The Unattributable Silencing of Speech
Late last month the open source global intelligence gathering company STRATFOR was attacked and taken offline by hackers purporting to be the group Anonymous, an eclectic collection of anarchists with a rather colorful history.
Whether or not this group was involved is a minor point and not particularly interesting. The more salient issue is the one raised by CEO George Friedman
in his recently published timeline of the event:
In the global commons, anonymity is an option. This is one of the great virtues of the Internet. It is also a terrible weakness. It is possible to commit crimes on the Internet anonymously. The technology that enables the Internet also undermines accountability. Given the profusion of technical knowledge, the integrity of the commons is in the hands of people whose identities we don't know, whose motives we don't understand, and whose ability to cause harm is substantial. The consequence of this will not be a glorious anarchy in the spirit of Guy Fawkes, but rather a massive repression. I think this is a pity. That's why I wonder who the hackers actually are and what cause they serve. I am curious as to whether they realize the whirlwind they are sowing, and whether they, in fact, are trying to generate the repression they say they oppose.
For conservatives such as ourselves, who have had our perspectives drowned out in all popular media in the past (with talk radio being the only exception), this strikes me as a concern to be taken very seriously. Only relatively recently have conservative thinkers found an equal platform in the Internet to make our point of view heard yet this forum is not secure from disruption. The tools of the most malicious and skilled hackers can be purchased for a very modest price if one is motivated enough to search and has the disposable income to buy.
The threat of censorship on the Internet is often viewed as a threat from governments, but such entities are neither the only actors in this sphere nor even necessarily the most effective. Is the potential for censorship of conservative views a concern for others on Ricochet? If so what do you consider to be the best methods to deal with such dangers? To the Ricochet system admin team I ask: how seriously do you consider the possibility of deliberate disruption of this site's web presence?
Full disclosure: I am a subscriber to STRATFOR and have significant respect for their work.
- Comment (17)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Mar '11
Re: The Unattributable Silencing of Speech
Color me skeptical that this is anything new.
First: does it surprise anyone that providing a free, unregulated commons (the internet) could lead to its being misused to the point of being useless? If the internet were a more tangible piece of infrastructure (say, a park, street, or sewage system), we would laugh at the notion that it could be used by all without malicious interference.
Second: throughout history, new technologies have emerged to provide criminals with anonimity, invariaby followed by other technologies to break that anonimity. Why should the internet be any different?
Oct '10
Re: The Unattributable Silencing of Speech
Hackers and attackers can be defended against. It is the operational control of the internet, located within the DNS servers, where the actual power lies.
And it is the feral government that is the real enemy of opposing viewpoints.
Mar '11
Re: The Unattributable Silencing of Speech
When did you last hear of a Buckley, a Burke, a Chesterton mentioned in any periodical or hinted at in a television newscast? This medium is new, do not blind yourself to the possibilities. An equal voice.
Do not let cynicism dictate your actions; there is an opportunity here to speak that has not been available for a very long time. If conservatives meekly acquiesce to being silenced even here where there is scope for speaking truth, why are we speaking at all? The danger of being silenced is true, I do not write merely to bask in the reflection of my own thoughts.
Mar '11
Re: The Unattributable Silencing of Speech
raycon: Hackers and attackers can be defended against. It is the operational control of the internet, located within the DNS servers, where the actual power lies.
And it is the feral government that is the real enemy of opposing viewpoints. · Jan 12 at 7:51pm
That is simply not so. For those who do not labor in this sphere it can be difficult to grasp but there is no control, the power lies nowhere. The internet is a hierarchy of dependencies, a hierarchy with no clear authority, no control but the most ruthless system of Hobbes dictating events.
The DNS servers you mention are merely one power among many and the technology has already had the opportunity to profligate to such an extent that any actor with sufficient will and knowledge can subjugate many. Do not be so cavalier in dismissing actors beyond Washington, they can be more effective than you suspect.
Edited on Jan 13 at 9:08amJul '10
Re: The Unattributable Silencing of Speech
The spirit of Guy Fawkes is to use massive explosives for indiscriminate murder aimed at assassinating rulers and legislators in one grand violent spasm. That is not far off from the Anonymous approach to social order. Friedman needs a history lesson.
Aug '10
Re: The Unattributable Silencing of Speech
Fawkes is a poor image to find in the mirror. Flattery will get you nowhere.
Roberto, you need to be frank about who you suspect as using the hack as cover for repression. The Chinese, the Americans, the Islamists, the Teletubbies ?? Somebody is in your mind's eye, and I would like to focus on your premise but not through some process of elimination.
Dec '10
Re: The Unattributable Silencing of Speech
I'm very skeptical about these "anarchist" claims. Did Anonymous target Media Matters at the same time it went after Stratfor? I doubt it. These groups are agenda-driven, and although I'm brushing up against a conspiracy theory CoC violation, I think they're driven by the Left.
It reminds me of Obama's claim to want to "unite" the country. Pffff.. yeah, he wants to unite us around leftist values of multiculturalism, atheism, socialism, etc. And the fact that Utopia hasn't been achieved in his administration is attributable to Republican (conservative) obstructionism and our knuckle-dragging, Bible-clinging stubbornness.
The Left is seduced by its "virtue," and is therefore tempted to totalitarianism. Are we at risk of being silenced? Yes.
Mar '11
Re: The Unattributable Silencing of Speech
flownover: Fawkes is a poor image to find in the mirror. Flattery will get you nowhere.
Roberto, you need to be frank about who you suspect as using the hack as cover for repression. The Chinese, the Americans, the Islamists, the Teletubbies ?? Somebody is in your mind's eye, and I would like to focus on your premise but not through some process of elimination. · Jan 13 at 6:29am
With regards to the STRATFOR attack I do suspect Anonymous, it fits into the pattern of previous actions they have taken. However that is not my premise as you say. My premise is that what we see in that incident is a precursor of what is to come in a more general fashion. In Russia it is becoming fairly common for businesses to attack their competitor’s online presence for a commercial advantage, what is good for business could also be seen as good for politics by some unscrupulous actors. What if an organization with a previous record of dubious political activities, say ACORN, believes a candidate they support can gain a electoral advantage if NRO, The Weekly Standard or say Breibart’s Big Government are offline?
Aug '10
Re: The Unattributable Silencing of Speech
Roberto
ACORN, believes a candidate they support can gain a electoral advantage if NRO, The Weekly Standard or say Breibart’s Big Government are offline? · Jan 13 at 9:07am
Initially I would only worry about the readers of those publications. Because choir members rarely venture outside their comfort blogs.
Denial of service is against the law I think, so there is one avenue of action. Now if someone tried that against Amazon, that is where the hammer will come down. Politics will take a back seat to the marketplace and the marketplace has a way of working these things out. Priorities. Anonymous has about as much impact as Wikileaks did. Media aflutter, public yawns.
ACORN's m.o. is different -they just round up people give them some money, smokes or drugs and drive them to the polls. Same thing with petitioning.
Edited on Jan 13 at 10:06amMar '11
Re: The Unattributable Silencing of Speech
flownover
Roberto
ACORN, believes a candidate they support can gain a electoral advantage if NRO, The Weekly Standard or say Breibart’s Big Government are offline? · Jan 13 at 9:07am
Denial of service is against the law I think, so there is one avenue of action. Now if someone tried that against Amazon, that is where the hammer will come down.
There are legal remedies, however what if you cannot attribute the source? From Christmas through New Years ETrade was was shutdown for Australian customers. Who took that action? What was their motive? Spite? Financial? Simply for kicks? No one knows.
What if Breibert uncovered a critical story in the countdown to an election but was prevented from publishing due to such an attack, could that effect the vote? Remember how close some of our recent contests have been, Romney won Iowa by eight votes.
The temptation for those who already have little respect for our electoral process must be great.
Apr '11
Re: The Unattributable Silencing of Speech
@mendel- the difference is a matter of scale. If I decide to occupy a park then 1) I can only occupy a limited amount of space and 2) I can get hauled away.
On the Internet, an individual can cause disruption around the world. If the government decides to take down Ricochet, at least we know it was the government and (so far) we have some recourse. In the case of hackers, censorship can result from a grudge, beliefs, or no reason at all. It's one thing to have a negative opinion of, say, BofA but it's something else entirely if I decide all by myself to shut them down.
And don't think that hackers will stop at putting naughty pictures on websites or mounting a DDOS attack on Google to get in the news. Real property and real lives are at risk.
Jan '11
Re: The Unattributable Silencing of Speech
I think the issue is that users computer systems can be so easily compomised that the source information cannot truly be determined. Until a computer system can be made secure while usable and people can employ credential authentication (eg. Biometrics) there is little that would allow for regulations to hold people accountable. I think we should look to how when cars were developed more accountablility on the driver and rules had to be passed even though is was the same road they had traveled in horse and buggy. I think we need something between a internet "drivers license" teaching people the rules of the road and quasi-gun registration that would discriminate purchases of computers against people who committed crimes and keep people accountable for a computers security. Once people were accountable then I think the Internet providers and law enforcement could notionally "pull you over" on the Internet if you showed signs of bad behavior. Furthermore if there were penalties if your computer was part of a crime I think people would become protective of their systems security.
Mar '11
Re: The Unattributable Silencing of Speech
KCRob: @mendel- the difference is a matter of scale. If I decide to occupy a park then 1) I can only occupy a limited amount of space and 2) I can get hauled away.
On the Internet, an individual can cause disruption around the world. If the government decides to take down Ricochet, at least we know it was the government and (so far) we have some recourse. In the case of hackers, censorship can result from a grudge, beliefs, or no reason at all. It's one thing to have a negative opinion of, say, BofA but it's something else entirely if I decide all by myself to shut them down.
And don't think that hackers will stop at putting naughty pictures on websites or mounting a DDOS attack on Google to get in the news. Real property and real lives are at risk.
You have summarized the issue very well. It is the incredible difficulty of correctly attributing actions on the Internet combined with the asymmetric nature of attacks that should merit particular concern. I wish we could have some comment from the Ricochet system admin team on how seriously they take such a possibility.
Dec '11
Re: The Unattributable Silencing of Speech
According to Wikipedia, Anonymous got the information due to poor passwords and a lack of database security, which sums up most attacks. Hacking is less lock picking and more trying every door till you find one unlocked. As a result, making a secure system is not that hard. The real problem is maintaining it (which involves getting the non-security savvy users to follow protocols) and dealing with Denial of Service attacks, which are often primitive and thus hard to deal with.
As far as user mistakes, there is no solution so long as the users are human. As far as Denial of Service attacks, that is a lot of back-and-forth between attackers and defenders through time, and will always be a problem, but sometimes not so much. In regards to Roberto's Breitbart example, the solution is the multiple forms of media available in this age.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
Mar '11
Re: The Unattributable Silencing of Speech
A dangerous door to open, that is precisely the response I fear. Do we truly want some government department deciding who is on the Internet? Consider the power you will be handing to some Federal bureaucrat. Also consider this, the Internet is borderless. No license will regulate the gangs of criminals located in Eastern Europe or Russia who profit greatly offering services that attack web sites.
Jan '11
Re: The Unattributable Silencing of Speech
Drivers licenses and car registration doesn't prevent crimes either. It simply keeps the highways usable and makes people cognizant of their responsibility. The DMV is the ultimate in bureaurcracy but it doesn't limit our free speech or restrict our freedom of assembly. If you want everything to be open and unregulated the Internet will keep being the wild west - accessible by anyone with no attribution. If US people were licensed and maintained registration of their computer the US government could take recourse against criminals.
Mar '11
Re: The Unattributable Silencing of Speech
This sounds very much akin to the argument for gun registration, another proposition I am rather dubious of. I do not see how anyone can be confident such registries will serve any purpose, only the law abiding will submit. Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws on Earth yet that does not deter criminals from acquiring weapons nor aid law enforcement in tracking them down as near I can determine.
The problem of the "wild west" as you say is real but looking towards our government for a solution strikes me more as marching down a blind alley. Guy Incognito's suggestion of multiple sites, redundancy performed among ourselves is more along the path we should consider. Perhaps a form civil society, a voluntary association among conservative media who in the event of disruption agree to host other sites' content temporarily to insure no one is silenced.
Edited on Jan 16 at 9:25am