflecting the widespread use of social media both to organise activities and to disseminate news. Peter Beaumont of the Guardian examines some of the specifics in, The truth about Twitter, Facebook and the uprisings in the Arab world.

The Guardian also has interactive tools that allow the user to browse basic factual information.

All of this this feeds into a wider debate about the relationship between social media and democracy - raising questions such as:

Does the widespread use of social media make the spread of democracy inevitable?
Can social media be used as a tool by oppressive regimes, to thwart the urge to democracy?

The following videos, which present somewhat opposing viewpoints, address many of the key issues in this debate.

***

In this video Clay Shirky - author of, Here Comes Everybody: the power of organising without organisations - summarises his main thesis in the phrase "Group action just got a lot easier".

In this video Evgeny Morozov - author of, The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom - argues for some realism about the actual uses and abuses of the internet.

***

Evgeny makes a welcome contribution by moving the debate beyond concerns over mere internet censorship. However - while his presentation of the cyber-pessimist (cyber-realist) case is cogent - he fails to directly address any of the perceived benefits claimed by the cyber-optimist (cyber-utopian) camp.

Wikileaks Documentary

noreply@blogger.com (Norman Creaney) — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 02:07:18 PDT

Sweden's public television service, SVT, has released a one hour documentary about Wikileaks. It looks at the history and development of the organisation and touches on the birth of OpenLeaks. Here it is:

In the closing minutes of the film the following point is made:

Wikileaks website may disappear again tomorrow, or it may suddenly reappear in a thousand other locations. History's still in the process of being written [...] One thing's clear: whatever happens, WIkileaks has sown a seed, a thought that's impossible to erase. It's about new ways and new channels of disseminating classified information, that'll have a profound effect on transparency - not only on the net, but in a broader, global dimension.

More on the WikiLeaks/Napster Parallels

noreply@blogger.com (Norman Creaney) — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 07:49:24 PST

I previously drew some parallels between Wikileaks and Napster: Wikileaks - Is the Game Up for State Secrecy. Here is a short update on this topic.

The Gardian reports that a number of new players have entered the wistleblowing space.

OenLeaks is interesting in that its model will be slightly different from Wikileaks. From what I can tell it intends to provide a conduit between leaker and publisher, without itself actually publishing any material. This, of course, means that if - and that is a bif "if" - a legal challenge were able to close WIkileaks, it would not automatically also apply to OpenLeaks.

Bill Thompson - in A World after Wikileaks - also notes the parallels with Napster - describing recent events as "democracy's Napter's moment".

See also:

Wikileaks - Is the Game up for State Secrecy?

Wikileaks - Is the Game Up for State Secrecy?

noreply@blogger.com (Norman Creaney) — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 07:52:06 PST

Wikileaks is making news again, with the Cablegate leaks. As commentators weigh the the benefits of openness against the practical needs of international diplomacy, I am interested in a different question - but first the facts.

Cablegate - the facts

The Leaks
On 28 November Wikileaks began publishing thousands of leaked US embassy cables, claiming that "The documents will give people around the world an unprecedented insight into the US Government's foreign activities."

The full significance of the leaked material is still emerging, as journalists (and others) process and interpret the text of the cables. The Guardian newspaper has an extensive database of information about the leaked cables, which includes the following claims.

Saudi Arabia put pressure on the US to attack Iran. Other Arab allies also secretly agitated for military action against Tehran.
Gordon Brown unsuccessfully lobbied the US for computer hacker Gary McKinnon to be allowed to serve any jail sentence in the UK.
The British government promised to protect US interests during the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war.
The US military has been charging its allies a 15% handling fee on hundreds of millions of dollars being raised internationally to build up the Afghan army.
The Vatican refused to allow its officials to testify before an Irish commission investigating the clerical abuse of children.

In one of its most controversial revelations Wikileaks published a list of "critical infrastructure and key resources", across the world, that the US believes to be of strategic importance to its interests. This leak has been widely criticised and described as a "targets for terror" list.

Life Becomes Difficult for Wikileaks
On 2 Decemebr a number of organisations began ending their relationships with Wikileaks, including: PostFinance, Mastercard, PayPal, Visa, EveryDNS and Amazon Web Services. As a result bank accounts were closed and the Wikileaks website was taken offline. There has been speculation that these actions were the result of pressure from the US Department of State.

The Mirrors
In response to the disruption to Wikileaks website, hundreds of mirror sites appeared - each a copy of the original Wikileaks website and each containing the following statement:

In order to make it impossible to ever fully remove Wikileaks from the Internet, you will find below a list of mirrors of Wikileaks website and CableGate pages.

Each also includes the following instructions for creating another Wikileaks mirror site.

If you have a unix-based server which is hosting a website on the Internet and you want to give wikileaks some of your hosting resources, you can help!

Please follow the following instructions: [...]

We will take care of all the rest: Sending pages to your server, updating them each time data is released, maintaining a list of such mirrors.

Julian Assange is Arrested
In a further twist, on 7 December, Julian Assange (Wikileaks editor-in-chief) was arrested in London and held on a European arrest warrant, under suspicion of sexual misconduct in Sweden - a charge that he strongly denies. This is the second such warrant that has been issued by the Swedish authorities - the first one having been cancelled soon after it was issued. Once again there is speculation that the arrest is the result of political pressure.

Is the Game Up for State Secrecy?

Historical Aside
In 1999 a music sharing network - Napster - appeared, which used peer-to-peer technology to enable users to share digital music files - leading to an explosion of copying without payment. Although the original service was eventually shut down others - such as KaZaA, MP3.com, Limewire & Pirate Bay - appeared, to take its place. A decade of litigation followed.

This legal battle with the peer-to-peer pirates was a disaster for the music industry. As one pirate site was closed another sprang up to take its place, often varying technology and location to exploit new legal loopholes. Money and resources were thrown to the defence of a business model that could not be made to work again - meanwhile a generation grew up with the belief that music did not have to be paid for. It is now widely accepted that the industry would be in much better health today if it had embraced Napster, and devoted its resources to creating new business models fit for the digital market.

I, for one, regret that we weren't faster in figuring out how to create a sustainable model for music on the internet (Geoff Taylor, head of BPI)

To complete the story - Napster now cooperates with the music industry and is no longer in the illegal filesharing business.

Back to the Present
The point of the history lesson is to demonstrate that - sometimes - technology trumps law. Despite legal victories the file-sharers could not be stopped - the music industry's resistance was no more effective than Cnute's attempts to stop the waves. Technology had changed the playing field and the world had moved on.

Has Wikileaks brought about a similar change to the playing field for state secrecy? Is it possible that - for good or ill - recent events are the start of a process that will bring to an end the state's ability to keep secrets? The key parallel - the highly distributed nature of the data - is compelling:

Napster: digital music files are stored on a network of individual PCs all over the world. New members can easily join the network, adding to the replication of offending files.
Wikileaks: leaked material is stored on a network of mirrors all over the world. New members can easily join the network, adding to the replication of leaked material.

It is difficult to see how Wikileaks can be silenced and, if it can be, how others can be prevented from taking its place.

See also:

Wikileaks - Hero or Villain?

Earthrise - Earthset

noreply@blogger.com (Norman Creaney) — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 03:52:15 PDT

I have no particular reason for posting this other than I really like it.

http://www.openculture.com/2010/08/earthrise_then_and_now.html

Wikileaks - Hero or Villian?

noreply@blogger.com (Norman Creaney) — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 03:52:39 PDT

On 25 July Wikileaks began publishing the Afghan War Diary: an archive of more than 91,000 classified U.S. military reports documenting six years of the Afghan war (2004-2010). This is how Wikileaks describes the archive:

The reports describe the majority of lethal military actions involving the United States military. They include the number of persons internally stated to be killed, wounded, or detained during each action, together with the precise geographical location of each event [...]

Most entries have been written by soldiers and intelligence officers listening to reports radioed in from front line deployments. [...]

The Diary is available on the web and can be viewed [...] by over 100 categories [...]. All incidents [...] can be viewed on Google Earth [in such a way that] the unfolding of the last six years of war may be seen.

http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/

Wikileaks go on to say:

We have delayed the release of some 15,000 reports from total archive as part of a harm minimization process [...] these reports will be released [...] as the security situation in Afghanistan permits.

The Guardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel, were given access to the materials before publication to assess their authenticity and significance, and publication of their reports was simultaneous with Wikileaks’ publication of the source data.

On its website, Wikileaks describes itself as “a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public”. The Wikileaks website hosts documents relating to more than 2,000 other leaks, on a variety of issues, but the current leak has attracted unprecedented interest and controversy, and has thrust Wikileaks into the full glare of the international media spotlight.

In this interview Julian Assange, Wikileaks co-founder, explains why the world needs Wikileaks.

The case in support of Wikileaks’ mission is persuasive - it is difficult not to be impressed by some of the cases cited by Assange. But there are also risks, and the realities of war bring these into sharp focus. Perhaps Liz Cheney is right when she says (Fox News Sunday, broadcast Aug. 1, 2010) that Julian Assange "may very well be responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in Afghanistan" - and maybe Marc Thiessen has a point, when he describes (Washington Post, Aug 3, 2010) Wikileaks as a “criminal enterprise” and calls for Julian Lassange to be “brought to justice”.

The jury is still out on the Wikileaks project : the potential social benefits may be significant but so are the risks. The stakes are high - and not just for Julian Assange.

Gov 2.0 - Government as a Platform

noreply@blogger.com (Norman Creaney) — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 03:52:58 PDT

Gov 2.0 is a topic that I expect to return to again in this blog. The term almost defies definition - or maybe it is just that its potential is still being explored. In this video, from Gov2.0 Expo 2010, Tim O'Reilly talks about his vision for Gov 2.0.

Here are some more related resources:

Outcome for Gary McKinnon still Uncertain

noreply@blogger.com (Norman Creaney) — Sun, 30 May 2010 11:19:34 PDT

The UK has a new government and the Gary McKinnon case rumbles on.

The Judicial review of Gary McKinnon's extradition, which was due to begin this week, has been adjourned by the new Home Secretary, Therese May, while she re-examines the impact that extradition might have on his health.

Whilst in opposition both parties to the new coalition government (Conservatives and Liberal Democrats) were highly critical of the planned extradition. Indeed Nick Clegg (leader of the Liberal Democrats and now Deputy Prime Minister) said at the time that the Home Secretary could - and should - stop Mr. McKinnon's extradition.

Now that he is in government, Nick Clegg is reported to have said that it may not be legally possible to stop the extradition. I wonder what has changed.

The new government have also confirmed that they will review the controversial extradition treaty with the US under which Gary McKinnon's extradition was being sought. It is not clear whether this will have any effect on the outcome of this case.

Gary McKinnon: Dangerous Terrorist or Harmless Fool?

When President Obama came to power the McKinnon defence team had hoped for a change in stance from the US - and were disappointed. Perhaps the new UK government will prove just as disappointing for them.

Worst ACTA Fears Appear Unfounded

noreply@blogger.com (Norman Creaney) — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:59:55 PDT

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is a proposed international agreement on standards for intellectual property rights. Negotiations have taken place - largely in secret - since 2008, during which time there have been leaks and much speculation. There have been worries that, for example, the final agreement might deny safe harbor to service providers whose clients are infringing copyright.

A draft of the agreement has finally now been published.

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/.../april/tradoc_146029.pdf

The document, in its current form, does not appear to remove safe harbor for service providers - unless they fail to take action to curb infringement.

http://www.out-law.com//default.aspx?page=10936

The next round of talks will take place in June 2010, and participants say they are committed to completing negotiations before the end of 2010.

Tech Heavyweights Urge - Due Process

noreply@blogger.com (Norman Creaney) — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 07:49:40 PDT

Digital Due Process (DDP) - a coalition that includes Google, Microsoft and Intel - have come together to urge reform of the US Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA).

A broad coalition of privacy groups, think tanks, technology companies and academics [...] issued principles for updating the key federal law that defines the rules for government access to email and private files stored in the Internet 'cloud.'

Their principles include:

To simplify, clarify, and unify the ECPA standards, providing stronger privacy protections for communications and associated data in response to changes in technology and new services and usage patterns, while preserving the legal tools necessary for government agencies to enforce the laws, respond to emergency circumstances and protect the public.

Google explain the reasons for their involvement in this video.

DDP claim that the ECPA (1986) needs to be modernised to reflect changes in technology. Their stated aim is confined to influencing US policy makers, but might they - I wonder - also influence thinking on a wider stage?

Internet Filtering - an International Perspective

noreply@blogger.com (Norman Creaney) — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 01:38:21 PDT

It seems that the UK is not alone in its plans for more intrusive regulation of internet access - the Australian government are also planning legislation that will achieve internet filtering by denying safe harbor protection to service providers.

There was also the recent Italian case in which Google employees were convicted because of videos that were uploaded by YouTube customers.

Italian Court Attacks Principels of Freedom - according to Google

Google's role in internet filtering in China is well documented - but that is a slightly different issue. I am particularly interested to hear about developments in other democracies.

Is internet filtering being carried out, introduced or extended in your country? If so, how and to what end?

Sabotaging Innovation to Protect Yesterday's Business Models

noreply@blogger.com (Norman Creaney) — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 02:53:23 PDT

Open Rights Group (ORG) - which describes itself as "the UK’s leading voice defending freedom of expression, privacy, innovation, consumer rights and creativity on the internet." - is campaigning to stop the Digital Economy Bill (DEB). They argue that it is being pushed through without the opportunity for proper scrutiny or debate.

The Secretary of State for Business, Lord Mandelson, plans to use, so called, "wash-up" procedures to enable the party whips to slip the Bill through without dabate.

ORG are not the only ones expressing concern: the technology industry - in the form of Google, Facebook and others - are also opposed to the Bill in its present form. This is an important piece of legislation and it is difficult to understand the urgency. It has been widely suggested that the political establishment - government and opposition - have succombed to lobbying by the recording industry.

Is the UK government sabotaging innovation and sacrificing tomorrow's opportunities in order to protect yesterday's business models?

Civil Liberties & Free Internet vs. Media & Entertainment Industries

noreply@blogger.com (Norman Creaney) — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:35:30 PDT

Last week, the controversial UK Digital Economy Bill (DEB) was passed by the House of Lords: it is expected to be "rushed through the Commons before the general election." (BBC News). There are worries that this Bill may result in internet service providers (ISPs) being forced to:

block any website that is alleged to host copyright infringing material
disconnect the internet connection of anyone who is alleged to be downloading copyright protected material without permission

It is the prospect of action, such as disconnection, being taken on allegations of infringement that causes most concern.

The Bill has been criticised by Google, Facebook and other content hosting providers, who claim that the Bill may stifle innovation. They argue that those who infringe copyright, should be dealt with by the courts, and that service providers should not be expected to act on behalf of copyright holders. (Google Blog)
The Bill has been welcomed by the music industry, who claim that it is needed to protect jobs. They are reported to claim that, without such measures, the UK could lose a quarter of a million jobs by 2015 (BBC News).
It has been pointed out that the rights of individuals are also at stake. If a teenager uses their parents' broadband connection for file-sharing, then the whole family may end up being disconnected. It has also been argued that the right to an internet connection should be protected as a fundamental human right (BBC News).

There are parallels to be drawn between the DEB and the US Digital Millennium Rights Act (DMCA) - they cover similar ground. However, the so-called safe harbor provisions of the US act protect service providers from liability for their customers' actions, so that they are not required to act on behalf of copyright holders.

Digital Millennium Rights Act Explained

The lines are drawn: civil liberties and a free internet - vs. - the media and entertainment industries. Is it this simple?

Date Set for Review of the McKinnon Case

noreply@blogger.com (Norman Creaney) — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:35:17 PDT

The date for judicial review of the Gary McKinnon case has now been set. It will take place on 25 May 2010, and is expected to report around two weeks later. Conveniently, this is beyond any likely date for the general election.

The USA are seeking to extradite Mr. McKinnon from the UK for hacking into NASA and Pentagon computers in 2002.

Gary Mckinnon: Dangerous Terrorist or Harmless Fool?

The review will rule on the legality of Home Secretary Alan Johnson's decision to allow the extradition.

Italian Court Attacks Principles of Freedom - according to Google.

noreply@blogger.com (Norman Creaney) — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 02:42:06 PDT

Last month an Italian court convicted three senior Google executives of violating privacy laws. According to Google, the verdict "attacks the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built." The executives were given six month sentences, although - due to a quirk of the Italian system - they will not actually serve any prison time.

The facts of the case are as follows:

In September 2006, students at a Turin school filmed an incident in which a boy with Down Syndrome was bullied.
The video was uploaded to YouTube.
Several months later Google/YouTube was asked, by Italian police, to remove the offending video - which they did immediately.
Google cooperated fully with police to identify the girl who uploaded the video. She - together with others involved - was subsequently given community service for her part in the incident.
Four Google employees - who claim not to have had an any knowledge of the video until it was removed - were charged with criminal defamation and failure to comply with privacy laws.
In February 2010, the four Google employees were absolved of the defamation charges but three of them were convicted of the privacy violations.

The prosecution argued that Google broke Italian privacy law by not gaining the consent of all parties involved before allowing the video to be uploaded. The Google employees are expected to vigorously appeal the conviction.

The reason why this case is significant, and why it is said to represent an attack on "the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built.", is:

YouTube cannot possibly get consent from all parties to all videos that are uploaded to its site.
If it is legally required to do so, then it will be forced to close its service in Italy.

What is true for YouTube is also true for Google Docs, Blogger, Flickr, Box.net and any other site or service that hosts user content.

World Intellectual Property Organisation treaties allow a safe harbour provision that protects service providers from liability for the actions of their clients. The U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which implements these treaties, also provides such protection. Google claim that EU law provides similar protection for hosting providers.

Unless this judgement is overturned it is possible that YouTube - and possibly other related businesses - will be forced to withdraw their services from Italy.