Is The US Response To Wikileaks Really About Overhyping Online Threats To Pass New Laws?
from the the-cynical-view dept
Okay, this post is going to take the extreme cynical view, which I don’t believe is true, but since it’s being suggested, we might as well flesh it out. In my post about how the US government’s response to Wikileaks has caused more harm than anything actually in the leaks so far, one of the commenters pointed to a Larry Lessig talk from a few years back, where he mentioned a conversation with Richard Clarke — the former anti-terrorism government official, who, more recently, has been selling his book on “Cyberwar” — where he said that the US government has had an “iPatriot Act” sitting in a drawer, ready to go at a moment’s notice whenever there was “an i-9/11 event.”
Except there’s been no such event.
Yet, in the last year or so, we keep hearing about folks trying to sell the public on the idea that we’re facing a “cyberwar,” which is always stated without any proof. In fact, it seems that the only thing that the whole “cyberwar” concept has been good for is to (a) make money for government contractors and (b) to give the government a reason to take away more online privacy.
As we’ve seen, there have been rumors over the past few months that the feds have been working on new legislation that would require backdoors in all internet communications — which sounds sort of like a version of that iPatriot Act. But, of course, in order to get people to actually accept that kind of thing, the government would need to convince people that it’s really for their own safety… But that’s a lot tougher without any evidence of a real cyberwar. So… along comes Wikileaks (and, to a lesser extent, Operation Payback), and voila, suddenly the press is bubbling on and on about how this is a cyberwar.
Now, when this new wiretapping law is put forth, the government can claim that it’s designed to stop things like having classified cables leaked to enemies of the US — even though it would have absolutely no impact on such things. Of course, if Wikileaks is a “cyberwar” then what the hell were the Pentagon Papers? A wood pulp war? Whistleblowing and leaking documents, online or off, is not a “war.” While I don’t doubt some in the US government will try to use this to their advantage, I still really doubt that this is the main reason for the current reaction. I’d chalk it up to pure incompetence first.
Filed Under: ipatriot act, laws, overhype, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks
Comments on “Is The US Response To Wikileaks Really About Overhyping Online Threats To Pass New Laws?”
I see no proof that the govt reaction to Wikileaks has actually caused any harm. Rolling tanks through Afghanistan maybe, reacting to Wikileaks, well, what harm has it actually done?
As for plans for Cyberwars, would you rather the govt. wait until it actually is attacked before they begin to build a strategy? China now has the worlds fastest computer (at least known fastest supercomputer, I bet there are computers in VA that are faster) and considering how much our military relies on technology, do we want to be second?
There is no second place in wars, only winners and losers.
Re: Re:
AC, perhaps you should read the post linked to in the article.
Re: Re: I did
From the link “Most Americans don’t grasp the extent to which their country is considered throughout the world a bullying, opportunistic, imperialist power.”
So how does our Govt. reaction to Wikileaks change this? Again, I ask, what harm has this done? Seems like just more business as usual.
Re: Re: Re: I did
Making things worse may be business as usual, but it’s still harmful. People like you accepting it and turning a blind eye, is extremely harmful.
Re: Re: Re:2 I did
You assume I turn a blind eye when all I said was that the US was not hurt more by the reaction to Wikileaks vs. the Wikileaks themselves.
Our govt. reaction has been a lot of bluster and talk, but what has actually happened? What has changed? People that didn’t trust us still don’t, others are careful around us, which they probably always were.
The claim that our govt. is hurting itself with its reaction is as questionable as the govt.s claim that the Wikileaks has hurt America.
Re: Re:
I respect a battle readyness plan, but I don’t think people would accept the evacuation of NY in the fear of another terrorist attack.
There is a huge difference in war between first and second place, but is it really first place if you lose what your protecting in the process? I know it’s a cliche, but I would rather die a free man then live as a slave.
Re: Re:
I think Congress leaning on companies to get them to refuse service to an individual because they started saying things that they didn’t like is a harmful reaction.
It could be just me though.
Re: Re:
I think Congress leaning on companies to get them to refuse service to an individual because they started saying things that they didn’t like is a harmful reaction.
It could be just me though.
Re: Re:
Spoken like a true Machiavellian, well, except for the “Anonymous Coward” part. Fuck, yeah! Let’s achieve freedom through totalitarianism, because there’s nothing like a Democracy of Hypocrisy complete with fireworks and what’s-his-face sickeningly warbling on about “Thank God I’m an Ameeerican where at least I know I’m free”?
Re: Re:
“China now has the worlds fastest computer”
So? What are they going to do? Calculate really large prime numbers? Crack really strong encryption in less than a million years?
If you were complaining that they had a rather huge number of computer at their disposal (which they could use to drown several networks in packets), then you could have something.
“and considering how much our military relies on technology, do we want to be second?”
Heh, technology. If the shit ever hits the fan, we are going for nuclear annihilation. No technology is ever going to save our planet. But, even if we don’t go for the extinction event, an M16 (which is probably older than you are) gets the job done, and doesn’t need batteries.
War is fought by the man in the ground. You can have all the fancy technology you want, if you don’t have guys with the balls to go in-your-face with someone and kill him, and strong leaders to inspire them with clear and worthy goals, you can shove that big technology up a small orifice.
“There is no second place in wars, only winners and losers.”
Wrong. There are no winners in war. Every battle is just the warmup for the next one. So it was and so it shall ever be, as long as humans walk the Earth.
Re: Re:
I want the government preparing proper defenses and keeping segregated networks especially for networks IF they take some basic noninvasive steps then we are looking at the chinese reading are email or the U.S. government reading are email personally i would rather have the chinese reading it they can’t prosecute me.
In a word...
Yes. Yes it is, which would be business as usual.
“War” is a racket. Lots of companies see 1000% or more increases in profits due to war, war is good for business and businessmans’ salaries.
Re: In a word...
“”War” is a racket. Lots of companies see 1000% or more increases in profits due to war, war is good for business and businessmans’ salaries.”
I have to agree. When one studies the pitches and oscillations of the American economy and how coincidentally we go from one war to the next within those waves, it’s a logical conclusion that wars are more functions of economy than philosophical policy.
I also understand that Mike needs to avoid the “tin-foil hat” label. Kind of a shame, really. Vietnam was an instructive lesson in many ways, but perhaps none more so than the true strength and power of Eisenhower’s forewarned military industrial complex….
Re: Re: In a word...
I believe this is true throughout history. Game, good farmland, water and even strategic location (offensive or defensive) are functions of economy. Philosophical battles are fought amidst the people in order to gain support for war.
Re: Re: Re: In a word...
“I believe this is true throughout history. Game, good farmland, water and even strategic location (offensive or defensive) are functions of economy.”
That’s probably true, but the new factor in the last two centuries or so is going to war to profit from the *economy of war* itself, rather than the gain of some economic advantage over your adversary. The nice part about this is that it doesn’t matter to the multi-billion dollar defense contractors and the banks that own them, who some suggest facilitate these “wars”, WHOM we go to war with. All that matters is that we are in fact producing for a war with someone so that the money keeps rolling.
The most blatant example of this was probably the two World Wars….
Re: Re: Re:2 In a word...
I’d challenge that with the invasion of Iraq and the current Afghani war. At least with the two WW’s, we had the (granted, overly-inflated) call to stop the repression of ‘free peoples’ by a tyrannical boogeyman (Hitler). Here though, we have some vague connection to stopping Al Qaeda, who no longer even seems to be doing as much as we were led to believe… all while dragging on and on with no real, clear objective.
If ever you wanted a ‘war for the sake of being at war’…
Re: Re: Re:3 In a word...
“If ever you wanted a ‘war for the sake of being at war’…”
The War on Terror is a good example of this, but WWII is a GREAT one. You have to really dig into some of the specifics of American Industry heads and those in unelected govt. positions (at the time), such as Prescott Bush in industry and the Dulles Bros. in govt., to understand that what happened in Germany in the 1920’s and ’30’s was a very carefully planned thing that got away from them. The point wasn’t to go to war with Germany, initially.
It was to create Germany to keep an ongoing war with the feared Russians possible. (Fun side note, there is some weird evidence to suggest that the Red Revolution was in part financed and aided by American bankers….)
Re: Re: Re:4 In a word...
You know, now that I’m thinking about things I’ve heard about Viet Nam and Korea, I’m having a hard time thinking of a ligitimate war since the Revolutionary War or maybe the Civil War that was about something other than getting money off the war itself. :/ Sad.
Whenever you see someone flogging the concept of "cyberwar"...
…then you can rest assured that either (a) they know little and understand less about security and/or (b) they have an agenda — profit, power, whatever.
The answer is no. The cyberwar issue was documented on TD a long time before wikileaks started attacking the US, and the issue will exist long after they are all locked up or accidentally die by poisoning or being hit by cars.
The US government (as well as many others) see an issue, where the current laws on the books do not address the issue of cyber attacks, thefts, and snooping properly, certainly not in ways that make negative acts easy enough to bring to court. The wikileaks situation just creates a situation where new laws can be crafted with this sort of undesirable situation in mind.
Re: Re:
“cyberwar issue was documented on TD a long time before wikileaks started attacking the US”
Wikileaks wasn’t attacking the US. Anon was attacking various corporations worldwide as part of operation payback. Wikileaks became their latest cause.
Re: Re: Re:
Wikileaks wasn’t attacking the US. Anon was attacking various corporations worldwide as part of operation payback. Wikileaks became their latest cause.
wait… so there are different groups of cyber-hackers with different cyber-agendas? wikileaks and anonymous are acting independently, even though they both believe in computers?
mind = blown
so does that mean that mean that there are different muslim groups with different muslim agendas? that sadam hussein and al-qaeda acted independently, even though they both believe in islam?
mind = blown++
Re: Re:
“attacking” the US? All they are doing is publishing documents leaked by a foreign government agent… They are not Maerican, and so not beholden to your classification of documents… To a Swede, these documents hold no more “classified” information than the morning paper… as for creating a situation… well I think we know they will manufacture whatever “evidence” they need for whatever they want to push on the world.
Re: Re:
So, where does the whole wikileaks thing address these ‘holes in the dam’? Wiki didn’t ‘steal’ the docs or break into high-security servers to grab them… that was the work of someone else.
Instead of perusing the person who did steal the docs and addressing it with the laws already on the books to handle such actions, they are going after the entity that they can see and revealed their dirty little secrets.
If this is not the government taking advantage of an opportunity to increase control, then it’s simply a case of thumping your little sister for telling on you for doing something wrong.
Re: Re:
Did Wikileaks actually attack the US – or is it an attack on secrecy and lies?
Or is it just a way to make people wake up and look at how much they are placidly accepting
The rumors of Cyberwarfare have been greatly exaggerated.
Re: Re:
I believe sir that reports of your death have not been exaggerated and that you are truly dead – this time.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m sorry about your ineptitude to decipher the previous message that was pushed forward. Could you do so much as to charm me with factors that point to your rationality of drawing on the word “death”?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m sorry about your ineptitude to decipher the previous message that was pushed forward.
Woosh.
“I’d chalk it up to pure incompetence first.” seems to be the reasonable explanation for most of the USA’s political decisions. Why would it change now? Especially, as you said, since they can (and will) use that to spin up a new propaganda campaign.
Everyone was thinking the new cold war would be with the Koreas… but no one watches as it’s being deployed on democracy itself.
Oh c’mon Mike. Are you really expecting us to believe that you’re just now understanding what is going on? After the barrage of wikileaks posts that you’ve unleashed here?
You, as well as any other thinking person, understand what the reaction by OP, and the reaction by gov mean for the future of piracy.
It’s all downhill from here.
Re: Re:
@Anonymous – A couple things. One, I have a lovely bridge for sale if you want it. It has a nice view of a small winding stream, Moss covered stone, and best of all an cute little outhouse for all the shit you are spouting.
“You, as well as any other thinking person, understand what the reaction by OP, and the reaction by gov mean for the future of piracy.”
Two, everything the government does turns to an overpriced, bureaucratic, money pit, that is ineffective and slow to adapt and always behind the curve. So them going after infringers-“pirates” will be a huge game of whac-a-mole. Mike has pointed out how poorly industry and government deal with distributed systems. This is, one organization, with one set of rules, being led from the top and side (think regulatory capture), against EVERYONE else. Its no where near over.
I’m on a horse …
Re: Re:
TD subscribes to the same methods as Wired Magazine when it comes to trends. They spot a trend that has already developed, and then try to jump in front of it and claim some sort of ownership. Wikileaks and the 4chan anon stuff plays well to the TD crowd, because it is a group with common interests.
It is sort of like all the TSA stories. It has little or nothing to do with tech, copyright, or anything like that, but it smacks of “sticking it to the man” which is the underlying theme here.
Re: Re: Re:
“It is sort of like all the TSA stories. It has little or nothing to do with tech, copyright, or anything like that, but it smacks of “sticking it to the man” which is the underlying theme here.”
….you’re saying that the use of backscatter technology and its innefectiveness is not a tech issue? Weird….
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is tech only in a very narrow way. Obviously, pat downs are not very tech (unless you consider how the rubber gloves they wear are made). It is just jumping in front of a marching band and claiming to be the leader. The band would have played on without the needless extra body standing in front of them.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I’m not sure what you mean by claiming “ownership” of an issue being reported. Are you perhaps referring to the “glory” newspapers give themselves when they are the first to “break” a story or perhaps the first to reach a large audience with a story?
If so, you must be saying Mike is acting like a “real journalist” even though he just writes opinions and conclusions, not news stories…. oh… wait a minute….
Never mind.
Re: Re: Re:
Welcome back TAM? How was your vacation?
It’s an old pattern:
This has been tried before
http://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/WhyIWrotePGP.html
I find it strange how these U.S. govt wikileaks didn’t really start picking up until after Obama got elected. Sure, there were some before, but Wikileaks was much more well known for corporate related leaks (and some govt).
Re: Re:
I don’t see anything the last bit strange about it. Wikileaks is quite clearly taking considerable pains to avoid disclosing information that is time-and-place sensitive — as we see in the many redactions being done in concert with their media partners. Surely it’s not much of a stretch to consider that perhaps they’ve delayed publication of any number of collections long since in their possession for the same reason.
As to:
Wikileaks was much more well known for corporate related leaks (and some govt),
it’s worth noting that “what they were known for” does not equate well to “what they were doing”.
Re: Re:
I somewhat agree. Before the arrest, I recall Julian was receiving a great deal of press. Remember, he was paraded around getting interviews even on late night television. Rumor also has it Julian also believed that 9-11 was not an inside job. Anyone with access to the amount of info he had should have drawn a few conclusions. Also, when it was revealed that one of the Wikileaks mirrors was hosted on the same netblock of the CIA, it didn’t help with believability either.
The whole narrative and security theater was really sloppy and I just don’t think we’ll find anything new except that this whole thing will usher in a few new laws and TSA contracts to put TVs in WalMarts with Janet Napatalano reprogramming the lower-class with fear- call the police if the neighbor’s dog poops in their yard.
I believe that the FBI after Watergate, lost a great deal of it’s power, and also by being pulled multiple directions. If you look carefully, the DHS and TSA is now dipping their toes into IP enforcement, an area that once was overseen by the FBI.
The DHS seems to be morphing into a very influential citizen investigating organization that has a “business-is-the-victim” flavor to it.
The mind boggles
To my mind, putting “back doors” in all internet communication channels is akin to requiring (and effectively the same as) that all news reporters provide full unexpurgated copies of their notes, contacts, and even musings. Talk about First Amendment violations! As was quoted elsewhere today, from Benjamin Franklin,
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
It’s time we changed our leadership, and by that I don’t mean Republican vs. Democrat, but all of those boneheads in office who are clueless as to the damage they are doing not just to the rest of us, but to their own progeny as well!
YES
See subj.
One of my favorite aphorisms: “never assume malice when incompetence would suffice.”
When???
when this new wiretapping law is put forth? I work for a National Telecom, we already must be compliant with the feds…We must be compliant and provide a means for them to tap a data stream, they need a warrant, but the means are built into our networks nationwide. All our border routers must be compliant.
Re: When???
Yes, they can access the data stream, but that is not what the new law is about. If you intercept VPN or SSL trafic, it is encrypted. The same for some email, VOIP services like skype, and HTTPS services. Which means they get useless data that looks like noise. What they want is a backdoor into THOSE, not just the tap to the stream.
Re: Re: When???
Just a note, actually, SSL and HTTPS may not be covered as they are not providing “communication services”, but they could encrypt communications so could be required to have a back door, and it gets all sorts of confusing.
It's war we are after
We are in a cyber war but the enemy is the people of the country and the government is doing all they can to stop them.
The best thing that we can hope for is a cyber coldwar that the people win. Unfortunately for the government we the people have had sometime and practice with combating the issues of restricting the flow of information and hiding our data transfers. That is all thanks to the *IAA.
Loopholes
The “cyberwar” issue has been talked about for quite sometime, however, “cyberwar” isn’t really relevent to the legislation. Its a smokescreen.
The legislation Leiberman has introduced -the SHIELD Act on December 2, 2010, was in no doubt created (and Leiberman admits this) to fix the so-called “loopholes” in the Espionage Act…you know…the constitutional “loopholes” that keep the US from being able to put Assange in jail.
It is a five page bill (so far), amending the Espionage Act to include criminal penalties for well, just the type of stuff Assange happened to have done. They could have written this thing in a day. This bill was carefully designed to make sure next time they can throw people like Assange in jail.
See we are supposed to forget the constitutional questions….Sure, the Government is creating hysteria so they can quietly pass some legislation that would further constrain free speech, and the people will support it because “lives are in danger!!!”. Smoke and mirrors.
the first cyber war will be between government and **aa`s vs people who use the internet
Just Great
SO some 16 year old’s decide to ping -t somebodies server and all of the sudden we are having a cyberwar, just great
“Heh, technology. If the shit ever hits the fan, we are going for nuclear annihilation. No technology is ever going to save our planet. But, even if we don’t go for the extinction event, an M16 (which is probably older than you are) gets the job done, and doesn’t need batteries.”
OK, so China owns our technology, what does that mean? It means our GPS doesn’t work, so our jets don’t know where to go. When the daylight savings change happened, there was a fighter out on patrol, its GPS went out and they had to send a tanker out to it because they couldn’t get back. So our Preditors don’t work, which isn’t that bad, except they are good for intel too. Our Sats. don’t work so we can’t see the battlefield.
So that M16 (which I once carried) isn’t all that good because if your enemy knows more of the battlefield than you do, you are toast.
So yeah, technology is a big deal.
“Heh, technology. If the shit ever hits the fan, we are going for nuclear annihilation. No technology is ever going to save our planet. But, even if we don’t go for the extinction event, an M16 (which is probably older than you are) gets the job done, and doesn’t need batteries.”
OK, so China owns our technology, what does that mean? It means our GPS doesn’t work, so our jets don’t know where to go. When the daylight savings change happened, there was a fighter out on patrol, its GPS went out and they had to send a tanker out to it because they couldn’t get back. So our Preditors don’t work, which isn’t that bad, except they are good for intel too. Our Sats. don’t work so we can’t see the battlefield.
So that M16 (which I once carried) isn’t all that good because if your enemy knows more of the battlefield than you do, you are toast.
So yeah, technology is a big deal.
Have there been bombshells? Sure
Have their been life-changing information leaked that puts us in immediate danger and/or will put MASSIVE changes into effect immediately for the US? No…I am still waiting on anything.
again?
Carnivore anyone?
While I don’t doubt some in the US government will try to use this to their advantage, I still really doubt that this is the main reason for the current reaction. I’d chalk it up to pure incompetence first.
Really, Mike? Really? Plans were already drawn up, the government was looking for an excuse to implement them, Wikileaks comes along and you give them the benefit of the doubt?
Well, good on ya mate, I guess you’re more trusting than I am.